Personal Ethics as a Computing Professional

I recently read the "ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct," and I was struck by how much it seems that these are not followed by computing professionals. Granted, the majority of these professionals are not members of the ACM, but it seems that everyone should follow a basic code of ethics, regardless of membership in any organization. I think that the most important guideline to follow is that one should always try to contribute to society. Because there are so many people with such different skill sets, each person should contribute his expertise to benefit everyone as a whole. This could be, for example, identifying possible solutions to problems or planning an implementation. Personally, I find that contributing to or starting open source projects has been very beneficial to me in that I try to solve a problem as best I can while being exposed to the ideas of others.

Foreign Involvement in American Technology Enterprise

An article I saw recently described the backlash against social networks after a British Army soldier was killed by two extremists, one of whom had discussed such an act 5 months before the murder took place. In the particular case described, Facebook was the target of the discontent, with several government organizations and security agencies expressing their concern that such networks are becoming “[…] safe haven[s] for terrorists[…]”

As of around four days ago, the EU parliament voted “yes” on a motion to break up Google, an act that is purely symbolic in nature, but nonetheless expresses how other countries feel about American enterprise as a whole.

I find it interesting that the world is starting to take more notice of American businesses and, in short, find them responsible for horrific events or negatively impacting economies. In general, I feel that governments should not be involved in economics, so I disagree with a European government or organization trying to change any business, much less American ones, but I do think that the people of those countries should be able to express their opinions.

That said, I feel that one of the biggest differences between countries is the idea of how businesses should be run. For example, the EU may think that Google is a monopoly, but the only legislature that would affect Google would be American, and as of right now, few people in the United States feel that this measure is necessary.

In the case of Facebook, there was some criticism over the lack of policing of content by the company, but many people in the United States and in the world believe in the idea of an open internet with protected privacy. Regardless of Facebook’s policies regarding monitoring of user content, there is a discrepancy between public beliefs and desires in the United States and governmental or organizational beliefs and desires outside.

To summarize, as long as governments exist as they currently are, federal boundaries water down proposed changes. As a side note, an example of this is Presidente Pena Nieto in Mexico; several people outside of Mexico have requested a resignation, but the pressure hasn’t built enough for him to resign.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/european-monopoly-eu-parliament-urges-regulators-break-google-n257816

Here Comes Everybody

I didn't like this book. It was redundant, and for someone who grew up with the internet, it didn't present too many new ideas. That said, it might be of more value to the right audience. I just felt that I wasn't that audience.

One thing that I did find interesting that was presented in the book was the idea of a purely democratic self-government. As an example, let us analyze the very first example presented in the book. A phone was stolen, and as a result the self-government decided to prosecute the offender. One of the methods of doing so was a de-privatization of Sasha's life. In and of itself, it may be wrong to post people's private information on the internet, as it is a breach of privacy. It may be unconstitutional. But the internet is not governed by national law.

Therefore, the way the internet governs, very simplistically, is this: if a wrong is done by one, a wrong may be done to that one. An example is the hacking group Anonymous. If the group decides that someone's actions are wrong, the group then does a wrong to that person.

The problem with this is that morality on the internet is defined by individual users and organizations, and even if a right action was done, someone may see it as wrong, and the actor may suffer consequences.

Title IX

I had never previously thought too much about women in technology; I had noticed the lack that existed in classes and interviews, but I didn't really consider my position on the topic. After reading some articles assigned for class, however, I found myself pondering the issue and possible solutions. The article in particular with which I disagreed was in the September 2003 Computing Research News (http://archive.cra.org/CRN/issues/0304.pdf), where Senator Wyden considers Title IX as a driving influence in rectifying the problem. I have strong opinions about Title IX; whereas it is a good idea and has paved the way for many beneficial programs, I also have seen detrimental effects. History has shown on several occasions that the involvement of government in many issues is detrimental to the development of society; as such, any progress that is made in the name of a law passed by the government is a two-edged sword. I feel that there definitely should be more women in Mathematics and Engineering, but not by way of Title IX.

The Church's Use of Technology

After reading the article by Kathleen Lubeck in the Ensign, I was a little unimpressed by the information presented until I realized that it was published in June 1984. It is comforting to me that technology savvy members of the church have always been ready and willing to share the newest technological advances with other members of the church (or work for the church) to further the work of the Lord. An example of this is the FamilySearch project, which is using cutting edge research and technology to allow for easier genealogical research.

I feel that in general, people should be willing to help others; in the field of Computer Science, this could mean contributing to open source projects or developing applications to otherwise make lives simpler. I am a strong proponent of open source projects because it completely removes one of the prime motivators from the project (i.e. greed). Without greed, there is less reason to try to produce something mediocre just for the paycheck.

Facebook's guinea pigs

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/technology/social/facebook-experiment/index.html

Facebook has apparently acknowledged the error of their ways, as far as experimenting on us goes, after facing such an uproar about the breach of privacy and user trust their experiments caused. I'm not sure how I feel about these experiments; I feel that an A/B test would probably be okay, as long as the user agrees to it. I personally am a web administrator (and architect) for a website, and one of the site's main goals is to give users what they want. Therefore, I think any experiments should be opt-in instead of opt-out. At the same time, I feel that a website's owners can definitely monitor the endpoints that are being used on the server, but not the information that is sent across, nor to where it goes, without express permission from the user.

Genealogy and Genetic Diseases

I have seen and heard some claims recently about family history being used in genetic counseling as far back as the 1600s. To those who are unfamiliar, genetic counseling is the use of a family history to track genetic diseases in a family for early detection and treatment, as well as family planning. I find it interesting that it is possible to track these diseases back as far as a pilgrim ancestor to the United States, for example, and I wonder how easy it is to determine whether or not ancestor x actually had the genetic disorder in question. I also wonder at the accuracy of determining someone's cause of death that far back. Without some real evidence, I shouldn't trust the claims, but it is definitely interesting to think about.