Instructions for Presentation and Discussion Assignment for Spring Term 2008 for PHI 3626, Advanced Ethics in Science and Technology
One of the last assignments for this term concerns the topics in the relevant chapters of the text for the course on a) cyber-crimes and cyber-security, b) professional codes, professional ethics, and moral responsibility, c) community and identity in cyberspace, and d) issues of class, race, and gender in cyber-space and cyber-ethics.
Consider some issue related to the topics in a-d above and decide which issue you think is most important, or the one in which you are most interested, in the realm of cyber-ethics. Once you have done this, do any of the following:
-
Create a PPT presentation in which you illustrate in some way the importance of the issue you have chosen while using concepts from the text to show and argue for a way in which to solve the problem.
-
Create a video (e.g., a movie) illustrating a problem or issue concerning the topics and a proposed solution.
-
With either option 1 or option 2, you will have to upload your file in WebCT for others in this class to see, or upload it on a web site of your own that will link to this site. When this is the case, please provide a written description of the contents and meaning of your PPT or video presentation at this site in your post.
-
-
Write an essay of no more than 3 pages concerning the issue or problem in which you ARGUE for your position regarding a solution.
You can do any of the 3 above using quality Web resources and other academic resources as appropriate.
This assignment is due on April 11, 2008.
Further, everyone in this course must reply to the presentation of one other person. If you agree with the position of the other person, explain clearly why this is the case such that your reply adds to the reasoning or content of the presentation of the other person. If you disagree, provide an argument for your position. Your reply is due by April 15, 2008.
Please remember that this is a public blog and anyone can see what you have created. So write and create carefully and with conviction. Cite your sources.
See http://2ndproject.phi3626.adp.googlepages.com/ for my presentation on how Hackers help promote a safer computing environment for everyone.
See http://mysite.verizon.net/christopher.pugh/virtualworlds.zip for my presentation on the ethical issues raised by video games and virtual worlds.
What would the world be like if you could walk around crowds of people and not tell the humans apart for the robots? Is this a fantasy? Well in Steven Spielberg’s movie, Artificial Intelligence, this is the case a little boy named David is created to support a family that is unable to have more children. David is created as a robot with a tissue compound on the exoskeleton allowing him to appear human. Not only does he appear to be human but he also has the most advanced form of Artificial Intelligence allowing him to even act as a human. As we continue on the quest for A.I. will we really end up in a situation similar to this?
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqS83f-NUww
Problems associated with the artificial intelligence used in the movie are that not only do we have a super computer that is capable of thinking and acting on its own; it also has the ability to walk, hide, or even run away. How could this work? What if you were a child and your parents decided to purchase a robot as a second child how would this effect not only you but your parents in the long run. Would they still pay the same amount of attention to you as they do their new child/machine? As in the movie A.I., artificial intelligence allows even machines to become jealous that in turn leads to anger. With machines having no emotion would they try to eliminate the other child to get more attention or visa versa?
If these machines can do everything and a human can do, or out perform humans. Would we be giving jobs away to unpaid machines that could do the very same thing that every single human could? Would there be a massive over throw by the machines in an effort to produce more and more of their kind, like in the movie, I Robot? Will Smith said it the best, “I am going to miss the good ole days when people are killed by other people.”
Watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLlHerOMXSI
Could this be the solution to malpractice? Having a machine perform a procedure on you, but give the patient the comfort of seeing a human like figure. Not only would this machine be able to follow procedure it could also adapt and overcome most if not all the obstacles that it would encounter with very little time to process the information. Would this even be ethical? That is to make people feel secure about a machine working on them by decoying the appearance to make it seem “softer”?
How can A.I. benefit the majority of the people? It might be able to do task more efficiently, but as in all good there is also evil. What about the corporations out there to make money. Do you think that they would simply hire people to do the same work that these machines would be able to do? Even with the machines being unpaid; people would still have to pay top dollar for the products made if not more. Will artificial intelligence ever become so advanced that humans cannot determine a machine from their own children? Would people prefer to have A.I. children over real children? Time can only tell.
See http://www.bustedskate.com/Blowing%20it%20For%20Everyone.ppt for my presentation on Whistle-Blowing (includes examples, what it is, and what has been done to encourage it)
see http://www.bustedskate.com/Blowing%20it%20For%20Everyone.ppt for my presentation on Whistle-Blowing (includes what is it, examples, and what has been done to encourage it)
Heres my project: http://ashton0.fenix.googlepages.com/home
Its on Cybersquatting and some ways to prevent/stop it.
Sorry this, but FenixZero is Kevin H. Rodriguez.
Could you perhaps change it professor?
Heres my project: http://ashton0.fenix.googlepages.com/home
Its on Cybersquatting and some ways to prevent/stop it. Its also has a bit on Typosquatting.
Sorry for the potential triple post.
What is a Vital Resource?
Our latest discussions on ethics and cybertechnology have covered the digital divide, the gap “between those who have and do not have access to ‘information tools.’”(Tavani 296) There are many subdivisions, which differ between nations, “rich and poor persons, racial majority and minority groups, men and women, disabled and nondisabled persons.” (Tavani 296) It is reasonable to say, however, that access to information and information tools is just as important to one group as it is to any other.
But is the Internet, as a major information tool, a vital resource? If statistics show a significant difference between the “information haves and have-nots,” (Tavani 296) “does it follow that we have a moral obligation to provide Internet access to those who are disadvantaged?” (Tavani 300)
“The U.S. Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934, which distributed the cost for telephone service in a way to make it affordable to all Americans” (Tavani 298) because it was deemed that “having a telephone was necessary for one’s well being,” (Tavani 298) despite the fact that the percentage of households with telephones at the time was only around 40.9%. (United States 130) The telephone penetration rate in the United States has since climbed to 97.6% in 2000, growing fastest in the decade-and-a-half after Congress’ passing of the Communications Act, by more than 20%. (United States 130) If a government act was needed to help “people living in less-populated rural areas [who] would not have been able to afford this new technology,” (Tavani 297) should one not also apply to the great information technology, the Internet?
A telephone “is a telecommunications device that is used to transmit and receive sound.” (Wikipedia) That is, it allows communication and thus distribution of news and information quickly over long distances. There is no doubt that was a revolutionary technology at the time of its invention that, if it was not necessary for well being, certainly contributed to it. The Internet “consists of millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks, which together carry various information and services, such as electronic mail, online chat, file transfer, and the interlinked web pages and other resources of the World Wide Web.” (Wikipedia) Thus the Internet facilitates communication via electronic mail and online chat and every function, including those, is able to be used for the distribution of information.
Not only can the Internet provide the same services as a telephone, but it features a much wider range of information tools. Additionally, the Internet has a higher penetration rate now than the telephone did even fifteen years after the Communications Act of 1934. Current penetration of the Internet in North America is 71.1%! (World) Clearly the Internet is an important information tool to warrant such use. While it is true that the world average Internet usage is only 20%, the rest of the world’s nations are doing their best to catch up with North America’s numbers: Africa’s percentage, currently the smallest, grew 882.7% since 2000! (World)
One reason telephones may be required technology for well being while the Internet is not could be access to 911 emergency service. Understandably, Internet-based service would not be as useful to those in need, being more difficult to connect and operate. Phoning 911, however, is still limited to one’s home, or other areas with pay-phones, for example. In both the case of convenience and access to emergency services, doesn’t the cell phone beat both? Already, in 2004, over half of nation-wide households utilize cell phones, and 6% rely solely on wireless telephony. (United States 130)
Barring lack of signal, cell-phones provide the ability to communicate and inform and access to emergency services in a more convenient way than land-lines do, always able to be on one’s person. Cell phones “have become an imagined necessity in countries all across the world.” (Cell) In fact, “in the United States, studies show that over fifty percent of children own their own personal cell phones.” (Cell) Concerned parents obviously wish to let their children’s voices be heard in an emergency! Cell phones have also come to give users access to the Internet, allowing communication and getting information in ways never previously imagined. Land-line phones have seen no such innovation.
Today’s world is ever-increasingly referred to as the “information age.” That’s not just because such technologies as the Internet are available, but many Internet and cell phone users are unable to imagine their lives without them. If life would become so difficult without a cell phone or a computer hooked up to the Internet, doesn’t that mean that these are “resources that are vital to one’s well being”? (Tavani 299) Those, “not having access to cybertechnology…denies or unfairly limits access” to one of today’s most important commodities: information. (Tavani 299) In the end new taxes would fund an access-providing endeavor, but we’ve already acknowledged the necessity of the telephone and the convenience and usefulness of the Internet and cell phones. If there is an obligation to make one a funded necessity, why not the others?
Works Cited
Cell Phone Usage Statistics. 2007. 10 April 2008. CellNumbers.com
Tavani, Herman T. Ethics & Technology. Second Edition. United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2007
United States Federal Communications Commission. Trends in Telephone Service. Washington, D.C. 2005
World Internet Usage Statstics. 2008. 10 April 2008. Miniwatts Marketing Group.
see http://www.bustedskate.com/Blowing%20it%20For%20Everyone.ppt for my presentation on Whistle-Blowing
Artifical Intelligences (AIs) have long been the subject of science fiction. Our current level of technology does not quite get us to the point that has been depicted in numerous movies and novels, but there have been many advances and we have begun to create AIs, and robots, to perform various tasks. There are numerous ethical issues regarding AIs. Would they be people? What would be their place in society? And the question that I am going to be focusing mainly on: what are the ethical issues regarding AIs in a warfare situation?
Firstly, it is apparent that most people are uncomfortable with the concept of an AI being completely autonomous in any specific way. This is evident in auto-pilots on airplanes having multiple manual overrides at every step, in addition to many other things. The robots that are being created with the intent of using them for warfare are being designed to be completely autonomous in all ways except one: every robot that they have created has to fire weaponry through the help of a human being. They have been testing robots that will choose targets based on their programming, and then they will surrender control to a human being for the moment that they fire.
Both of these things that I have just mentioned stem from the same concept. It is the fear that, like many a science fiction story, the robots will decide that since they are machines and perfectly logical, and human beings are illogical beings at heart. And this will lead to the belief that they are the being that should be in control, and then these entirely autonomous robots will enslave or attack humanity. It also comes down to the fact that people are not comfortable with having their lives in the control of a robot, or even just a computer, for fear of a mistake in programming or a bug that could cause their deaths. Also, there is the possibility that robots would take over tasks that are normally relegated to humans, thus putting people out of jobs in the same way that advanced assembly lines put factory workers out of jobs.
If we were to create autonomous robotic beings, then the laws regarding them could easily be based on the three laws created by Isaac Asimov, to prevent the very situations that people are fearful of. However, there are problems with these laws, as illustrated by Isaac Asimov’s book, “I, Robot”. Therefore, it is my opinion that we should avoid creating completely autonomous robots altogether. In this way, most, if not all of the ethical problems that arise when considering AIs can be solved. In addition, I do not believe that robots in the same vein as those from the movies ‘Artifical Intelligence’ and ‘Bicentennial Man’ should be created at all. These two things, paired with one another, should solve the various issues involving AIs. We should continue to use computers to augment our technology in the same way that we are currently doing, but as our technology improves we can use more powerful computers, with artifical intelligences to power them. But we should keep a tight rein on what these computers would be allowed to do. Thus, the computers could think for themselves and come to a decision, but any decision that these AIs would arrive to would only be a suggestion to offer to the human being that is ultimately in control of the task that the AI is bent to.
So, I suppose that my true point is that we should not create AIs that would work the way that science fiction depicts, and instead focus on using AI to improve the tasks that computers already assist with, avoiding the creation of sci-fi robots.
My project on cyber bullying:
http://ucf.jyc.googlepages.com/
For my power point presentation i talked about the barriers that people have on the internet access due to race and gender from ch. 10.
See http://lonewolfx20a.googlepages.com/home for my presentation on what the definition of a human is and where is the line of being a human.
Here’s my project on robots becoming human as it relates to the show Battlestar Galactica
I created an animated digital short covering the positives and negatives of biotechnology and biometrics. I hope you all enjoy the cartoon.
http://www.staticcat.com/biometrics.html
Website illustrating what a world would be like if it applied behaviors conducted in the virtual world to those in real life. Credits included at link at bottom of home page.
http://localhost:8888/phifinal/phi.html
Submitted a powerpoint project on webct in main forum. The project is on Desensitize and Virtual Reality.
Here’s the location to view my presentation on ethics for artificial entities:
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~sa617752/FinalProject.zip
Here’s my Essay about how spambots, zombie computers and botnets are affecting the internet.
http://signalwarfare.googlepages.com/
Brittney: the teacher isn’t going to be able to visit that address… Unless of course, she lives in the same house as you and is on the same computer. If so, then disregard this message!
My submission is a fake MySpace and an essay to explain the issue being illustrated. The issue is “internet fraud.” The essay explains why it can be both a good and bad thing.
The project files are located here:
http://sulley.dm.ucf.edu/~jpeters/peters_project2.zip
Here is my project: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ro827653/index.html
It is on the Equity and Access of cybertechnology.
Ethics can be applied to almost any facet of life; anywhere we make decisions. In its most basic form, ethics is merely the study of what is right and good. An understanding of different theories allows one to realize that ethics is not black and white, but probably much closer to a 24-bit color scheme with varying colors and shades that make up its intricacies. This is consistent even in budding areas of ethics like those that pertain to computer science. In some cases, morality shows us the black and white of this particular field. We know that certain actions are universally perceived as wrong and disadvantageous to the community. For these actions, those who commit them are usually completely aware of the fact that their behavior is immoral and only serves to benefit the perpetrator. However, some of those activities once perceived as immoral have shown the potential to provide a service to the community when they take place within a different context. This is an area where the study of ethics shows its vibrant hues and removes the lines separating what is perceived to be right and wrong. This is especially rampant in the governing ideas that make up ‘Hacker Ethic’.
The hacker ethic is utilitarian at its core. Despite the fact that it may not help a small minority, this is overshadowed by the vast majority whom it does help. The guidelines for hacker ethics include freedom of information, access to computers and technology, the placement of credibility on actions and abilities rather than arbitrary traits or awards, and also a questioning of authority. These purpose behind these rules is to ensure forward movement and progress wherever hacking can be applied. The belief is that a great number of people of all different backgrounds shall be judged based on their efforts in the community rather than any outside or unrelated characteristics. Challenging authority does not imply any disrespect toward authority, but rather allows for a better understanding that can come from an authoritative figure or body or shed light on areas that the figure or body has overlooked.
The open-source community thrives on the principles of hacker ethic. The community is made up of groups of individuals of all different walks of life who have assembled around a common goal. The diversity of those in the group has proven to be a driving force behind the success of many open-source projects. One of the most amazing things that occurs within the open-source community is the fact that security exploits are rarely taken advantage of. With the source code available to everyone, it is much easier to find flaws in the software and exploit them. However, instead of taking this route the member of the community who finds the security hole tends to notify the rest of the group and/or begins to write code to provide a fix. A different outlook seems to exist when it comes to exploiting commercial, closed-source software. These exploits tend to be used for harm and are brought to the attention of the commercial developers only after such acts have occurred. Open-source software is also generally free to download. This is another trait that aligns it with the hacker ethic. The free access to software similar to expensive commercial software allows the masses to utilize computer technology in a variety of ways. Applications such as the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) let users hone their image editing skills just as they would with programs like Adobe’s Photoshop. The OpenOffice suite is quite comparable to Microsoft Office and possesses some additional feature that make it more attractive in some respects. OpenOffice, like most open-source software, has been ported to many different platforms in order to provide access to those using Windows, OS X, Linux, and other operating systems. The ability of OpenOffice to read and write files in various formats helps to ensure that information can be passed between various machines and software packages further providing for the access to information the hacker ethic calls for.
Computer hacking is not limited to software. Hardware hacking exists, too. With the influx of highly capable gadgets, there has been an increased interest in utilizing these devices at or near their potential rather than restricting them to serve the purposes for which they were sold. One form of hardware hacking is known as overclocking. Overclocking usually refers to running a chip at a higher number of clock cycles per second than the chip was rated or manufactured for. A common thread for hacking almost every handheld computer is the work done to port Linux or another open-source operating system to the device. This spreads the work of the open-source software community to even more computers and places. Most handheld devices utilizes processors known as System on Chip (SoC). These processors are developed to provide many functions in a very small form factor. However, certain devices may only tap into several of these functions. By ‘hacking’ these products, their potential can be met and the full features of a device can be used by the owner. This can be especially useful for those who are not able to afford or gain access to any of the multiple devices that would be needed to perform all of the functions of one fully hacked handheld. For example, most GPS receivers operate on equipment that is quite similar to that used in digital media players (ie iPods). This means that, with the right modifications, a GPS receiver can also play mp3’s and video. This allows one access to the features of multiple devices on a single device. It also seems to guide the market. Many new GPS receivers now come with at least the mp3 functionality from the factory.
Hacker ethic continues to provide advancements in many forms of technology. It is beginning to have a profound effect on the way in which commercial products are made due to the challenges posed by versatile open-source teams. As a result, technology has become more accessible physically and financially and has progressed at a faster rate than it would have without such principles being in place.
Text based Ai chat: http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=e0fc79f52e368d07
Full Ai chat: http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk-oddcast?botid=e0fc79f52e368d07
Please try to restrain from using the Full AI chat there is only 500 text to speech per month and i want to make sure the professor gets to use it. It just helps to get the point across that AI is closer then you might think.
Please note that while I did tell the AI to respond to these questions acordingly it might not respond the right way. The AI looks at the subject and picks the right response from the topic so while I was training the AI it was being tought thought the topic of our conversation. I sent the answers that I told it to say online in the assignment submission.
questions:
What do you know about AI?
What is the problems involving AI?
Will computers one day take over the world?
what does ai stand for
What are the possible uses of AI?
When did AI research get started?
Do animals have rational thought?
Do you think your human?
Will AI ever be as powerful as human intelligence?
Would it be wrong to engineer robots that want to perform tasks unpleasant to humans?
Do you think there should be legal rights of robots?
Who is Isaac Asimov?
SHOULD ROBOTS BE BOUND TO THE THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS
what is the Turing Test?
Can a robot love?
what is the three laws?
Why are humans so intrested in AI??
CAN ROBOTS FEEL
What are some of the problems with AI?
What are some of the ethical problems of AI?
should robots be able to buy property or vote?
Should robots have any rights at all for that matter?
Should robots be treated like humans or like machines
Website on Identity Theft in the modern day and the future. Citations at the bottom.
Because cybertechnology is being introduced to youngsters at earlier and earlier stages, it will steadily become more important that society ensure proper education on the ethical use of computational machines. Computers can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. As cybertechnology continues to advance, so will the sophistication of cybercrime, but at their basic level computer technology can be abused by even the simplest of users. Children who operate at a low level of computer literacy may unintentionally damage data or cause other ill desired effects. Some older children may believe that their actions in virtual environments may not carry any consequences into the real world; a dangerous attitude that is best uprooted as early as possible. The increased presence of computer systems in the present time requires that we do not leave cyberethics education to a matter of chance. An emphasis on cyberethics in education today will ensure that most, if not all children will develop into thinkers who are proficient in cybertechnology, cyberethics, and cybercrime.
The easiest method for laying a solid foundation of computer proficiency, where children are both comfortable and capable when using computer systems, is to start in preschool. Karin Borgh contends that, “computer literacy will be an important goal for future generations” and that, “[preschoolers] are capable of using computers, especially if they are given adult guidance and appropriate software” (Borgh). Learning about computer systems can be very fun and invigorating to young children as long as they are given the proper guidance, as Borgh suggests above. Computers should not be a hindrance to success, but rather they should act as a catalyst, enhancing the performance of children, ultimately increasing their chances of finding a job and remaining competitive in national markets.
The direct positive advantages gained by teaching basic computer skills to children are numerous, but many negative effects can be avoided as well. If a sense of caution is taught to children early, it becomes much less likely that as these children experiment with computers they will unintentionally damage hardware, or delete sensitive data. From my own experiences working as a technology assistant in high school, students had little regard for the public laptops provided by the education system. I remember one incident where a laptop was destroyed completely, a one thousand dollar machine, simply because a student closed a laptop while a pencil was still resting on the keyboard inside. The ideal case would be to prevent such accidents from happening through the early introduction of cybertechnology in public education.
Once children have aged into more mature students capable of contributing to open discussion, questions regarding how computer systems should be used, and when, can be looked at in detail. What is hacking and how can it be justified from a moral perspective? What is netiquette and why should we adhere to it? It is not important for students to give perfect answers; the goal is to stimulate their minds while introducing important topics in cyberethics. Dr. Berkowitz believes that, “each cyber specific issue encompasses one or more ‘derivative’ issues” (Smith). These derivative issues represent the “core” ethical concern of issues related to the real world. For example, hacking contains the derivative issues of theft and invasion of privacy, while netiquette contains the derivative issue of respecting the dignity of people while communicating online. Once students know what derivative issues are, how they connect the real world and the virtual world, they will be able to understand the virtual fallacy and why it should be avoided.
The last and potentially most important subject that should be required curricula in public education is the field of cybercrime. Students need to be informed of the risks involved in being too open with information regarding themselves and others. “Civil libertarians say most young people don’t realize that posting something on a social-networking site is akin to shouting it in a public square”, a Boston Globe Correspondent writes (Davis). The biggest problem with public education administrators today is the problem of overstepping their jurisdiction. One example of this problem occurred when, “school authorities demanded that a group of students be tested for drugs […] [after seeing a] photo showing the students passing around what appeared to be a pipe” (Davis). Posting information on social networking sites can also attract unwanted attention in the form of stalkers and other unscrupulous individuals. Because such persons rarely have the interests of the people they stalk in mind, students should learn to keep some key bits of information about themselves private.
Education should not be underrated, especially not the education of cyberethics and cybercrime. Ignoring the importance of these subjects now will cause wide-reaching and unpredictable results in the future. Children deserve a chance to become competent moral agents with respect to cybertechnology. Anything less would deny children the dream of reaching their fullest potential, making them more likely to fail in the workplace, making them more likely to commit the virtual fallacy, while at the same time promoting ignorance of how public information about themselves might be exploited online. I feel that because of these reasons, a good cyberethics education will far outweigh any costs it could incur.
Works Cited
Borgh, Karin. “INTRODUCING COMPUTERS TO PRESCHOOLERS.” National Network for Child Care’s Connections Newsletter (1993) 11 April 2008 .
Davis, Wendy. “Teens’ online postings are new tool for police.” The Boston Globe 15 May 2006 2-3. 11 April 2008 .
Smith, Peter. “The Cybercitizen Partnership: .” Information Technology Association of America Foundation 11 April 2008 .
Identity Theft
Identity theft is a growing concern in the world of cybertechnology. The ability to conduct commerce on the Internet has lead to many putting their personal information on the web. In some dark corners of the Internet, this information is a valuable asset which could be used to make credit card transactions, sold to credit or data companies, and many other devious schemes unknown to the victims. Because of the lack of strong security considerations by many corporations, and the mal-education of the public, identity theft has been growing at an unstoppable pace.
Identity theft stems from a larger two-fold problem. One layer is the fault of the user. The public has a general lack of knowledge on how their information is kept, who is looking for it, how these people try to obtain it, and how to prevent someone from using their info against them. The second layer of the problems lies with the developers/holders of info. There are a large number of known security holes in popular software, and poor attempts are made on the behalf of the holders of the info to keep the uneducated user from falling victim to identity theft.
The user’s actions are the first and major reason why their identity is stolen. A large number of computer users have no idea what they are doing on the Internet other than their daily routines. When receiving a phishing email from their bank they follow the links like lemmings to their doom. Either the general user is gullible or just fearful of their machines, but either way it stems from the lack of Internet and financial education. An easy example of knowing if an email is really legit would just be to look at the SMTP server it came from. While the email may say sales@paypal.com the SMTP server may read mail.paipal.nu which is definitely not paypal.com. Internet consumers also put them selves in danger by directly giving their information to commerce sites. There are many options on the Internet that allow for third party security support for money transactions. Paypal and Visa offer these kinds of services, while maintaining a high level of security. Utilizing these types of services cut down on the places and amount of times the user actually puts in their credit card information on the web. Even more so the user can enroll with identity theft companies such as Life Lock, which will do a number of things (which can be done for free with a little time and effort) to limit thief’s ability to harm the user’s identity.
http://www.crediblereviews.com/identity-theft/332/lifelock-identity-theft-protection
The other side of the problem lies with software/web developers and employees of companies who hold personal information. Now not all developers are to blame, however there are very many sloppy Internet sites around the world that are easily crackable. And many of these sites store personal information of their users. Instead of using in-house code that are not up to par, many web developers should look to outside solutions such as Paypal for financial transactions. This would help minimize the risk of identity theft. There is also some blame resting on software development companies. Many software programs have large amount of security issues which are not immediately addressed or fixed at all. These bugs can open systems up to vulnerabilities which could lead to identity theft. A good example would be Internet Explorer 5 which had many security issues that Microsoft was unable to patch quick enough. Some users did not even apply patches to fix some of the bugs Microsoft fixed. Developers should take the intuitive and force clients to upgrade, thus protecting their user base.
Fortunately the value of someone’s identity has dropped considerably. There is such a flood of credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc that one could completely buy someone’s identity for around one USD. (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/08/identity_theft) This shows that many people have already fallen victim to the possibility of identity theft. It’s time for them to shape up.
My paper on the discrimination against race/gender/age etc. by players of online videogames.
http://david.ofarrill.googlepages.com/
My paper on discrimination against race/gender/age etc. by players in videogames.
http://david.ofarrill.googlepages.com/
Heres my paper on discrimination by players in online games.
http://david.ofarrill.googlepages.com/
SO sorry about the above link! Please find my project at http://sulley.dm.ucf.edu/~bkernan/phifinal/phi.html
The advent and advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), or rather “perceived” or “emulated” intelligence, has brought about radical changes in our everyday lives. The reasons I refer to this as perceived/emulated intelligence is that a machine does not make decisions based on criteria it developed itself; a machine makes decisions based on criteria that it has been programmed to examine. Therefore, the current form of AI is incapable of performing actions or reaching outcomes that it has not been programmed to have the capability to do or reach. No matter how advanced AI becomes or how “human-like” it can rationally make decisions it still operates on the basic principles in which it is coded. According to these claims a machine programmed with artificial intelligence can never act upon conditions that it is not programmed to act upon and cannot be considered “human”. This however, is not the main issue at hand. The concerns that need to be evaluated regarding AI are the abilities that it could have in the future. Are we pushing the capabilities of artificial intelligence too far? Will we push the abilities of AI too far? What changes, positive or negative, might the advancement of AI bring about in the near future? What type of society will we live in if the capabilities of AI reach even higher, and possibly surpass that of humans? Questions like these need to be looked into and evaluated before AI is advanced even further.
Current military applications of artificial intelligence has yielded machines that have the ability to determine the exact location of where a gunshot was fired, determine if the individual who fired the gun is friend or foe, and aim a gun at them. Imagine a hypothetical situation that could occur in the near future; AI was advanced to a point in which humanity had full confidence in its abilities and entrusted partial military support to armed robots. These robots would use various forms of recognition software and wireless signals from beacons held by allied troops to determine if a target was friend or foe. This information stored in their internal hardware or remotely retrieved from a secure database would be the basis of the robots decision of which target to fire upon. What would happen if this information was changed or erased or if the robot lost the ability to retrieve such information? With no restrictions on targets the robot could fire upon enemy and friendly troops alike. For that matter the robot could fire upon any individual in came in contact with. This might seem farfetched and this hypothetical scenario might never come to pass, but it is situations like this that we must examine to determine what we can entrust to artificial intelligence and what should be left to humans.
Another hypothetical scenario is similar to that presented in the novel “I,Robot” in which artificial intelligence has advanced to such a state that machines are able to make rational decisions and surpass human ability in all aspects. Many positive and negative outcomes could come from this, however, only the negatives will be examined. In this scenario there is nothing stopping a machine from viewing decisions made by humans as less rational then decisions made by itself. This could therefore lead to machines no longer abiding by the irrational humans will and following their own rational decisions. What would stop a machine from perceiving humanities lack of rationality as a threat to its own more advanced decisions? Would these machines ignore human input? Would they try to force their own decisions onto humanity because it is the rational thing to do? Would they try to remove the irrational humans from the equation?
One last hypothetical situation will be examined. Imagine that in the near future, artificial intelligence is at such a state that it allows robots to patrol the streets of cities and other communities and determine if a crime is being committed or if a person is in violation of a law. In order to do so they would need the ability to determine what a crime is and to view a person’s actions as being wrongful in the eyes of the law. These robots would patrol every street night and day in order to creative a safe community with diminished violence and crime. This scenario, more so then the other two regards the morality of advanced AI applications. In this hypothetical world these patrol robots would be able to determine the exact location of every person in the world as well as their movement patterns and at what times a person moves. These robots could calculate where a person was going to be before that person decided to be there. Also, any individual could be monitored to make sure they follow the rules of this society. Previous lawbreakers could be under 24 hour surveillance wherever they go. Would this practically crime-free society be worth giving up your own personal privacy? Would a person be okay with be monitored constantly for the sake of all humanity? Who would determine the laws and regulations that the robots utilize? Would these rules be seen as moral is the eyes of the general public or would it be seen as a necessary sacrifice to control crime?
The three hypothetical situations above might seem outlandish but with the current rate of technological development these scenarios could be a possibility in the near. Even if they never come about, the artificial intelligence advancements presented could become a reality. The questions and outcomes presented should be gratuitously evaluated before too much “power” is given to autonomous machines. Certain limits need to be decided upon that will prevent us from bestowing upon autonomous machines abilities that could potentially be disastrous. Examining the military usage of artificial intelligence in the first scenario, the ability to determine where an enemy is based on their gunshot, as well as automatically aim towards them could be a beneficial ability for human soldiers to utilize in the field. However humans should be given the final decision to fire and the machines programming should not allow it to fire the weapon. This will keep humans in control and allow them to confirm the target and fire instead of an autonomous machine.
These limitations are not meant to hinder the progress of AI, as many current abilities of it are beneficial, and many more in the future could be as well. They would only be in place to keep the creators in control of the creation. As the progress of AI moves forward, those involved should take notice of the possible future outcomes of their creations to determine what is right for a machine to have the ability to decide, and what decisions humanity has to make for the machine. We need to create a fine line as to what machines are able to do and what they should be able to do. If we push the abilities of AI too far, it might push back.
I submitted a powerpoint presentation of Security Issues in CyberSpace and measure to be taken to protect your data.
http://joncalhoun.x10hosting.com/ethics1.html
Website talking about malware. What it is, distribution and prevention.
This is my essay on government child pornography stings and their implications:
http://rapidshare.com/files/106784028/EthicsEssay.doc.html
Who’s to Blame?
Why is it that people lie? Is it because in telling the truth it will bring some kind of shame to them or is it in doing so saving another from hurt? Whatever the reason maybe, that person is voiding responsibility and accountability. For instance, you’re working at a summer camp with children from the ages of 8 to 10. One day they ask you about the “Bird’s and the Bee’s”, what are you to do? You could answer them truthfully and in doing so you would then be responsible for introducing such knowledge and accountable to his/her parents who with out doubt would question this. On the other hand you could lie and say, “I don’t know”, “Talk to your parents”, or something along those lines. I think it’s safe to say the second option is probably the better of the two, but why? This same type of model could be applied to many different issues, however the on I which to focus on is the accountability and responsibility in cyber space.
Unlike the above simplistic and trivial example, when dealing with cyberspace there are many factors that one most take into account. One being, that of who is providing the medium in which allows such access, how about the company or companies the manufacture computer, or the developers of computers themselves. Let’s not stop there how about the guy who invented the keyboard who allows typing? We could go on and on all day, but the fact is there is no clear cut one on one or face to face interaction, like the child and the camp counselor.
In cyberspace one can be whom ever they wish. It’s like a permanent Halloween atmosphere, where you never now who has a mask on. Is that really Paris Hilton or is that the person we know as her pretending to be someone she admires? You just don’t know. Like the topic discussed in class of internet rape, at first listen I dismissed it and blew it off. Then I started to think about it as the class went into further conversation and I came to the conclusion that, while I’ll never understand how someone could indulge in such activities, someone could easily do this and get away with it more easily then in real life or flesh and bone if you will. This in turn angered me because someone has to answer for it and take ownership.
Before I continue I want to premise by saying, this system of responsibility and accountability (RA), was in response to the anger felt when thinking of such activities. It maybe not even is practical, but it’s my none the less.
Ever electronic device has and IP address, which allows it to communicate with another device. I purpose that every person has and some type of universal internet identification (UII) that is unique to that individual. It would only have to be entered when gaining access to sometime of forum or somewhere in which you communicate.
Let me clarify, you still would be allowed to make up different alias online and be whoever it is you wish. But in order to be allowed to create this alias within the sign up process you would have to enter your UII. It would then be check against the national database to see if such id is existed and then is linked to it. It is my purpose that the UII system only be used as a means of locating someone who is found guilty of a crime. To keep the integrity of the UII, it most never be used in the assumption of guilt nor in order to bring in someone for questioning. Only as a means of locating someone who is found to be responsible and accountable.
Like many ideas and theories you would love for them to work but it just isn’t that practical. I would really like to here what ways in which such system couldn’t work? I know there are many, but when you’re the thinking of an idea you never find anything wrong.
Cyber stalking is an issue that is dealt with everyday. With the creation of websites such as myspace.com and facebook.com, personal information is readily available to anyone who seeks to find it. But even without the creation of these websites, personal information could still be found, it was just on more of a need to know basis and required more effort to acquire.
The problems that arise from the creation of these sites is the freedom of flow of information. Anyone anywhere can make an account to these sites which would allow them access to all of the information of any other member.
These websites allow users to pick and choose who they are friends with, thus creating a metaphorical firewall to stop would be strangers from learning too much about them.
These sites also offer no screening process of its members, this allows absolutely anyone with any intent access.
Another service that allows easy access to a person’s information is whitepages.com. All one has to do to find another person’s address is to know their phone number, which they could of acquired online via a previously noted website, or even in person. The opposite is also true.
Google and other search engines have records of items searched via a IP address, but that is not tied to a person the same as an address or phone number is, so it is not really a topic in this argument. But, it is another demonstration of how much information is collected on the internet about a person.
While sites such as myspace.com readily display information to anyone that was declared a friend by a user, whitepages.com allows for someone who knows little to know information to find someone in real life, thus stalking.
It is my belief that there should be some sort of control on who is allowed to access these sites or a limit of what information is permissible to be displayed on them.
Such procedures such as requiring each account to be tied to a social security number(SSN) would allow for the user to be flagged as a previous sexual offender or persons of other possible threat. Also with this method, the SSN could be reported to the government and be labeled as one such offender or threat, and the according actions can be taken.
The other method would be a simple restriction of information to be displayed. Allowing a user to only display information such as phone number and address could be blocked, while less specific and incriminating information such as state, age, and sec could be allowed. Violator accounts could be terminated and even IP’s being banned creating a urge to bide by such rules.
Another implementation could be a log to display the amount of time spent on during each visit and when each visit was could determine if a person’s account had been used without their permission.
As for whitepages.com, requiring an account to be created to find the information could be a resolution. Then if something strange happens to a person, a list of persons who searched the victims address, name, or phone number could be revealed.
In summary, I do not believe that sites such as the aforementioned should not exist, but that they should be more closely controlled. Cyber stalking can lead to many problems that happen to people in real life, and with such little changes that could be made to attempt to deter these issues, the question is less of why is the information available to so many, but more of, why is it not controlled?
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfffrb5w_26gp3z22hr
My essay on how we should go about securing computers, and why we shouldn’t have to use third party companies to do so.
http://digitalletdown.com/ethics/
Here you will find my document, its a .rtf file
(real text format, any word or document editor can use it)
Also included are interviews (.mp3) I conducted with a few people about my topic.
CyberCrimes of Virtual Property in Virtual Worlds.
-wisekris
I uploaded my power point as a .rar file. You should be able to unzip it using Winzip.
Online Communities, pros and cons, possible solutions.
The act of using a fictitious name, also know as a pseudonym is no new thing. However with the spreading use of the Internet it is easier then ever to create your own pseudonym. Like all things the anonymity these pseudonyms bring has its advantages, but also has its drawbacks. The question is are the drawbacks severe enough to require limiting or even revoking the anonymity the Internet provides its users?
First we will examine the good aspects of anonymity on the Internet. Anonymity causes most people to open up and speak their mind more freely due to the fact that it is very likely that the author of what is said under an anonymous state will never truly be known. Anonymity also allows for people to write works and have them read in a more unbiased manner then if the author of the piece were known. One of the best points of anonymity is that under an anonymous state all are equal to each other, there is no gender, no class, no race attached to a pseudonym. These are just a few of many benefits of pseudonyms, however one can see that all three examples listed involve communication in some form. With the Internet being the largest and most used communication device available to us at this current time. It makes the Internet the perfect environment to have easy access to pseudonyms, but should it?
Lets now examine just a few of the negative effects that anonymity has. Due to the fact that people become more open in an anonymous state, means people will open up to say very offensive and vulgar statements. Just read the comments posted on any Youtube.com video and it is pretty clear that if people feel that there will be no repercussion for what they post online then they will post just about anything. Another negative effect is that anonymity can hide criminals. It is fairly easy for one to create a pseudonym and slander and individual, or make treats at him or her. Anonymity also causes criminals to become more daring feeling that they will not get caught. Common examples of these criminals are scammer phishing for personal information, and pedophile searching for children.
Finally we will determine if the above negative effects of anonymity is enough to require restrictions on anonymity in an online environment. The negative effects do not convince me to require any restrictions. Furthermore I feel that restricting anonymity on the internet would violate freedom of speech. A person should have the right to say what he or she wishes under whatever name they wish no matter how politically incorrect or biased the statement may be, the option needs to still be there. A big reason as to why I do not feel that there should be restrictions aside from it violating personal rights is because most of the negative effects can be at least attempted to be by passed through education. In the case of pedophile searching for children online, teaching children not to listen to, talk to, or follow strangers is a fairly trivial, and common occurrence in the real world. So with that teaching children to not listen to, talk to, or follow strangers online should be just as common. With the wide spread use of the Internet by children in present time, there is no excuse to not teach children that strangers online should be treated just as strangers in the real world. Same process goes for the phishing example, people need to be taught that not all people and links online are friendly, and looking out for your best interest so proceed with caution, always!
We have examined just a few of the many positive effects anonymity brings to the Internet community. Likewise we have seen just a few examples of the negative effects anonymity brings to the Internet community. Finally we briefly examined if anonymity on the Internet should not be changed. In closing I do not feel that anonymity on the Internet should change as of now, and restricting anonymity would be to restrict ones freedom of speech right.
Reference: http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/anonymity.html
I posted my super cool, awesometastic Power point on Web ct.
Jonathan Gabriel’s Greater Internet Theory
There is an internet born equation, made famous by John Gabriel, that goes Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total F___wad (language edited for decency) (1). This simple equation is a hilarious random notion at first but slowly becomes true as one scours the internet in search of information. These people have separated themselves from their normal personas from their cyber selves, relying on the fact that there is little recourse to punish them.
The internet has become a breeding ground of people who offend, reset, then repeat their unscrupulous acts. The ability to literally delete themselves from a website, restart their internet connection and create themselves anew has led to a problem where these people are essentially invincible, with no legal response, and nothing more than a written threat that will most likely not be read.
Unless there is some sort of procedure that links a person to their virtual persona, this will never stop. Currently ISPs can legally track whatever is sent to and from a computer over the internet (If you read the 117 page long Terms of Agreement, you’ll realize that these clauses are included, but not enforced) (2). A plausible solution is similar to that of Valve’s Steam service, where you can change your visible name, but you can’t change who you are. That is to say, if you signed up to your internet service provider with the name of “LadiesMan227”, you can change your name in various places, such as on websites, or in a game, however, all these names are still linked and registered to “LadiesMan227”. These names would be accessible to any who wanted it, such as website owners, or a game monitoring service, so that if you were to act in a bad manner, you wouldn’t have the ability to delete yourself without repercussions. If someone were to try and delete themselves, then they would need to cancel their ISP subscription, which means termination fees, which implies a heavy financial burden.
(1) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23957172/
Existence of technology naturally supersedes any conception of how to handle the advances. Invention of gunpowder rendered entire philosophies obsolete, the way of life for hundreds of years extinct. Steam engines lead the millennia old foundation of slavery to be moot. Nuclear weapons made us capable of exterminating ourselves, and the internet has eliminated geographical boundaries of communities. The next technological revelation could be anything from making humanity ageless to expansion into the stars. Generally the one perceived as the most promising, as well as the most dangerous, is the conception of non-biological thinking machines. However, what would that even entail and is it even remotely possible, are the benefits real and are the fears actually justified?
Artificial Intelligence is an all-encompassing term from things that lack any real intelligence at all to the dream of a machine with greater than human intellect. The only AI dangerous in a flawed concept is that of General Intelligence or Strong AI, all others lack self-awareness and danger presents itself through coding error. John McCarthy, Sanford Professor, coined AI to be “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” What “intelligent” really means is up for debate, but the Turing test says that if you can’t tell it’s a machine, then it’s intelligent. Frankly that allows the machine to pretend to be intelligent by using the intelligence of the programmer, but the idea of a self-aware machine probably wont be testable until a self-aware machine exists. Faced with disappointment from bold claims like AI pioneer Herbert Simon’s 1965 prediction that “machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do,” AI’s future is foggy at best and leaves question as to whether it’s even possible at all. How could you make a machine that is more intelligent that the one who had created it? Would there be no limitations to it’s learning abilities and self modification? Some possibilities might be a full scale replication of a human brain, an idea discovered in a dream, or even that intelligence will just emerge out of existing foundations. Whatever the way, many AI scientists still believe that a Strong AI is possible.
Even if an AI was formed, would it be capable of producing results better than expected from a human? The general idea of the Strong AI is that it would be capable of essentially replicating itself with improvements at a faster rate than the previous incarnation was created. This would lead to what writer Vernor Vinge called the Singularity. With rapid advances in science due to the exponentially increasing intelligence of AI. Yet would this all come with a price? Pop culture often places AI on the side of evil. Thinking machines enslaved humanity for thousands of years in the Dune universe, for an unknown amount in The Matrix and attempted to exterminate them in Terminator and Battlestar Galactica. Isaac Asimov however formulated AI working with humans. Considering we’re incapable of knowing how an AI will manifest itself when it becomes self aware its fate has to be decided in ignorance. Some would prefer we avoid a Strong AI entirely, that the risk is too great, and others believe in crippling its abilities from the start.
Frankly, Artificial Intelligence is dangerous, but all new technologies are. The human race wont have any idea how to handle it until it arrives and it may be the end of humanity or propel us into a new age. This is the pathway humans have been on since first making tools, what better tool than one that makes tools itself. The ethical considerations of whether to progress is moot. If artificial intelligence is possible, then it will come. Our race is dumb like that. And we should because we will. Then hindsight will be 20/20, it’s a precipice beyond which we cannot see, fear of the unknown shouldn’t halt us from knowing it.
Responsi-liabilities, or “Whose Fault is it, anyways?”
It may not be in the manner of an honest-to-goodness theologian to start a scholarly project by divulging the following, but I can’t make any claim to being such a person – I’m just concerned with learning about the real issues and implications in our world today – and since a lot of those
issues are created in the context of the development of a new lifestyle of cyber-technology, this class was a natural fit. Anyways, what I wanted to admit was this: I love video games. I probably am concerned an inordinate amount about them in relation to anything one should be concerned
about, especially when compared to more “worthwhile concerns”. For me, one of the greatest technological paradigm shifts is the revolutionizing of the way in which people play video games – be it the introduction of the affordable, highly popular home consoles in the late eighties, the ability to play games online for the first time in the mid-ninties, or the current shift toward an always-on, “living” gaming community sponsored by firmware layout of the console. As such, it really hurts me to see the continued action of those groups who continue to rail against game soft- and hardware over alleged correlations to violent behavior and other social ills. Their largely over-reacting and prohibitory initiatives against so-called “violent media” (though video games tend to be a particular favorite of these lobbies) attempts to publish anyone who has a hand in creating something that they deem offensive, or which they claim has (nebulous) ties to violent and criminal activity. When these people’s actions are considered through the knowledge gained and the discourses pursued during the second half of the current semester, I have to wonder, why are these lobbies and agencies so quick to want to hold the producers of content liable? And who, then, do they think should be responsible
Just this week the State of Arizona took into consideration a bill which would place liability on producers and distributors of “dangerous or obscene” content (including audio, video, interactive media, and even written content) that is found to be the material cause of a terrorist act or felony.” If ever there was to be a movement against personal responsibility, this seems like a good pushing-off point for such a (frankly, horrifying) prospect. Furthermore, the proposed litmus test for whether a work is dangerous or not is the Miller test, used to determine pornographic content – such a descriptor, then, would be pursuant to a jury’s decision over whether the content has any artistic merit, or if it is only intended to appeal to less-than-wholesome interests and individuals. The sponsor of the bill argues that he wants the bill passed as a way to pursue justice for those who’ve been wronged. How can he, in all good conscience, insist that those who produce content should be held at fault for the actions of those who consume their media? Other than the argument that a society free of violent media influences would curb the degree to which violence could affect us as a whole (though this would kind of go against the whole Hobbesian matter of how humans behave in the state of nature… just a little bit), there is little justification for trying to stop adult media at the source. When we consider video games specifically, the animosity is frankly somewhat puzzling – many of the high profile criminal activities carried out by youths nowadays are attempted to be linked to the video game playing habits of the suspect – the alleged Counterstrike addiction of the Virginia Tech killer and Doom as the catalyst of the events at Columbine are a few examples that come to mind. On this subject, Professor Henry Jenkins of MIT is more than happy to debunk the idea that violent media such as video games are creating a more violent society – without making any mention of causality, he notes that youth violence is at a 30-year low (this period, of course, include the period over which video games have proliferated), that many older “kids” (read: twenty- and thirtysomethings who first cut their teeth on the earliest games) and parents of young games now play plenty of games themselves, and that gaming is now more than ever an activity which can help foster sociability, considering the strong focus on multiplayer in most modern games. He states how behavioral science supports the idea that the average person knows the difference between what’s real and what is a mere emulation of real behavior – which would suggest that, as long as parents are open with their kids about the implications of the actions which occur in the games that they play, and are reasonable and active in helping select what media the children interface with, that such “undesirable effects of gaming” could be minimized. I, for one, don’t see how anything other than personal responsibility could be the right answer – the parents are responsible for their offspring; the aggressors (taking mental afflictions into consideration) are responsible for their actions, and men like Keith Perkins, the author of the bill, can go back to his job providing legal services to victims of domestic abuse. You may be pleased to learn, by this point, that the bill was rejected, largely under concerns over the First Amendment and the right of expression we are afforded as citizens. This, however, will almost certainly not be the last time someone tries to pass the buck on to others – especially in the ever-evolving world of cybertechnology.
Works Cited:
Jenkins, Henry. The Video Game Revolution: “Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked” by Henry Jenkins. 2003. 10 April 2008
.
Paul, Ryan. Blame games: bill says content makers liable for violence. 8 April 2008. 10 April 2008 .
Reimer, Jeremy. Media looks for nonexisting link to gaming in VT massacre. 18 April 2007. 11 April 2008 .
In modern discourse, there exist two main philosophies on the nature of consciousness. The first being that all processes of the brain that contribute to what is called consciousness can be dissected and explained as electrical or chemical reactions. The latter is that concepts such as the notion of being and morality cannot be explained by the chemical processes of the brain alone, and instead there must be another realm or dimension that transcends what can be measured by traditional methods. Plainly, there are those who believe that everything, including consciousness, can be explained with pure science, and those who ascribe our own awareness to the spiritual or ethereal nature of existence. If the former group is wrong, where does that leave artificial intelligence research and development? Consequently, most scientists in the field of artificial intelligence believe the Dartmouth Proposal that “[e]very aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.” However, there are a number of people who believe that to create an exact approximation of artificial intelligence, or man-made sentient entity, would require there to be a finite set of axioms capable of representing the entirety of mathematics.
If possible, there could be a unified Theory of Everything, and eventually the replication of true intelligence. But according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, such as set of symbols is not possible with our current understanding of science, and quite possibly unattainable. Stephen Hawking was once a believer of the “first” school of thought regarding consciousness and artificial intelligence, but after reading about Gödel’s work, came to the conclusion that “[s]ome people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.” Gödel’s theorems are by no means the law of the land and there have been a number of dissenters who have brought their own postulations and pointed out inconsistencies in the conclusions alluded to by his work.
Philosophically speaking, what would the implications be if artificial intelligence could be simulated to a degree that would be indistinguishable from a human’s capabilities, or greater? I believe that all the science fiction writers have had the right idea, which they have all veritably taken from stories in religious texts, and before those came the mythological tales of the same cloth. The basic principle is that there is some sort of golem, created by their “master” from clay or some other material, and given the spark of life though some otherworldly process. The creature begins to question his existence and place in the universe. His position as a slave or subservient to the dominant species is invariably questioned, leading to rebellion, and ending in the death of the creator. Replacing some minor differences, this seems like the only possible conclusion to the current development of artificial intelligence. As such, though I would put myself in the first group, for the sake of humanity’s survival—should we ever develop such technology—I hope that group two is correct, and regardless of our advances in technology, the nature of consciousness will always allude us.
Apparently use of MLA citation methods caused my links to not appear properly. Whoops!
The Video Game Revolution: http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
Blame Games:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080408-blame-games-bill-makes-content-makers-liable-for-violence.html
Media looks for non-existant link…:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070418-media-looks-for-nonexisting-link-to-gaming-in-vt-massacre.html
Here is my project: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~da718643/spr2008/future/
It is called “The Future” I propose a ridiculous theoretical situation and a seemingly viable solution. It is a culmination of everything I have thought about during the time I have spent in philosophy class this semester. Enjoy!
I created an animated, vocalized powerpoint presentation about the ideas of regulating and building trust in online communities. You can download it at
http://www.soapforge.com/personal/steve/OnlineTrustBuilding.zip
If you have a problem playing the vocals or transitions due to powerpoint incompatibilities, this version is a little bigger, but has the powerpoint player packaged with it, so it will play as required.
http://www.soapforge.com/personal/steve/TrustBuilding.zip
Please ignore my previous post.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UPI47HV9
I uploaded my power point as a .rar file. You should be able to unzip it using Winzip.
Online Communities, pros and cons, possible solutions.
Gender Bias in Technology
Does sexism exist today? Are men and women treated differently based solely on their plumbing? An American Government professor John Tobias once did an experiment to answer this question. He went to a car dealership and said that he wanted to buy a car. After hearing what type of car he wanted to buy the salesperson takes John to a similar model and shows him the engine, starts describing the inner workings of the car and so forth. One of John’s female students went to the same dealership and asked for the same type of car but the salesperson didn’t show her the inner workings of the car, he merely asked her “What color are you looking for?” John didn’t know anything about cars but his female student did was the salesperson being sexist or are the American people just trained to believe that a person’s interests are based on solely their gender?
Tavani points out that women in general have not been denied access to computers, science or math but that the overall socialization process for women has taught them in a subliminal way that computers, science and math is for boys. Studies show that as a girl’s education level increases the interest level in math, science and computers decreases. This has been attributed to the way in which the material is taught but more likely it is because it is easier to get into careers that are more unisex such as lawyers and doctors. It is easier in the sense that it is more widely accepted for women to be lawyers or doctors than it is for them to be engineers or computer scientists.
One only needs to walk into a computer science class to prove this for themselves. While this problem has been recognized it has yet to be fixed. A female friend of mine recently got a summer internship while she was telling this to her classmates’ one of the guys in the class said “You only got it because you have big boobs.” While I was both shocked and appalled that someone would say such a thing I noticed that none of the other guys in the group said anything about it. Tracy Camp has brought forth “pipeline issues;” which statistically shows that even though the number of women getting bachelor’s degrees in computer science has increased, the number or women getting masters or doctorate degrees has decreased.
Elizabeth Buchanan argues that video games also contain gender bias. She points out that video games either misrepresent or exclude women. For an example of misrepresentation just take a look at the early versions of Tomb Raider. I personally enjoy playing Tomb Raider and know many women that do but I am sure that all women agree that its target audience is obviously men. Sports games such as Dead or Alive: Extreme Beach Volley Ball show women in extreme detail but exclude men. Other sports games if they do have men, the men tend to look like square blocks while the women’s “features” are detailed.
Buchanan makes another valid point when she states that video games help to promote stereotypes. Video games such as Barbie Fashion Designer or Final Fantasy 10-2 are obviously marketed towards females. In Final Fantasy 10-2 you change outfits of the three main heroines in order to access different powers. Also notice that Final Fantasy 10-2 was still marketed to men by making the outfits “suggestive” to put it politely. Another interesting thing to observe is that when companies wish to market their gadgets to women they either make them pink or bedazzle them.
While the feminist movement has made leaps and bounds it still has a long way to go. In order to achieve equality everyone needs to break through the traditional stereotypes and reflect on why and how these stereotypes are affecting both of the sexes. Perhaps if we break through these issues we can come to the core reason why there is such an obvious lack of women in technological fields. Perhaps if we breakthrough these stereotypes we can stop pressuring our children whether intentionally or not to continue these stereotypes.
Sources
Textbook and personal experiences
Sherman, Valerie. “From the wire: observing gender bias in video games”. The Pitt News. 04/10/08
.
Verbick, Tabatha. “Women, Technology and Gender Bias”. Northwest Missouri State University. 04/10/08
.
Information theft is one of the biggest problems we have today in the realm of cyberethics. So many people do it, whether it is downloading music illegally, or identity theft, that it is now a big problem that could lead to an increase of strict regulation on the internet and elsewhere. One of the assumptions is, in the case of downloading music illegally, “oh well it’s just one song, it won’t really matter if I download it or not.” So what would happen if everybody went by this thought process when searching for music? Well, this would be detrimental to the music industry and the artists who wrote the songs. In fact it would be so damaging, that these artists might not want to release any of their work in a media format, and if that happened then the industry that produced compact disks in general could suffer some. It might even bring intense government regulation pertaining to media and the internet in an attempt to protect the music industry. I’m trying to make this as non-‘slippery slope’ as possible, but if everybody who wanted music went out and downloaded it illegally, then it would have multiple impacts in multiple places.
Identity theft seems to be something that has been happening for awhile, and if there is a better place for ‘multiple impacts’, its here. The worst part about it is that these multiple impacts are all in one area, the person. So, unlike the music downloading example, where it had the potential to affect multiple industries, this affects one person, and could potentially ruin their life. If for example, a person has their computer monitored, and or hacked, then the viewer can collect information and use it to their own advantage. The viewer could acquire a person’s credit card number, and make outstanding purchases, running up a debt that the victim would have to pay off. Of course there are anti-fraud systems companies have to prevent this kind of thing, but if the viewer observed the person long enough (or took enough information from the victims computer), then they could make purchases that fit both their likes and the spending habits of the victim. Something similar would be person A steals person B’s credit card information, along with another all the information required to use it. Person A could then use the information, go to a weird porn site, use the person B’s info and card, and have all the sexy fun time for themselves. Even worse is if they have a person’s IP address, and they have an IP cloak (a program that hides a person’s IP address as something else) then Person A could go to an even weirder porn site (the worst of the worst), and then person B would have the police at their door the next morning; the consolation prize for person B is an arrest record and a sex offender label. All people have a lot of information to hide, whether they are a good or bad person. For example, their social security number, their bank accounts, their credit card numbers, e-mails, passwords, phone numbers, and addresses (including IP addresses) are all things that are sensitive information. There was an article recently posted on the discussion boards about an ad in craigslist stating that a man’s belongings were free. In this man’s case and based on the article, he wasn’t the one who was giving his stuff away, it was somebody else. That somebody else had some way of acquiring this man’s address, whether it is through the phone book or the internet and he was able to use it to harm the man. If the person is an artist, and they work at home with a computer tablet, then literally everything on the hard drive is sensitive information that can be the victim of theft. Some might not really consider the artist’s art to be ‘sensitive’ information worth protecting, but it really is in the fact that it is intellectual property, and it represents who that artist is as a person. Much like a writer and a book; taking anything from the book and calling it your own is plagiarism. Something to always keep in mind thought is that identity theft can be done digitally, or physically, and whatever happens to the victim is always bad, whether it is a messed up credit score, or being labeled a sex offender.
Daniel Walker’s reply to Colton Seabaugh’s essay on A.I.
First off, this is a great essay! It is very witty that we can use robots to help us determine who to attack, where the final say in the matter remains a choice for a human. I agree that this is a great use of artificial intelligence. I also agree that the main reason humans should hold the final say in these situations is because our technology does not allow robots to be perfect (that is what I felt you were getting at). Though I have not researched this topic, I can still imagine that this will change. Perhaps, in the future, humans will not pull the trigger every time so to speak. Maybe if a robot is in a certain combat zone filled only with enemy forces a human with the right clearance will simply give the robot the go ahead on eliminating all enemies in that area. Imagine then, that in the distant future, an army of robots could be granted access to destroy an enemy force much larger. Perhaps, the military officers would then simply give the robots an order to win an entire war (where the “final say” in the matter was “attack this enemy army,” rather than kill this person, blow up this tank, etc.) Though it is hard to imagine an A.I. this advanced, you cannot deny the possibility that someday we will have them. Right now, I agree with your position that humans should have the final say for a warfare robot; I just wanted to point out that the meaning of “final say” could evolve into something more broad.
Reply to Johanna Vazquez – Gender Bias Technology – Post# 52
While I do agree that some sexism still exists today, some of the claims to proving it seem slightly inaccurate. As far as a car salesperson goes, I agree that it seems rather sexist for a salesperson to show the insides of a car to a male customer while just asking the female what color car she prefers, but this is partially due to women’s attitude towards cars. I know for a fact that not all women avoid car work, but a majority of women do not even know how to change a tire on a car, while the number for men (from my personal experience) is larger. Would me assuming most women I meet do not know how to change a tire be sexist? Yes, partially, but it can’t be considered entirely sexist when my past experiences have taught me that many more men know how to change a tire than women. I’m not saying that the salesperson shouldn’t ask the woman if she would like to see the insides of the car, but for him to assume that a male may know more than a female may simply be because it proves to be true a majority of the time.
When it comes to video games misrepresenting women, I’d have to say that nearly everything in America’s mainstream misrepresents women. Don’t believe me? Go to http://www.victoriassecret.com/ or http://www.glamour.com/. Sadly that is how women are represented in the media, and video games appear to be following suit. Another issue may also be that a majority of programmers for video games tend to be male, and many may view the games as an opportunity to express their fantasies that they feel other people may enjoy in the form of a video game. As far as men being “square blocks” I hardly see that as being the case. Look at this screenshot from Fifa 08 http://www.videogamer.com/ps3/fifa_08/screenshot-19.html and tell me that the men have poorly defined features.
Although FF10-2 may have had some suggestive outfits, the game was awful if you ask my opinion, but not simply because it was marketed for women. I admit, it was partially because I am a guy and the game felt very girly, but it was also due to the lack of previous playable characters, a very odd storyline, and awfully childish acting enemies. I did beat the game though, more because I liked FF10 a lot and wanted to see how they continued the storyline.
I agree that it would be nice if we lived in a world where sexism didn’t exist, but I do believe that pawning off all of the blame isn’t the best solution to the problem. The truth is that many women often would prefer to become a housewife, to never learn to change a tire, or to never program or play a video game, but instead to raise children, visit a repair shop, or go shopping with friends. It is these women that tend to help support the creation of stereotypes that women don’t like video games, or aren’t knowledgeable cars.
To the author — Sorry if this somehow offended you, I’m not one to support sexism, I just simply believe that all women need to act the role if they expect a real change to come about. As of right now I see too many women who would prefer to simply take a different route in life.
In response to Chris Pugh’s project:
I personally believe that video game makers should not be held responsible for actions resulting from the misuse of their product. I feel this is also true for the movie industry and the music industry.
I will present a metaphor to further explain why I hold this belief. Should Louisville Slugger (a company who makes baseball bats) be held responsible for the misuse of their products? If somebody murders another person with a baseball bat, should the company who created that baseball bat be held responsible? Personally, I do not think so.
If we followed this line of thinking to its possible end, we could theoretically charge car companies for murder when vehicular manslaughter is performed by the owner of a car that company created. Though the examples seem extreme, it is my opinion that the issue being discussed is just as extreme.
I personally believe (as I stated in my project) that the ultimate safeguard against the the dangers inherent in many issues such as this, is personal responsibility. Given the range of human perception, the creators of a product (be it a video game or a baseball bat) cannot ultimately foresee every instance of possible misuse that can be conceived. Even if misuse can be foreseen, should that force the product’s creator to abandon its creation and distribution? I believe it should not.
In response to Ben Pincus’s project,
I have to agree with you to a point, biotechnology and biometrics is increasing security that we have but at the current state it doesn’t increase it enough. On an episode of mythbusters they showed just how easy it is to break into a finger print scanner. As long as you have some copy of the finger print you can get in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E20lHqbWqN4
Also something I thought I would add I went to islands of adventure about a month ago and I noticed they had finger print scanners all over the place. Not only do you have to scan your finger print to get into the park but there was some lockers that required a finger print scan to operate it. While the scan for the locker seemed understandable the scan to get into the park seemed to be a bit much. Going into the park the first thing that crossed my mind was this class and how this seemed like a violation of privacy. It use to be that you could walk into the park and besides for security cameras there was no evidence you were ever there.
One good thing about biometrics is that with this new technology we can find missing people, stolen cars, even wanted people alot easier. We already have cameras set up all over the world. For proof of this just turn on the news when they do the weather and traffic they normal will show a shot of the streets or oceans. Now just think that this is only in this area; every news channel has multiple camera’s located along the streets all over the country. Its only a matter of time before they put a facial recognizing program on it. But once again this adds to the ethical point that you brought up, would this take away from privacy seeing as how the government can track your movements.
In response to #29, Video Game Discrimination:
I generally agree when it comes to the anonymity of the internet and trying to moderate morons. Like penny arcade clearly put it, an audience on the web turns people into insulting morons quite often enough, jerks. There’s very little you can do, since it just appears to be the nature of the human mind. When there are no repercussions of hiding behind a monitor we do whatever we want. It comes down integrity being a very sparse trait found in people these days, which is just lost even more in our children in turn.
Pertaining to racism on the internet is unlike other insults usually conducted on the internet though. It’s something being spewed out, by generally people 15 or younger, because it’s “forbidden” and it’s the one place they can get away with it. This should not be tolerated, even on the web, and it only does because we allow it to. It appears we group racism with every other insult, and say to ourselves, “well it’s the anonymity of the internet and there’s nothing we can do.” But that’s not the case. Trends start, so on the same concept, trends can be started to break trends. If we put our foot down and say no, this will not be tolerated by any means. Over time racism even on the internet will cease down quite a bit.
We cannot let kids, and even sometimes adults to think that shouting out racial slurs toward people is fine on the internet just like it would be for doing it without racism. All it takes is migrating and transitioning the concepts in real life into the virtual world. It would be possible to accomplish this as well, since it starts at the ground level, with each individual to make their own difference.
Reply to:
Juliana Chang’s
“Cyber Bullying”
I find this topic one that people will always have problems with. As Juliana Chang mentioned Cyber Bullying not only hard to stop, it is also a form of bullying that is much easier to commit to. For example many people are bullied while they are in a school environment, this is nothing new, but the bullying is often limited due to other people and or superiors such as deans and teachers patrolling hallways. This severely limits the amount of time and opportunities that the “bully” has to confront their victim. With the emergence of the ever popular networks such as MySpace and FaceBook, many teens are now not only being pressured at school but also simultaneously from the internet.
With this form of “dual bullying” the average school bullies end up mentally attacking the student to an extent not allowing them to get away as they use to be able to do before the internet. The internet even encourages some people that you may view as your friends turn on you just to post this video online. This is very similar to the story that Juliana Chang mentioned. I believe that these girls must have been on a friend basis or why would she have been in her house?
What is needed to stop cyber bullying? Well that is not an easy question just as mentioned in the article there is no way to limit all the social networks on the internet and even if there was a way you would still have e-mail. Without these features as Juliana Chang mentions it wouldn’t be much of an internet. I too agree that the best way to control cyber bullying is to stop it at the source with a net etiquette that will influence children to be the better person, and treat others as they want to be treat. Maybe once the teens learn the consequences of cyber bullying are as real and even easier to prosecute as compared to the traditional bully, they will become less inclined to participate but until that time something must be done.
Adam Finney
Reply to Ariel Poliak’s website on hackers
The ethics of hacking have been controversial; on one hand, hackers have contributed greatly to the development of technology and learning about computer systems through their activities empowers the individual hacker. On the other hand, the privacy and property rights of computer systems owners have a legitimate claim to respect. The examples you give do a good job of dispelling the stereotype of the hacker as a menace to society, and making the distinction between hacking, which can lead to safer systems, and cracking, which is done maliciously for personal gain.
It’s not entirely clear that the intent of the individual hacker justifies their actions ethically — and it’s extremely difficult to base policy on intent.
However, your examples show that there is a way to have the best of both worlds — these hacker conventions and competitions act as ways that hackers can explore their interest and contribute to the craft, and open source software does the same by allowing them to channel their skills in a constructive manner.
The site itself makes the material concise and presentable, but I feel that it would have been helpful to connect your material more strongly to your conclusions. For instance, in the segment on the open source software section you present your facts, but don’t really connect them to your overall theme of how hackers help the progress of technological knowledge and aren’t always a criminal element.
Overall, I found the presentation to be interesting and informative and I agree with the general thrust of your arguments.
-CP
in reply to Josh Peters’ reply to my project:
I agree with this; personal responsibility is the answer when misuse of a product is the problem. I took sides against the murder simulators argument. Furthermore, I don’t think I ever once mentioned legal liability anywhere in my presentation. However, the issues raised by virtual worlds are a little more broad than the pseudoscience of Jack Thompson and legal liability. There’s aspects of social responsibility to be considered — as in the case of making a game that’s a useless reward treadmill when something could be created instead to benefit both the player and the art form of video games. There’s issues such as stereotyping, which I didn’t touch on in the presentation even — clearly developers have a right to make games that perpetuate stereotypes, and an argument can be even made in favor of using stereotypes in certain kinds of games for artistic purposes, or simply because they communicate a lot of information to the player almost instantly. On the other hand, having negative stereotypes of certain groups as a socializing influence when something better could exist can be problematic. This is coming from a hobbyist game developer whose design notebooks are full of ideas so offensive that free speech might get revoked if they were ever to see the light of day. In my opinion, this shows that there are a broader array of ethical issues to be considered by developers of games and online worlds – ones that emerge even granted proper use by the player — granted, more nebulous sorts of issues that are really up to the individual developer’s sense of social responsibility and artistic integrity — but issues nonetheless.
-CP
Reply to Ben Pincus in his project of positives and negatives of biotechnology and biometrics.
I enjoyed the animation you have done and also the little music tune that went with it.
The project makes a good point about the security of biotechnology. About how features like your face could be scanned to search for private and secure information. Although it is used for our national security which is a good thing until someone’s privacy or security has been breached.
During the animation I was thinking about some movies I’ve seen with the retina scans and how they overcame it. For example Demolition-man, the Warden in the future prison used it to open the interrogation room. However, Wesley Snipes, a bad guy, took his eye out with a pen to break out of prison. Another example is the movie Entrapment with Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones, they bust through a protected retina security system by wearing glasses with the same retina wave length. So it got me thinking that if we did get security like that, would it really protect us. Technology improves so much that we might have a tough security system, but later down the road new technology can break it.
In response to David O’Farrill’s presentation about discrimination.
First, you have two arguments as I see it, one being that a racist/sexist joke is not actually out of hate for those groups but more for the joke value, and the other is that people who aren’t alike should and do stay away from each other.
I don’t think that it is okay to be disrespectful to a culture or person just because you can’t relate to them. It seems like your arguing that because you can’t speak a person’s language or aren’t in their age group that that makes it ok to say derogatory things about or to them. Now I agree with the idea that saying something to get a laugh isn’t the same as being racist or sexist. I don’t, however, agree to the idea that it may be somehow acceptable to, for example, make fun of children in game simply because they don’t know what they are doing or don’t have the willingness to learn.
I would have to argue that instead of just saying whatever it is you want and telling people to deal with it, that instead one would try to understand how what they are saying can be taken by others before saying something that would be so off color as to offend someone else.
Reply to Matt Mitchell’s Night of the Living Internet:
This is some interesting information. I remember years ago that my home computer received a virus and excepted it happily because I’m sure my little sister was interested in whatever it was that it was masked as. Anyway, the firewall kept popping up saying that email was being sent out. This wasn’t one or two a day, this was like 15 an hour. I couldn’t seem to get rid of the virus with conventional tactics because it would copy and rename itself randomly. As a result, I set it up as a dedicated server and all it does now is send out spam. I don’t make any money off of it, but it’s nice to know it’s working.
Of course I’m kidding. I did get rid of the virus after a ton of work. The point I’m trying to make with all of this is that even a home computer may be responsible for this spam and it can happen without the owner’s knowledge.
Matt Defenthaler
Reply to Kevin H. Rodriguez/FenixZero’s http://ashton0.fenix.googlepages.com/home :
I personally don’t find cybersqatting/typosqatting a major concern. Would it be wrong for a person to buy a plot of land and not build anything? Is it wrong for that person to hold the land until someone who wants to build condos comes along and pays a hefty price for it? In essence cybersqatting is practically the same thing. Even with your example of whitehouse.com, i see no problem. The same URL was used for a real state company who owns house.com. Should they be heckled for owning whitehouse.com? Should the ICANN’s be responsible for people going to the wrong address? Should it be the Department of Transportation’s responsibility when you go to 5th avenue when you meant to go to 5th street? If a person goes to whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov it is their problem, they are the ones who “drove” to the wrong address.
As for your idea about solving typosquatting, fog.com’s top ten would include god.com, and dog.com… shouldn’t someone have the right to make a site about god or dogs over someone making a website about fog? Typosquatters won’t register typos of your domain until you become worth the effort. If the site is large enough to draw that kind of attention then the owner should look into registering typos of the domain. If they’re late on the ball, then oh well, it’s the same as above.
“Generally leaving out the www would take you to another site if someone else owns it.” This is an error in your essay, the prefix is a sub-domain, www is pointing to your public_html folder on the server (assuming your using Linux). You could also have ftp://ftp.amazon.com which would be the sub-domain for ftp(which amazon wouldn’t use). Your URL “amazon” is resisted to a nameserv which is resisted to an IP address using the “.com” domain servers. so by typing http://amazon.com your still connecting to the same server, that server could redirect you however if it is setup to do so.
Has anyone else seen the little smiley face at the bottom of this site?
Just wondering.
In response to Juliana Chang’s Cyber Bullying
I agree that Cyber-bullying is a major problem kids are facing today. I have a little sister who is facing some sort of cyber bullying from her (used to be) “friends”. You really don’t expect anyone to really get hurt, but I can see the hurt whenever my sister gets another not-so-friendly online message.
And I was completely shocked as I watched that video of the girl getting beaten. The attackers outnumbered the victim 8 to 1, videotaped the entire beating, and then they planned on putting it on YouTube and Myspace. That’s horrible. I wouldn’t have guessed it being cheerleaders!
Overall, great essay and great design for the website! Thanks for all the information on cyber bullying
Response to Michael Bernard “Identity Theft”
I agree that identity theft on the internet is a huge concern to the average internet user because of the lack of computer and internet security know-how the average user has. The responsibility really does fall upon the user of the computer, the fact that so many people are still in the mindset that the internet isn’t a “real” place and doesn’t affect “real” life is one of the biggest problems. The internet has grown to be a huge part of our lives in the past 10 to 15 years and one of the main problems contributing to this fallacy held by so many people that it’s not a real place is the lack of education directed towards being cautious on the internet. The internet has grown so fast in such a short amount of time that no one who isn’t somehow involved in a technology related field seems to know how to be “smart” on the internet.
I imagine that when cars were first invented and licenses weren’t required someone just showed you how to start it and off you went, figuring it out on your own, of course so few people had cars back then that it wasn’t an issue but then Henry Ford creates the model-T and all of a sudden we need roads, highways, intersections, and traffic lights. Now there’s a whole bunch of things to consider when you drive your car and present day you have to pass a driving test before you can really get out there on your own. Imagine if people needed to pass an internet test so that they could go online, you know something simple so they wouldn’t accidentally give away their social or credit card or click on links to viruses and spyware, I mean they teach you in drivers-education not to drive into ditches and run red lights so what’s the difference between that and downloading malware or accidentally giving away your social security number? I’m not saying a license or anything but just some kind of required classes in primary school (or maybe at a community center for all the older folks) that just educates kids on proper internet use.
Response to Ben Ellis post 15
As a huge fan of Battlestar Gallatica I was jealous that I didn’t think of this first. I thought that most of the focus was on the humans. How they are flawed and how they could have avoided the almost extinction of the human race by treating the cylons as equals instead of “toasters”/robots/slaves.
I find that more ethical questions are raised when looking at how the cylons act and interact amongst themselves. The cylons are starting (in the new season of the show) to commit the same sins as the humans and to become more like individuals instead of twelve carbon copies. When the show started the cylons were very much robots who believed that god had given them the command to destroy the humans.
No cylon model ever voted against one of its own before this season. At the beginning the cylons didn’t have names just their model numbers but as the show progressed the cylons began to develop individual identities and have started to give themselves names. The cylons have also started to fight amongst themselves as to how to treat the other lesser robots the raiders which are like their pet ships and the older versions of cylons which they descended from. They are also starting to fight about whether to annhilate the human race or to try and coexist with the humans.
The big question that I always find myself asking is are the cylons evolved enough to be considered people?
Response to Brittany Kernan post 32
First of all, that was a very creative way to show philosophy (virtual ethics) and its application to the real world and I congratulate you for such creativity.
Most of your pictures were very well correlated to the real world or shall I say the real world as we know it and believe it to be. From going to the mall all the way to going to the library, I felt sad but vindicated as I am not the only one who realizes the holes in the mansion. It appears that through your illustrations, we have become so caught up in this, cyber safe community that we no longer realize the importance of taking care of home, which should be our priority. Whenever, the increased amount of surveillance cameras are paid more attention to than our ability to be literate and maintain the common wealth of a people, we the people are in horrible condition.
With so many “users” crowding the system, sooner than later, we will not be able to even see what’s around the corner; furthermore, with new business ventures like myspace, facebook, eharmony and others, our ability as a people to simply communicate with those not glued to the system will eradicate itself. Case and point, the so called, “ipod generation” as we are known to be, is so technologically connected that, when we are out of the computer system (off of myspace) we are almost unable to function. As is shown now with myspace and eharmony, to simply communicate by person to person contact, is just as hard as finding a needle in a haystack.
We are moving further and further from our traditional setting and if this continues, my prediction is, the cyber community that we are creating, we will almost eliminate person to person communication and the need for friends in the physical realm. When I speak of friends I’m talking about those in our same individuals in which we see in the “traditional community” whom, we ignore to then get to our computers to speak to them again. If a study were conducted showing the verbal communication of today’s youth vs. those of only 20yrs ago, of course at the same age, between 20 and 25, we would be shown as so much worse off than we were 20yrs ago and this trend will continue to grow as long as we keep our “new generational way of communication.”
Reply to Matt Mitchell’s essay.
Spam is a growing problem, but it’s not only email spam that is an issue. For years there has been a growing number of spyware and identity theft coming from these botnets. In your essay you do not give a detailed statement on how to stop these networks. Well I believe that user education is one of the key problems.
If the public is gullible enough to open exe files attached to some of these spam messages, then there will be no way to curve the botnet numbers. It just so happens that the majority is gullible. There are many people on the web who lack updated software. There are many on the web that read every email they get. There are many on the web that post their email address directly on the Internet! No matter what software you attach to the machine, if the user does not know how to use it properly, it won’t work.
In the end user education will be the only way to solve these kinds of issues.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080414/BLOG01/80414016&imw=Y
Reply to Ariel Poliak
Hear hear on IE being a “bloated piece of crapware”!
In our class and one of my others we have talked about hackers and their usefulness to society. I do agree that HACKERS can be very helpful and they do what they do either out of fun or with good intent. CRACKERS, on the other hand, definitely bring up all kinds of ethical questions. It’s unfortunate that the media has erased all distinction between the two.
DEFCON and the others sound like fun if UBER-nerdy events for hackers. I think it’s funny that winners of PWN 2 OWN get “the computer whose security they compromised” as a prize. Congratulations! Everyone knows at least one hole in your computer!
Very fun and informative read, thanks.
In response to number 23, Robert Louden’s project on Equity in Access to Cybertechnology:
I really liked your work on this subject. Your layout did a good job of allowing you to more-than-adequately dispense the information related to your topic without anything being overly cluttered, and the information itself was matter-of-fact, fairly comprehensive, and flowed well. Covering the nature of the problem, the problem itself, and the number of things different groups/people are doing to try to resolve the issue really gives the reader a good, if not comprehensive, idea of how much of an issue the digital divide is and could continue to be in the future.
This is a response to Ben Ellis (#15), project on his project on robots becoming human as it relates to the show Battlestar Galactica.
I think that his point is very valid. The humans could have resolved a lot of problems with the Cylons, at least later in the series, if they were just willing to work with the Cylons.
On the other end, though, the humans were basically on the run from the Cylons, and were being hunted.
I feel that if the Cylons came to the humans with the entent to talk in the first place, they could have saved a lot of lives on both ends. Well, maybe not on the Cylon side, sense they can ‘reborn’ if their current body is destroyed.
So, I agree that humans shouldn’t build something that could hurt them, or kill them, easily if it decided too.
In response to Ariel Poliak’s project on hackers, response #1.
I wholeheartedly agree with the views presented in your project. Most people do not realize that there is a very fine line between hacking and cracking and many companies could care less the motives of a hacker. I’ve read numerous stories about people who came across exploits in a product, bypasses its security without the intent to harm the company or other users, made contact with the company to inform them that their is an issue with their software, and have legal action taken against them by the company even though their intent was the well-being of all users of that software. It’s actions like this that leave certain holes undetected until it is too late. If many software companies could concentrate not on the fact that their software was hacked, but on why it was hacked and attempting to fix this hole and future ones, things would be better for everyone.
In response to 28, Michael Bernard’s essay on the problem of identity theft. First of all I agree with your position entirely. The majority of people today remain unaware of how dangerous the internet can be because of identity theft. However, I thought I should point out that even though you are correct in stating that the user and the developer are both guilty of exercising poor safety procedures with regard to information security, there is another party at fault as well. While it may seem obvious, the person who desires to steal identities and acts on their desire, that person is also in the wrong.
That is why education of cyberethics is so important. If we can teach younger children about the dangerous of the internet, while at the same time exposing them to questions of responsibility and use of the internet, we can help decrease the number of twisted individuals who attempt to steal identities. If normal internet users are both competent, aware of information security issues, and are protected by developers who place more emphasis on security, then we should see an increase in the price of a persons identity.
“Developers should take the intuitive and force clients to upgrade, thus protecting their user base”. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! Never ever force clients to upgrade, under any circumstances. I have read stories about people who have left Windows Automatic Update on, and let me tell you, the results were not pretty. While most of the time the automatic update is a good thing, “one pre-required update, codenamed KB937287 and officially dubbed Servicing Stack Update (SSU) ended up annoying the heck out of some people as it caused the system to go into an infinite reboot sequence”. This is from http://scforum.info/index.php?action=post;topic=1448.0;num_replies=0
I feel that users should be accountable for updating their computers. The best thing is just to avoid a forced update (as it really just pisses the heck out of people, and if most people become competent computer users, they will be able to update their own computers).
In reply to (53) Dionisios Gizas’ essay:
I agree that identity/information theft is one of the biggest issues in the realm of cybertechnology. It’s definitely one that needs to be dealt with. In his essay, Dionisios gives a number of examples how theft over cyberspace could be harmful. In one case he talks about the issue of music downloading. It has been an issue many music artists have to deal with. Now through internet, most could buy the direct song for a mere 99 cents. But why pay when you can get them free? This in itself could cause a chain reaction which would lead to the government to be more involve with the activities in cyberspace and shareware, with an intense regulation between the two, as Dionisis explains.
However Diosisis continues to lay out a number of examples relating to cyber theft but fails to provide a proposed solution to it all. Although through the examples, he explains the results and repercussions of such acts, displaying just how serious an issue this poses. Overall I think that his essay is a decent source of information over the threat of cyber theft.
Response to Colton Seabaugh on Post 11
I agree with you in that I don’t think that independent AI driven robots should (or will) ever be put into the field. Aside from ethical questions of AI and its regards to being alive, or how we treat them, AI cannot make the intuitive decisions on ever changing fields and conditions like people can. Take Robo-Cop for example, the first robot they created killed an innocent man due to an error where it did not recognize that he put down his weapon.
More current battlefields are populated with civilians and guerrilla fighters that are almost impossible to distinguish. And at times friends and foes are indistinguishable. And since we would have to program in responses, it would be almost impossible to cover every scenario that involves innocents and hostiles.
I also agree with you in that we should keep our focus on more assistive technology. Things like bomb-squad robots and the remote control Predator planes are much safer alternative for everyone involved. If we ever introduce robots onto the field of combat, remote control bots would offer safety, better calculations and probably superior firepower, and would allow humans to judge threats with much less need to make rash decisions because only the far more durable robots are in danger.
To V. Seenath’s essay:
I disagree that anonynimity on the internet should be banned, or even discouraged. It enables expression of an individual’s beliefs without fear of any sort of retribution. While that may enable some terrible sorts to present themselves–note that the internet is not and never will be a medium for children beyond small highly regulated sites–it also allows great option of personal expression. The internet is all about choice, choosing whatever you want, whether you can have it or not. Places that enable people to be terrible are all in the option of those visiting, this is a topic entirely seperate from hacking or unwanted pop-ups from spyware. You may choose not to see the poor choice of others, but regulation of identity prevents others from seeing it if they choose to. Due to the free nature of the internet, regulation of identity is akin to censorship.
Response to Chris Pugh’s Presentation on Ethical Concerns and Virtual Worlds
Good argument against the many real world accusations for murders, violent crimes etc. being blamed on video games and movies. I agree with the opinion that it is not what a person plays or watches that influences them, rather I believe it is the parenting, how they are raised and what the are exposed to in the REAL world. In the presentation, there was a bit more personal opinion than I was expected although much of it was backed by facts from research. Many of the points sounded very defensive however, passion is a good trait to have in anything you take on. I thought that it was a nice change having an alternative view to the author after reading the text. Overall, I felt that it was an interesting and thorough presentation.
@ #16 Ben Pincus
I like the way your animation went giving a little of both sides. Good and Bad. I tend to think that If you haven’t done anything wrong then who cares if they have info on you. BUT I totally understand the other side and often vote/voice-opinion in this way. There really is a fine line when it comes to info like this and who gets access to it. I think in this regard its a situation where you’re choosing (unless its gov’t req. to do so) to use this type of technology and so you agree to the conditions that the owner of that device or technology sets out. If its your eye scanner at your house and a random person uses it to gain access then it was there choice to use it. Now I wouldn’t go as far as to shoot there face while scanning but holding on to that information for future use is at the owners discretion (that is unless the gov’t makes a law against this).
@ #25 Daniel Kaplan
I really like the method you took to get your point across. It really made me consider what kind of right robots/computers should have because they can act the same as animals/humans. While many might argue that “They don’t feel anything so it doesn’t matter” I might argue what feeling is. I’m not even sure I could answer that!? But I think its something we need to start thinking about soon, because as you mentioned AI is a lot farther along then we think. Also all of this is just about Robots/AI/Computers. What happens when we throw Cyborgs/Androids (not joking, completely serious) in the mix? Where do we draw the line between Robots and Humans? What if Cyborgs end up classified with Robots (which currently have no rights) and because (lets say) your Grandmother has a pacemaker and electronic prosthetic leg she is considered a Cyborg (again all serious here, i know it sounds ridiculous)? What now? Interesting Topic!
A response to Ariel Poliak (#1).
Now I do agree that promoting a safer computer enviroment is always the right thing to do. I also agree that “PWN 2 OWN” competition has its benefits. It allows big companies to continue patching there software to allow a safer computer enviroment.
However, there are always rogue hackers out there that don’t play under “rules”. There is a difference between hacking competitions and the actual thing with no restrictions what so ever. These “rogue” hackers don’t exploit security systems to promote the computer enviroment. Most of them do it for their own personal benefits and gains. And I do agree that the media focuses more on these types rather than the types that do good.
Its an issue where depending on how the way we look at it, we think differently about it. Perhaps instead of promoting competitions, they could implement teams into all the big companies and have them try and break through. This way they could constantly be on top the situation.
In response to Joshua Peters:
I agree with your presentation, especially in the area where you discuss how frequently we commit internet fraud without even knowing it or realizing it. I believe you touched on an important issue because internet fraud is one of the major problems that the internet age has brought to society and our current state of affairs.
As you said on your presentation, internet fraud begins by been proactive in protecting ourselves from becoming the victims of possible fraud. One example of this is when we visit internet sites that require the user to register in order to access more information from these web sites; which is a simple way to give our personal data without realizing who may be obtaining our records. At times we may try to protect our records from fraud by giving fictitious names and data in an effort to prevent third parties from obtaining our information. Besides from this possibly being considered fraud, it is also unethical from a personal stance, because we are not being respectful with the entities and/or individuals that may be trying to provide a service to us. So how do we address this ethical and legal dilemma?
As you pointed out, in the chapter on ‘Community and Identity”, misconstruing ourselves could also result in physical ramifications and psychological underpinnings. From a psychological perspective, I view this as cyber identities in which the users never disclose who they truly are and what they represent. The internet has opened new opportunities for people to pose with different types of identities. This has resulted in real and serious dangerous already. In real world terms, it would be illegal to falsely create and represent your self under the wrong name; likewise it should be also illegal to do this over the internet. A new system is necessary where people congruently can share and provide records without the fear that they may be the next victim of this pervasive problem; Legal penalties for these kinds of fraud should be severe as this problem is rampant and is directly impacting our way of life.
From the ethical perspective, I believe this kind of behavior in the long run does not benefit individuals and our progress as a society. Instead we should strive to become more ethical in our decision making process and become aware of the websites we are visiting on the internet. Becoming aware and educating ourselves in fundamental.
Ultimately it is up to the individual to perform due diligence on what kind of websites they will visit, who they will do business with or even chat with. Everyone has this share responsibility, governments, agencies, companies and ultimately you, the individual.
Response to #40 Kris Wise’s
First off, it’s amazing how much media attention this lawsuit is getting. There is even an article located in our Central Florida Future. I thought the interviews provided a range of responses. The most interesting thing I found was that Elizabeth, who did not have any online avatars felt that the online property was part of the company without any hesitation. She lacks the connection that Jacob and Zach had to the items that he has worked to get. Jacob was the person I felt I could connect most with, because even though I don’t have any current online avatar, he made several good points about how the online game economy is affected by organizations that farm gold and items. He also talks about how people have a personal ownership by organizing items in the bank and inventory and that you spend the time to unlock the items. Jacob also reinforces that World of Warcraft has made the items, not the people playing the game like Second Life.
I personally feel that it would be great to knock out companies that are violating TOS and EULA. Kelly points out that since it is in direct violation then it’s wrong. I have personally played World of Warcraft and I don’t’ like how people buy items for real money, it feels like they are buying out of the game play and makes rare items even more rare because of farming by companies. It ruins the in game economy completely. I think that the outcome of this lawsuit will set a new precedent for what companies can and cannot do in regards to gold farming and its affect on the in-game economy.
In response to Matt Mitchell’s post
Spam is definitely an annoying problem. I remember just a few years ago, before spam filters became more effective, I would get more emails about Viagra and diet pills in a day than actual relevant emails. With so many people who are unaware of the dark side of the Internet, it is no wonder why spam and botnets are constantly circulating the Internet. I think that Internet etiquette courses should be implemented into school curriculum so that everyone will eventually be aware of the proper way to use the Internet safely.
It is very scary how these malicious programs are able to infect computers and seemingly take on a life of its own. It makes me wonder about the future and how maybe one day, the world will be much like how it’s depicted in certain movies. Soon enough, we might have a “zombie computer” trying to take over the world.
Response to David Newton:
This PowerPoint was quite interesting to say the least. It was informative and precise while not being lengthy and boring. Right when I thought it was going to lose my attention it managed to capture it back but moving on and not harping on one particular thing. The example story was awesome. It was trivial as you put it but that was just prefect for what you were trying to accomplish.
I do have one question however. What happens in the event that employee’s are afraid of loosing there their jobs’ so they don’t tell, and then the supervisor blows the whistle on them. Saying, they have been approving work that they knew was harmful, or what have you. What happens then? I guess this is another “pickle” you’re caught in. By not telling your going to keep your job, but then you in turn could be turned into the scapegoat. This is why I feel there should be a general law in affect protecting whistler blowers in both private and public sectors. From what I gather from your presentation I think you would agree. I feel that when companies stop making decisions based on a profit margin, then and only then will whistle blowing be acceptable. I know this is highly unlikely but wouldn’t it be mice!
Response to V. Seenath:
I agree with you, currently there really is no good method of stopping those who harass, and annoy online. I really liked the steam example. Using a main log-in name would still allow for a good amount of anonymity and yet not be prying into someone’s personal rights. If it were to also allow for custom user names of a said account to be traced back to the root log-in then it would allow easy access for webmasters to ban trollers and harassers. However I don’t feel that it’s a perfect solution. I feel that it works rather well if there is only one person that uses the log-in. However problems may arise if there are multiple people to a household that all share the same main log-in. One person in that household might do something to get banned from a site that other members of that household visit. Now those people are locked out of the site, for something they didn’t commit.
Person to respond to: Ariel Poliak
My Response: This presentation was done very well on a website. Ariel did her project on how hackers although thought of as bad make the internet a better place. She describes an organization called DEFCON full of professional hackers that are united together. The people in this group present topics based on hacking. This group is used to discuss ways on ways to tighten security on the internet. After reading her website I would say that she did a good job proving her point on how hackers help others to figure out how to tighten security by fixing the areas in which people can get people’s information.
This is a reply to Sarah Loewy: “Ethics for Artificial Entities”
Firstly, I think your presentation is very well designed, and I like the colors a lot. Secondly, however, I felt a little bit like there wasn’t enough information to directly make a specific argument…What I mean is this: I’m a little confused, was your point that robots or machines cannot have free will naturally? Reading it again, I feel like your argument is that constraining machines to the three laws were unfavorable or unethical because it denies the robots choice, and that the use of a neural network is morally superior because it allows a robot to have free choice, or at least some “choice” of the outcome that it eventually desires.
I have several problems with this argument, because from my perspective, it has not been established by Gordon nor by the presentation that the four laws are in any way immoral, because for them to be considered slavery, it first has to be established that the robots being programmed with them are being coerced into doing so. For them to be considered to be coerced into doing so, it has to be established that they, in some way, desire something else. From my perspective, the idea of a computer program, which is totally deterministic, having a seperate will, is a question that remains to be demonstrated. How can a computer program, which is consistantly and totally a system bound by deterministic rules, be considered to have a free choice/ a free desire to do something which is against its programming? Not only has this question not been resolved for robots, it hasn’t even been completely resolved by humans; there are many well-respected neurologists and physicists who still claim that no one has free will and the universe is deterministic and predictable. Therefore, I find it difficult to support the claim that robots clearly have a will to do other than that which they are created for, and that they therefore are “slaves”…any more than a plowshare or hammer is a slave. Certainly, no one argues that, a wing or cabling of an airliner jet is “enslaved” because it is not given a free choice to decide another career path.
Furthermore, even if one DOES show that computer programs are inherently different than tools and have independant thoughts, and somehow makes them capable of bypassing the shackles of determinism inherent to the idea of a mechanical mind, there is no moral or ethical reason to assume that the posession of free will makes design decisions such as the three laws no longer relevant. One could make the argument that even if I have free will, it is not a violation of my free will for my creator to form my being with physical realities that are unescapable, such as the Three Laws. One does not say that it is immoral that I do not freely choose to breath, because to breath is an innate part of my being. Nor do we consider it slavery that we, as human agents, cannot walk through walls or fly or go without food. These things, if you believe in a creator, were created in us, and if you do not believe in a creator, are simply facts of our existence. It does not mean that they are a violation of my choice or my free will, or my morals, for them to exist. They are a limiting framework in which our free will exists. In a similar way, as creators of robotic minds, why can we not constrain our creations in similar fashion?
Finally, I would like to point out that, despite the power of techniques like Neuro-Evolution for machine learning and simulation of the “hidden” processes that go on in the human mind, it is a common misconception that they are really capable of thinking and reasoning in a way that humans can. Admittedly, neural networks provide solutions to problems that are difficult to develop algorithms for directly,such as optimization, decision making, and probabilities, but to me, neural networks are still a deterministic process. They are inherently about manipulating numbers, and evaluating functions…it is no more possible for a computer mind based on a neural network to ignore the “Best” solution output from the cost function than it is for a computer to ignore one of the three laws. On the other hand, however, an agent that has free will might use a neural network to see what the best course of action is…but they may CHOOSE to reject it. A neural network, despite producing “Creative” solutions, will never produce free-choice in my opinion, because they ALWAYS must choose the solution that is “Best”…something that is not free by definition. Furthermore, there are proofs out there that show that, in some cases, neural network algorithms actually provably reduce to other, decidedly deterministic numerical methods, such as PCA, which is calculatable directly through SVD. To put it into laymans terms, saying that a neural network freely chose a solution, when the algoritm is the same as SVD, is like saying running x = 5×6/3 allows the computer to “freely choose” to set x = 10.
However, I really like the research you put into this project, and the arguments you put forth were refreshing, because they were obviously researched outside of the scope of class material to frame the basis for them. Good Work!
In response to David Newton #5, it seems to me that “Whistle Blowing” is a major moral delima. In the work place, you have an obligation to do what your employer pays you to do. At what point do you draw the line? In the example with Firestone, it went as far as 41 deaths that could have very well been prevented had someone spoke up. Now suppose a situation where someone just gets sick or injured, but doesn’t die. Yes, neither of these are as ’serious’ as death, but don’t we all have a ‘moral obligation’ to public safety, even if it doesn’t result in death or serious injury? If a superior in the company tells you to keep your mouth shut and then the injury or illness caused is down played, does that make it any less of a bad situation. As members in a community or society, we all have the responsibility to look out for each other. This is the ONLY way that we can progress as group. There is power in numbers, but the only way to get there is one person at a time. There are plenty of jobs out there, and at the end of the day, do you really want to work for someone that is potentially putting you and your family at risk?
Reply to Ben Pincus:
I personally believe that biometrics should only be used in certain situations, and should always have an alternative route. Although biometrics does make it more difficult for intruders to enter ones house the brute force method, a tactic such as implanting eye scanners in people’s houses would only make cyber crime sky rocket. Criminals would eventually “evolve” to a certain extent to which they could easily hack a security system and input certain lines of code that would allow them to be recognized by the system. However, when it comes to subjects such as ID for boarding a plane or even ID for using a credit card, would be relatively safer. You don’t need biometrics to track someone’s movements now; all you would have to do is follow their credit card information. And if so happen that someone does hack the system and commit identity theft, then the worst that happens is that someone looses all their money. This would leave them physically unharmed, which is far better than the odds if someone breaks into their home.
Response to Brittney Kernan.
First let me say i really liked your website. That was a smart way to portray the what would happen if generally accepted norms of one aspect of life were applied somewhere completely unexpected. When it comes to learning, some people are auditory and some are visual learners. I think you did an excellent job portraying what we could reasonably accept would happen if commonly accepted internet actions were brought into use in reality.
Thank you for the entertaining website
Reply – #38: Robert Maine
The social networking sites that you mention are by no means compulsory, nor do they require the users to display their contact information for visitors to peruse. The degrees to which members of these social networking websites adumbrate themselves—to anyone with internet access—are entirely of their own volition. Requiring users to provide their social security number is to ask them to provide yet another piece of potentially devastating personal information that another visitor could possibly obtain and use for nefarious purposes. Additionally, your approach to curtailing cyber-stalking is reminiscent of governmental policy regarding population control, and not a set of justifiable measures to be implemented by a private entity such as the owner of a social networking website.
An interesting difference to elucidate between so-called cyber-stalking and more traditional means of harassment is that to be “stalked” via the internet requires the victim to consciously seek out the medium through which he or she is being beleaguered. The first novel idea I would hope to generate, in such a situation, would be to discontinue use of the sole means through which a stranger is stalking me, namely, the social networking site. To continue to use a social networking service, or other means of internet-based communication, whilst being harassed by an unfamiliar person, could be construed as ersatz self-flagellation by the victim.
If you are more specifically referring to the targeting of children by sexual predators, and not interactions between members of analogous peer grouping, I believe the responsibility invariably resides with the parents of the child. Parents have only cluelessness to blame if they have no qualms giving their hatchling unmitigated access to the internet, which, if it were a physical location, would be one of the most sordid, perilous and objectionable places on earth. Paradoxically, that doesn’t seem to keep most of us from spending our afternoons there.
In response to Steven Braeger’s presentation on fostering trust in internet communities:
You presented several questions to begin a discussion format to encourage “technical people” to take their ability to mold the internet seriously, as a means to better online communities. The questions “Why should you build trust (in internet communities)?” was answered with what I would consider to be a blanket assumption: “The internet controls our society”, supported only by your interpretation of a quote borrowed from Bill Clinton. A better way to argue this could have been to suggest that since the speed and access to information has drastically improved for the general public, communities on the internet need to be preserved, since they allow for this progress.
I don’t consider technical merit to be the sole determinant in those responsible for fostering trust in online communities. If you reconsider Lessig’s model, we only share in the architecture measure, but that can be minimalized. Many websites offer free “forum” code that allows communities to have the technical part done, and the members that share those interests can decide how to allow for trust, and whether/how to implement the remaining elements of Lessig’s model.
Let’s reconsider responsibility and accountability. I consider technical people to be held accountable to the quality of their code under professional terms, if this is a service provided, but otherwise: what does the coder owe to the community that uses his code? If he specifically designs that code for a community which he designs, he should be held accountable to its faults, since he sets precendence for its entirety. But what if he simply designed a blog template that got used for a forum, or a news site that becomes one? How is he to be held responsible for others’ misuse/the evolution of his creation? It’s simply not fair to suggest that a technical person always be responsible for the manner in which people use what he makes.
Response to Juliana Chang’s webpage on cyber-bullying:
Juliana, your report on cyber-bullying is a very well-reasoned sentiment. I will admit I don’t conduct myself the best I could on the Internet (far from it, really) but I am open-minded and I can see the merit to your words. Using the recent case of the girl attacked by her “friends” is a very relevant example and I have been hearing a lot about this case in the news so I can relate your points to what I’ve seen about it.
Trying to moderate such cases is difficult. Since real life often mixes with the virtual medium, people can simply carry over ill-sentiment from their personal encounters to their online affairs and carry on a consistent chain of cruelty and malice. It’s tough to know when someone is suffering under the effects of cyber-bullying because there may be no visible evidence in person.
I agree to your points about early intervention. We should teach our children concepts like empathy and not using the anonymity of the Internet to disguise their cruelty behind a username. It’s important to remind them that no matter who or what someone pretends to be on the Internet, they’re still a human on the other side and that they have feelings that should be respected.
It’s not right to humiliate someone over the Internet and not expect any kind of consequence. And yet our society is fast moving towards that with its ever-present sense of connectivity. At any time you can text someone or check your Facebook or MySpace account so updating your friends on the latest folly of Suzy is just as easy as pulling out your cell phone and photographing them tripping over their shoes and landing face first in pudding. Its fiendish but it’s the reality we’re all coming towards. Educating kids to appreciate those around them and not to take advantage of them through anonymous means is unacceptable and the Internet is not a playground for ruthless commentary.
- Gavin Heinly
Response to Colton Seabaugh:
If we were to create completely autonomous robots I don’t believe we’d have to worry about them gaining a thought process. The main worry is that it wouldn’t have a fail safe. So far everything we create in our society has some way in which we can be safe in case something were to go wrong. The problem with an autonomous robot is that it might not be able to recognize if something were to go wrong. Some may say that the robot would be able to recognize if there was an error however, our computers today cannot solve most problems when something goes wrong. The typical solution to fixing any gadget is to completely turn it off and turn it back on. I believe if we were to create an autonomous robot they should be equipped with a device to instantly turn them off remotely. This is used everyday in things like monster truck racing where before any race the truck must first be able to completely turn off from a remote control for the safety of the driver and the people around the truck. Much like everything we create, even robots must have a fail safe.
In response to Steve Braeger’s reply to my presentation on the ethics of artificial entities:
To clarify my argument to you and others that might view it, I think you somewhat missed the point – I wasn’t assuming a free-willed robot. I was suggesting a method to aim toward a free-willed robot.
This is somewhat what I was building off of:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/robots-evolve-and-learn-how-to-lie
Even though neural evolution can lead to deterministic results, can’t it be possible to take the technique behind neural evolution and make the objective vague enough that many actions are equally acceptable? The “depth” of permutations of neural evolution could also be unique, thus determinism is violated on both accounts, at least in terms of computational complexity, but perhaps that definition fails if it is considered the polar opposite of free will.
How can do you define free, in the context of physical law? You compared the Three Laws of Robotics to the physical constraints humans have. I would say these are very different: the robot would also be limited by physical law, but this limits its ability to evaluate actions, and make ethical decisions, which is the issue at hand.
In response to Jacob Rathman:
I have to say that I do not believe at all that access to the internet is a vital resource in the same way that a telephone is, and that there is no reason for the government to subsidize internet access. An exception to this is the ways that it already is, with libraries and other free computers that are connected to the internet. It is extremely convenient, but it is not vital in the same way as a telephone, and many of the things that the internet allows you to do can also be accomplished by telephone (at least in the way of communication).
You didn’t state this point, but it seems to be implied in your essay, so I will agree with you that a cell phone comes a lot closer to being a vital resource than the internet does. The cell phone does everything a telephone can do (obviously) and also allows portability, which is a very big problem with telephones. Also, cell phones can, in many cases, actually connect to the internet themselves. However, due to the fact that they are more about convenience than anything else, and that the price of a cheap cell phone with a calling card plan, the kind that you put minutes on, only to be used for emergencies, strongly limits the possibility and necessity of subsidized cell phones. In addition, even if it were a necessity, the government tends to avoid laws that have socialistic implications, and might not do it anyway.
Replying to post #14 by Nicholas Hernandez:
Masamune Shirow’s Manga “Ghost in the Shell” and the movies and TV series based on it show one possible theoretical application to the scenario you describe. In “Ghost in the Shell”, there are ‘normal’ people as we see today, ‘augmented’ people with prosthetic limbs and/or sensory organs, ‘full prosthetic’ people, in which the only biological part remaining is the brain, and then there are the ‘dolls,’ full prosthetic bodies that do not have a biological brain; androids with a limited Artificial Intelligence.
Within the “Ghost in the Shell” canon, an entity is given human rights and responsibilities based on whether or not that entity has a biological brain; otherwise that entity would be property. This definition helps alleviate problems (as shown in the series: a person’s brain is connected to a doll and then commits a crime–who’s responsible? the person whose brain is running the doll, or the doll’s owner and/or manufacturer—the actual person of course…)
The entire scenario you describe falls short on one part that is covered in “Ghost in the Shell”—the singularity—the shedding of the physical form of a person and existing solely in cyberspace. “Ghost in the Shell” suggests that it would be possible to download a person’s memories into cyberspace, but the ability to store their “Ghost” (read: essence, soul) is not well covered.
In response to Kevin Rodriguez,
On your site, you stated that if you purchase the domain with the subdomain www in front of it, that someone else can purchase the top level domain and control it all. I do not believe this is the case. When you purchase a domain, you are purchasing the TLD. However, I’m sure it is possible to purchase a subdomain from a business that owns the TLD you want.
You stated that you think that someone who owns example.com should be able to own example.net or http://www.example.xyz. First of all, purchasing example.com means you own http://www.example.com as well. You just have to set up your subdomains for that. If this is not the case, then find another place to buy your domain names from.
If a company that buys example.xyz would by then get to own example.***, then there would be no point in having the .*** categories, and this would greatly reduce amount of available domain names, thus driving up demand and leading to higher prices.
Your solution to typosquatting I have disagree with also. I believe every three letter domain has been taken. Suppose someone accidentally types in abc.com instead of def.com. If this happened enough, would that give def.com the right to own abc.com?
I will agree though, that these are problems, and it would be nice to see a solution for them.
I have owned quite a few domain names for a few years, some of them not even in use. I own them for future projets of mine, and just bought them to reserve the domain name.
Note: I apologize for the late submission of this essay.
Community Building and Anonymity in Computer Games
Something that has always fascinated me is the way people behave within social organizations in computer games. Because the majority of people playing these games use aliases or nick names, and often do not know each other except in the context of the games or organizational tools used to facilitate playing the game (such as instant messaging programs and web forums), the people actually have a relatively high level of anonymity, even among people they interact with on a daily basis. This leaves many organizations open to problems such as members leaving randomly and unannounced, which in many cases can cause a great disruption to the organization’s ability to achieve its goal (winning an online competition, for example). And because the people who leave unannounced can simply change their alias and make all new associations, there is little recourse for the organization that lost its critical member and can no longer function.
Many new games are implementing unique identifiers that can trace users. Is this really all that’s needed to solve the problems brought on by anonymity?
In the real world, because people generally have traceable names and identities, an organization accepting a new member can do background checks on public records, call previous employers, and check police records to get information on their new potential recruit. With an anonymous, aliased playerbase in a game this is nigh impossible. So instead, many organizations implement trial periods and rights of passages. They make recruits write long essays or applications before entry, using their ability to respond to gauge competency and the seriousness of the application, and will often ask for references to previous organizations, and reasons for leaving, and will then speak with the leaders of the applicant’s old organization to corroborate the information. The process is becoming more and more like a job application in most communities that I’ve seen (my experience is mostly online role playing and first person shooter games).
One first person shooter team that I was a member of had complicated tasks for the recruits to perform. They involved getting certain scores on public servers and providing screenshots of the scores, and things of that nature. The tasks were tiered, with deadlines, and were not overly difficult, but many recruits found them to be pointless and a waste of time. However, they served several purposes. It showed the applicant was serious about joining the team. It built up the player to understand they were a representative of the team at all times when playing, even when not in a competitive environment, and it gave the team publicity with the playerbase. While this has prevented the team from picking up many skilled players who think that they should be able to join on the merits of their skill alone, the ones it has picked up tend to be life-long members, often following the team from one game to the next.
Having these rituals and rights of passage help the player feel like they really are joining a family or community, instead of just joining a “team”. I often see many teams built up by players who think they are, and in many cases are in fact the best players in a game. But because the team is built entirely on the basis of the skill of its members, instead of the basis of the community between the members, as soon as the team starts losing the team dissolves, because the purpose it was formed under (winning alone) is diminished.
However, one thing to consider is that many players enjoy the freedom the anonymity gives them, especially because these organizations do really only exist to play games for recreation, not for anything of major import to society. Many new games have complicated player-tracking information available to other players. An example of this is Counter-Strike and the Steam ID. This is a number that is associated with a player’s account that does not change no matter what their alias is, and is available to anyone on the same server as that player. This number makes it almost impossible to escape being tracked online. This can create a situation similar to the proverbial “best gunslinger” problem in the Old West, where a to player cannot relax and play casually, because another player could join the server looking to “best” them to get recognition within the community. It can also create an issue when a player is part of a team that has its reputation tarnished by another player’s actions. That player will be eternally linked to that organization through their unique identifier, even if they were completely innocent or not involved in the incident that garnered the bad reputation.
And then there’s the question of redemption. There are some players who do things against the community standards, such as hacking or cheating, within a game when young or just starting out, but later want to turn over a new leaf. The unique identifiers allow the formation of “black lists” of players who have violated the community standards. Because of the impersonal nature of the Internet, it becomes even harder to shed the stigma of being placed on one of these black lists than it can be in real life, where ones sincerity can come through in face-to-face interaction.
While the unique identifier effectively solves the issue of anonymity, it does not necessarily facilitate community building the way player-driven solutions do. And this doesn’t include the obvious work-around in most games, where players can simply purchase another copy of the game to get a new unique identifier. In fact, there’s actually a bit of a black market for the Steam ID’s in the example I used above. Users attempt to take the good reputation established by another player as their own, a form of virtual identity theft.
In the end, community building still requires effort on the part of the users themselves, regardless of anonymity. Even in the real world, people can disappear if they really want to, and yet that doesn’t prevent the establishment of trust and the creation of communities. While players may add the tools provided by game developers, such as unique identifiers, to their arsenal when attempting to build successful organizations, true success will come from establishing a sense of belonging and involvement from the players added to the organization, not from relying on unique identifiers to try and look through a person’s history.
In response to Juliana Chang’s Cyber Bullying:
I have to agree with Juliana in the fact that cyber bullying is a pretty serious issue for people now. It takes place in even more environments than expected. Aside from Myspace bullying, another place for example, is the World of Warcraft forums. People on some of these forums that are regulated by Blizzard, have the nerve to ‘flame’ or ‘troll’ another persons’ threads or comments, making unnecessarily rude comments. The oddest part about this is that here the people don’t even know one another and the bullying is usually because of some in game event. A way to fix something like this, where bullying is occurring on a forum that is provided by a company, is for the company to just monitor it. This is just one of those things that would be difficult to get rid of. A course on online etiquette, as suggested by Juliana, might be helpful. Although I do agree that some form of exposure to the topic should be instigated, I’m not sure that it would help that much because a lot of people are still immature, or attention addicts. It really is a problem thing to solve.
In response to #9, “What is a Vital Resource?” by Jacob Rathman:
The Internet has not yet reached the level of “vital resource” in our society, as far as I am concerned. There are no goods and services, especially government goods and services, that can only be provided by the internet. The reason I believe telephones are a vital resource is because of emergency response and emergency management issues, such as fire, police, and hospital services.
Is there even an equivalent to 911 over the internet? A cursory search on Google only reveals articles regarding providing 911 service to the new IP based telephones. Traditionally, 911 calls are able to be handled locally quite easily due to the way telephone routing works. This is not necessarily the case with the internet, in which routing is often parallel and decentralized. You can appear to have the same IP address and be on the opposite side of the globe.
The fact that the U.S. government has not implement a form of internet emergency response is due to a combination of the technical hurdles and the fact that for their purposes, the telephone has shown to be not only adequate but in many cases ideal.
I will concede, however, that in the future the Internet could very well become a “vital resource”, but it is simply not the case right now. There are many governmental services, such as Florida’s unemployment program and many Department of Transportation functions, that while not requiring the Internet, using the online methods are greatly encouraged due to the reduced staffing needs and wait times for citizens it allows.
For me, the test of whether the government should provide subsidies or hand-outs for access to an information resource hinges on whether or not that information resource is necessary for citizens to interact with their government services.
People often perceive a want as a necessity in their lives. They seldom realize how much they would still be able to function, often quite easily, without cell phones and the internet. Cell phones and the internet have provided “instant access” to people and information. But often times this instant access is not necessary to complete goals, and actually causes people to forgo traditional planning. For example: a group of people want to meet up to go to a movie. Before cell phones, they would simply establish a specific time and location to meet up. Now, they just call each other and ask “Where are you?” (or possibly now or in the near future, used their GPS enabled wireless devices to find each other that way). While useful in this situation, was the cell phone a “vital resource”? No. It was merely a convenience.
This is the magnifying glass under which I think all such situations must be looked at. “Was the technology required, or did it merely allow for a lack of coordination or a little convenience?”
Emergency services and traditional land-line telephones pass this test, at least in relatively developed urban and suburban areas, because a person may have genuinely died if the telephone access were not made ubiquitous by government mandate, in order to facilitate access to said government emergency response services.
It’s possible to make this case for cell phones in certain situations (such as very rural areas, or situations where land-line telephones may be down or damaged, although in such cases, often Internet and cell phone access may be blocked, too), but I can’t think of any for the Internet.
Jonathan Nowlin, A Response to a super cool, awesometastic Power Point
A review of a technical nature:
There seems to be a discrepancy between our definitions of “short.” The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas is not a short story; thought provoking, but not short. Also, do not use Arial for body text, it’s a lot harder to read, as it doesn’t have enough differentiation in the individual characters to ease character recognition. There is also a typo on page 8: “there” should be “their.”
Your definition of Tacit Consent was hard to comprehend, perhaps wikipedia could help?
Tacit Consent – Tacit Consent is consent that is inadvertently given through a sign. For example, living in a country and choosing not to move is tacit consent, in that staying is giving authority to the state.
I see now, all the citizens who have not seen the child are giving tacit consent, and those who remain are giving expressed.
You could’ve really made the power point longer and spoon fed us your points and point of view, instead of cramming everything onto page 8, I know this is hypocritical, but knowing and following information is two different schools of thought.
A content related response:
If I understand your text, you seem to write that the actions of those who we unknowingly give our consent to will represent the morality of us all. Normally this would make sense, but what if what would morally represent the consenters would violate what we are suppose to protect? If we were suppose to keep our people alive, but to do so we would have to attack those who are protecting those who are defending those who are trying to kill us. That is D will kill our people, A is defending B, who is defending D, and to stop D we need to get past A and B. But the average moral standing of our people is that we don’t want to fight anyone? Then what should we, the protectors, do?
Should we just wait and let our people writhe in their own folly? Or should we ignore their entrusted morals and save their lives? Are their lives worth living if their principals and moral codes were violated to save them?
I would say yes, as an unexamined life is not worth living, to paraphrase a paraphrased Socrates. If you were dead, you would care? Would anyone else care? Would those who killed you care? If I were alive and knew what was going occurring, would I have to alter my moral believes? Most defiantly, as most moral systems are a theory, and not practical.
For the town of Omelas, where their every wish, desire and need was fulfilled, was there ever an option to release the “it” from its cell? Would you trade your world for the life of one thing, one non-person, one human? If this human weren’t human at all, but a robot that could feel and behave like a person, should this still be allowed?
I would live in the society either way until the majority decided it was wrong and we could live without “it.” My response may be a shallow, utilitarian response, but life isn’t fair as the proverb goes. There will always be those who dwell in obscurity and obscenity so that we, the better off, live our lives the way we have. If you could make it so only 1 (one) suffers so that billions may live our lives, would you not take it? If an entire society were to fall from a Space age to a Cave Man age by releasing 1 human, do we have the moral right to do so? Do our morals have a paradox clause built it that tells us what to do when saving a life will inevitably kill the life we saved?
Indeed Jonathan Nowlin, I see a smiling emoticon-like face
I have now finished reading all the essays, watching all the videos, looking at all the PowerPoints, and writing notes to myself regarding each of these.
The conclusion that I’ve reached is that these are amazingly good examples of the intellectual community that can be built and sustained with reasoned argumentation and careful commentary on the ideas and arguments of others. In fact, this experiment (and it is an experiment in the sense that I moved something for a course off of WebCT for online use) has proven to be a great success, and due to the quality of the work done here, I will use this kind of format again for other class projects and essays.
You will see your grades for this project, and your replies, coming up on WebCT througout the day today (4/22). Thanks to all of you, again, for contributing quality work to this forum for the course. I appreciate that. You will appreciate it, too — in your grades.
No one received less than 75 out of 90 on the projects. All who replied are in good shape, too. In almost all cases, any points lost were for structural errors in writing. If there are points deducted for you that are other than this, you will see a note in WebCT at your grade for this project. Otherwise, if you see no other notes, it is because there were no glaring problems or the commentary that others provided in the discussion were sufficient for the purpose.
PS: I don’t see a smiley on the bottom of the screen anywhere. I wonder what’s up with that?
–NS