No taste whatsoever

From the readings and in your experience, what ethical concerns (if any) do you have with online advertising? How is it performed and what methods are utilized to aggregate and analyze information? Considering the Internet meme that If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold: What protections should companies provide over user data? Who owns that data and who controls it? Should companies be able to sell that data to third parties? Should they share the information with the government when requested? Do find online advertising too invasive or tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools?

I recently heard We Know What You Did on Reply All, where the inventor of online popup ad discussed its history and apologized for the unpredicted advertising chaos that ensued. Online advertising has accompanied the entire history of the world wide web as a solution to the free service that many websites provided, and by now it’s almost the business plan for every popular internet company: provide free contents and generate revenue through ads. Since we’re enjoying the free service provided by all the internet companies, it’s hard to argue against the point of view, that we should watch ads online.

But I confess: as I’m writing this blog post, I’m currently using uBlock to block unwanted online ads, and Ghostery to block trackers. I have whitelisted a few websites on which ads don’t distract me, but for the most part, I hate online advertising.

I have no problem watching ads, though. I’m fascinated by the advertising industry (and I wanted to work in it for a long while), and I don’t click “skip” on interesting YouTube ads. Ads themselves are not the problem—many people subscribe to magazines like GQ and Vogue, which are packed with hundreds of pages of fashion ads; even more people watch the Super Bowl, many just for the ads.

I’m not against companies learning about me (as long as they’re not personally identifiable) if the ads they push to me are relevant, well-designed, and not distracting. I whitelist websites for this exact reason—some websites accept only high-quality ads that are relevant to their contents, and I’m happy to see them flourish. But when websites shove total garbage in my face, I don’t think they can blame me for using ad and tracker blockers.

The root problem with online ads is that they have no taste whatsoever. Traditional print and TV ads are instruments for educating desire; online ads are tools to make money. They’re an afterthought, a damage control mechanism, an utterly undesigned stew of greed. And to compensate for this lack of design, companies try to collect data about the users and “tailor” the ads to their interest, while in reality, these tailored ads rarely interest me either. It’s only creepy when I added a headphone to my cart on Amazon some day, and the next day an ad about the same headphone popped up on my Facebook timeline. No thought went into the creation of these ads; online ad platforms are developed to maximize exposure, rather than to stimulate interest.

You know what else works this way, by maximizing exposure rather than curating content? Emails from Nigerian princes.

It’s an international affair

From the readings and in your opiniong, should technology companies implement backdoors in their products for the benefit of the government? Are companies like Apple ethically responsible for protecting the privacy of their users or are they ethically responsible for helping to prevent violent or harmful activities that their platforms may enable? How are these two conflicting goals to be balanced in a world of free-flowing communication and extreme terrorism?

If you are against government backdoors, how do you response to concerns of national security? Isn’t save lives or protecting our nation worth a little less individual privacy. How do you counter the argument: If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear?

The argument to unlock the iPhone in the San Bernardino case is clever. The FBI requested a very narrow court order, asking Apple to modify iOS and install the modified software on one specific device. According to the request, Apple doesn’t need to directly crack the code; and aside from the one copy Apple provides the FBI, they could and should keep the software from being released in public.

This seems reasonable enough, and many people believe the FBI, supported by the White House, is requiring this software to protect our safety, to fight an honorable cause, so they think Apple should comply, creating this backdoor to Make America Great. But by asking for this new software with the backdoor, invoking the 1789 All Writs Act, the FBI is effectively compelling Apple to become an extension of law enforcement, simply because the suspect is using software developed by Apple. If it becomes court precedent, it has looming dangerous consequences—because of the ubiquity of software today, any technology company could fall prey to it. In any future case that involves a locked iPhone or an encrypted Gmail inbox, this precedent may apply. “Do we want to accept that courts may compel any software developer, any technology manufacturer, to become a forensic investigator for the government[?]”

Technology companies are ethical in assisting law enforcement by providing data, but such help shouldn’t require compromising their own systems, or undermining the premise of their business.

Furthermore, it’s important to realize that America doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and Apple is not solely an American company. It’s an international affair—other governments in the world, including Russia and China, could require Apple to hand over the same user data to assist their law enforcement, just as the U.S. government could. When the group owning the backdoor has a different interest than our own, how should we respond? When China has access to backdoors to devices owned by American citizens through Lenovo and Huawei, why is the U.S. government, the same group that demanded new “American” backdoors, justified in harshly criticizing those “Chinese” backdoors? Using the same counter-terrorism argument, the Chinese government has passed a law requiring foreign firms to provide secret keys to decrypt data—why is this Chinese law different?

I’m deeply disappointed by the aforementioned Chinese law, and now I’m troubled to imagine the same practice happening all around the world. As a non-American citizen, my direct interest isn’t involved in the San Bernardino case—I can’t find any document regulating American intelligence groups’ spying on me, and it’s been debated whether I have the full set of constitutional rights that American citizens have (although the debate is usually around undocumented immigrants). But if we allow the U.S. government to access this backdoor, it’s easy to imagine that other governments would want the same level of access. It’s terrifying to imagine a world, where I’m subject to the same level of surveillance wherever I go.

The same could be said for any American citizen. In an attempt to make the U.S. safer by weakening Apple’s encryption system, the FBI is in fact handing a vulnerability to everyone interested in undermining the safety of the U.S., “weaken[ing] the privacy of all Americans.”

In general, handing personal data to the government is dangerous, no matter which government is in question. We protect our privacy not because we have secrets to hide from the government, but because we shouldn’t trust the government in the first place. By giving out our data, we become much more vulnerable to intentional or unintentional data leaks, organized governmental wrongdoing, etc.

By giving up data, we’re giving up control.

Play

What were your favorite toys or stories or movies growing up? What lessons did these things provide? Did they reinforce or promote certain gender roles or expectations? What influence did these things have in your life?

How does your proposed idea compare to your childhood favorites? Is it important that toys or stories or movies be inclusive or gender neutral? How important is for children to be exposed to STEM or positive gender roles/expectations at an early age?

(it’s cool that a girl narrated this video; how stereotype-defying)

When I was 4 years old, my father bought me this exact electronic toy set. It was like lego blocks with wires and electronic components in them, and it came with a helpful illustrated booklet with some 50 simple circuit diagrams. I had no idea what AC or DC means, neither did I know how the tiny light bulbs work, but by following the instructions in the booklet, I was able to make a light bulb glow. I was ecstatic.

This set accompanied me for many years, until I moved across the country to live with my mother. By that time, I was able to read some simple circuit diagrams, and could build simple structures like a doorbell without consulting the booklet. I knew that electricity flows from the “plus” side to the “minus” side, and that if you put two bulbs in a row, both of them go dimmer. These knowledge eventually helped me greatly in middle school—in physics class, when my classmates were struggling to understand how those tiny electrons flow through the wires, I was drawing diagrams and designing complex circuits, as my teacher stood in awe.

It did reinforce the “boys like lego” stereotype that my parents bought this set for me, and that I enjoyed the electronic toy set; but I learned a lot from it, which helped me one way or another in my life. Even today, I still have an obsession over toys—I have an Infinite Tree in my dorm room, and I change its pattern every few days as a creative exercise.

But it’s important for toys to be gender-neutral, because they give all children an opportunity to discover what they like, which may set the course for their future development. Especially with STEM-promoting toys; if these toys are gender-neutral, maybe more girls will be able to gain an understanding of the STEM fields at an early age, which may help solve the gender imbalance in today’s tech world in the long run.

For our project, our industrial designer Meghan took the lead in designing a gorgeous set of toy blocks, “DecoBlocks.” We were extra careful balancing stereotypical gender roles: any child can use the set to build both 3-dimensional structures and 2-dimensional patterns, and the colors we used are largely gender-neutral—both boys and girls will enjoy building with these blocks.

They aren’t as high-tech as my electronic block set, but they appeal to the more creative side of me. I know that by playing with it, I’ll be able to get a better hold of shapes, patterns, and structures, which would benefit both my art/design and engineering sides.

The best part of toys and games is that they educate people subconsciously. When we play, we’re actively engaged and highly sensitive to the information we learned; and even if we fail, we wouldn’t second guess our own abilities. Why isn’t classroom education more like play?

Is there an alternative option?

From the readings, what is your opinion of Chelsea/Bradley Manning‘s decision to leak sensitive information to WikiLeaks and his subsequent sentencing? Is what he did ethical or did he violate his duty? Should he have been protected under the Whistleblower protection laws? Is he a revolutionary hero or a traitor?

Chelsea Manning seemed deeply unhappy. She was lonely, misunderstood, distant from her family, troubled by her Army service, confused by her own identity, and scared of the repercussions of her leaks. She was in desperate need of a friend, a person who would listen. She didn’t seem capable at the time to blow a meaningful whistle.

I’m not an American citizen, nor am I familiar with codes and policies in the U.S. army, so I don’t feel qualified to weigh in on the “hero or traitor” debate; but to me, Manning’s actions were, as said by many, reckless. For example, in “Cablegate“, she leaked over a quarter million diplomatic cables, citing “open diplomacy” as the reason she did it, when in fact, her actions have exposed the U.S. position on many diplomatic issues. Even in her chat log with Adrian Lamo, she has exposed information that shouldn’t go outside of the U.S. army. She has clearly done something wrong.

In general and in principle, I’m all for carefully calculated whistleblowing, where the whistleblower puts the public interest before their own safety, and reveals something disturbing to the public. But in the case of Cablegate, if the public believes that the Department of State and U.S. diplomats are competent and dutiful, why would they be interested in daily trivialities of U.S. foreign policy? Even the documents about Guantanamo Bay, Afghan, and Iraq are too distant to be provoking to the public. Chelsea Manning clearly made an uncalculated move, one that endangers herself without bearing any meaningful, widely-debated fruit. Futile.

Her sentence, on the other hand, was harsh. It seems counterintuitive to charge an American citizen, who has the public interest of the U.S. in mind, with a law that was enacted to combat enemies of the public interest of the U.S. The Espionage Act makes it especially difficult for any American citizen to uncover classified, systematic wrongdoing of government agencies. The ACLU was rightfully worried: “[w]hen a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.” And the whistleblower protection laws didn’t help either. For the U.S. intelligence community, only when there is a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, will the whistleblowers be protected. This seems dangerous: who could the whistleblowers count on to protect them? They’ll less likely voice their concerns, fearing retaliation.

But the meta question is, if the general public is not interested in some wrongdoing of the government, whose responsibility is it to correct them? If the average American is not worried about the U.S. army hurting or killing innocents in Afghan or Iraq, how do we stop or minimize these casualties? Do we gradually send the message up the ladder, hoping someone higher up with a sense of justice will help? Is there an alternative option?

 

Utopia at last‽

From the readings and in your opinion, are Codes of Conduct necessary for technology companies, organizations, and communities? Do they serve a valid purpose or are they just another form of political correctness? What do you make of some of the Codes of Conduct above? What jumps out at you as reasonable and what seems unreasonable?

Should technology communities be concerned about things and thoughts other than technology? I guess I should rephrase it—is it possible for technology communities to avoid talking about things other than technology?

It makes sense for codes of conduct to exist, because they provide a baseline for acceptable speech in the communities. I don’t doubt the good intentions behind codes of conduct, but it’s incredibly hard to define their proper boundary. Oftentimes, the codes, as pointed out by the anonymous response, are based on a libertarian philosophy, that whatever someone is doing, as long as they don’t hurt other people, is none of our business.

But many codes go so far as to specify that people shouldn’t “offend” each other, intentional or not. This is, however, an incredibly, dangerously low bar, because it’s arbitrarily subjective to the listener. If I’m a vegetarian and someone jokes about vegetarians, is it better to directly confront them about their thoughts, or is it better to silence them? These codes of conduct try to be open about the communities’ standard of speech, but by silencing arbitrarily “offensive” opinions, they’re potentially destructive to meaningful discussions around touchy issues.

It’s ironic to see the anonymous developer masking their own identity, hiding from retribution. If the codes of conduct are truly about protecting people, does it protect this developer, who had done no wrong to their peers? It sounds like a tool for silencing dissent, for bypassing any discussion at all, for executing the will of “the community.”

These codes of conduct are written by human, too. They’re not magical spells that generate rainbows and sunshine and happiness—they’re inherently political.

In a way, they work the same way as the recent “right not to be offended” movement in US colleges. Micro-aggressions are real, but demanding the offenders to be silenced doesn’t lead to a shared understanding of the situation. Especially in colleges, where everyone is constantly seeing each other for many years, avoiding these confrontations doesn’t change anyone’s opinions. To create an environment where the minorities are truly welcomed, silence is not an option—dialogue is.

So in my mind, a reasonable code of conduct would be a running, constantly-amended historical document. We collect discussions around touchy issues, and outline what the community agreed to be unacceptable. Violators are allowed to explain and discuss their actions. They’re like laws, and everyone is a lawmaker.

Utopia at last!

I guess I’m assuming a basis that we are all commonsensical creatures, capable of meaningful discussions, while the anonymous online communities are constantly overflowing with hate. It’s a depressing thought, but does my imagination only apply to the real world, where people can actually talk? Does it apply anywhere at all?