Why aren’t you using Adblock? (Reading 07 Response)

I have no ethical concerns with online advertising.  While I, like plenty of other Internet users, feel that online ads are annoying and a tad distracting from the actual content that I was browsing for (seriously, support the Adblock guys and watch your online life change), I personally do not see anything wrong with the current ways companies target ads towards specific user.  Specifically, I do not see an issue with the practice of collecting and performing data analytics on user data such as purchase history, search history, and social media activity in order to discern patterns in users and thus create more accurate profiles for advertisers to work with.  What I do have are some qualms is how much control users ultimately have over their data.

It should really come as no surprise that there is a tradeoff between convenience and surveillance when it comes to online advertising.  After all, we make similar tradeoffs every day when we’re not online.  We allow stores to monitor us on security cameras in exchange for being able to browse their wares.  We allow banks to monitor our accounts in exchange for protection against fraud, identity theft, etc.  We even give up some of our personal freedom in order to be governed and live in the relative safety of society as opposed to, say, endless nights of brutal anarchy.  The issue for most users and for me personally doesn’t lie in the fact that they data is being collected (after all, they are getting access to free services like Gmail in return), but in the fact that they feel as if they are not in control of their data.  This can be seen in the results from a survey by Carnegie Mellon’s Lorrie Cranor and Stanford’s Aleecia McDonald:  users cared less about data privacy when they found out that their data was already being tracked, but were more likely to care about privacy if they were being asked to release some data for tracking (i.e. were losing control).  While companies like Google and Facebook own the user profiles and thus control how the data flows, I do believe that the users still ultimately control their data.  Companies are therefore in a unique position to at least alleviate some of the anxiety that comes with users relinquishing control of their data by being completely transparent about what that data will be used for (similar to what Facebook does now, but with even more detail) and and always giving users to option to opt out.  Even better would be giving users a degree of control such that they can specify what kind of data gets released, e.g. allowing stuff like search history to be tracked while holding back more sensitive information such as credit card purchases.  Once users have given some form of consent the companies would then be free to do as they pleased with the in essence public data, such as sell it to 3rd parties.  The only exception to this would of course be official government warrants requesting user data available to the companies.

As a whole, I find online advertising less invasive and more of a nuisance easily solvable with the plugin Adblock, which allows for a more enjoyable browsing experience free from any distractions.  And for those who question whether or not it is ethical to use tools like NoScript and Adblock, is it unethical to unsubscribe from certain magazines and catalogs whose products you have no interest in?

 

Snowden (Reading 06 Response)

This June will mark 3 years since Edward Snowden, former contractor for the CIA, leaked upwards of millions of documents (so much that the U.S. government and maybe even Snowden himself do not know the exact amount) to the media, exposing the details of the NSA’s extensive internet and phone monitoring.  Some look upon his actions and hail him as a hero, as some champion for data privacy in a world in which 1984-esque governments attempt to find new ways to monitor their citizens or access our private information.  Others see him as a traitor who, in an act of arrogance, “threw the secrets he knew up in the air –  and trusted, somehow, that good would come of it” and should be willing to face the consequences and accept whatever punishment his actions bring, whether that’s jail time or a duel with a Stormtrooper.  I would argue that Snowden is a hero, albeit one whose good intentions were marred by actions that he was either unaware of how harmful they could be or simply believed what harm they caused would ultimately be outweighed by their good.

There is no denying that some good has come from Snowden’s leaks.  American citizens are now fully aware of their government’s monitoring of their private activities and of the fact that these broad stretches/abuses of government power in the name of patriotism actually had not even succeeded once in stopping a terrorist attack.  Snowden in essence opened the eyes of every American citizen and got them off a path of slowly relinquishing their right to privacy under the pretense of protection.  However, it’s how Snowden achieved this (by downloading the documents and handing them off to the media) that is problematic.  While his actions were morally right in that he was shedding light on an abuse of power, they were not entirely ethical in execution and the amount of collateral damage caused.

First is the fact that he went to the media with his information instead of pursuing some other legally viable option, though this can still be forgiven in light of the fact that high ranking government officials in support of the widespread surveillance would have done very little to change their actions.  Second is the fact that Snowden chose to simply collect and then release a massive amount of documents to the media, trusting them to sort through all of the information and report on the important matters.  While it is understandable why he would elect to release that much information instead of a select few documents (while the initial uproar may have been enough to lead to action against whatever practice was leaked, the public would have still been unaware on how pervasive the abuse of power was), doing so gave the media, who is ultimate concern is selling papers/getting views online, the unique opportunity to whip the public into an uproar with each new bit of information disseminated from the leaks.  This has not only place a stigma on the U.S. in terms of foreign relations, but also exposed the inner working of U.S. intelligence to friend and foe alike, weakening America’s economic advantage in foreign markets, and eroding public confidence in the government.

Should he face the consequences of his actions?  In light of the damages his leaks caused, yes, though he’s probably more deserving of the punishments befitting someone who has broken the terms of a contract than an actual traitor.  In my opinion, Snowden’s actions, both heroic and damaging, paint him as a bit of an enigma in my mind, one who’s good deeds might honestly be evenly weighed with his bad.  On one hand, I agree with his opinion that the ability to conduct mass surveillance of ordinary citizens is too much power for one man or organization.  On the other, I still believe that we no longer live in a world where the bad guys where a single uniform and fight on clearly defined battle lines.  The information age has ironically made the world more opaque and we’re fighting wars against beliefs and ideals whose soldiers strike us from the shadows.  I still believe that is where we must do battle.  But with these leaks and the repercussions of Snowden’s actions, I’m afraid the public will swing from one extreme (mass surveillance) to the other (no monitoring whatsoever, both domestic and foreign).  I am by no means arguing for mass surveillance.  Instead, thanks to Snowden, I, and hopefully others in this great nation, am left reflecting about how governments are given power through a social contract in which the governed relinquish some of their freedom in exchange for protection and the benefits of society as a whole.  We as a nation should be working together to help shape our government and create systems which create this balance of personal freedom and general security.

Interview Guide Reflection (Project 02)

This Interview Guide was created by Dinh Do (ddo), Chris Ray (cray), and Nathan Vahrenberg (nvahrenb).

From my experience, the most important sections of the guide are the ones detailing when and how to start preparing for interviews as well as advice on general and alumni networking.  During my internship and job searches I found that being prepared well in advance for an interview (e.g. having brushed up on my OOP, algorithms, data structures, etc. as well as having researched the company and position) was directly related to how calm and confident in my answers I was during the interview itself.  Conversely, for those interviews where I went in having not reviewed some computer science concepts and or only researched the company the night before I often found myself nervous and occasionally struggling to come up a satisfying answer, at least a satisfying answer to me, on the spot.  While I’m not saying that you have to go to Batman levels of preparation in order to nail an interview, doing a little homework in advance can reduce a lot of stress in the moment.

During my most recent job search was often kicking myself for not realizing how important networking was during previous years.  Perhaps the one thing I know now that I wish my younger self understood was how many doors networking can open.  I sometimes wish I could go back in time and tell the younger me, “Don’t look at it like you’re playing some stupid game of kissing up to people.  Look at it as a proto-interview, a chance to know a company, employee, recruiter, etc. in a more casual setting and jump-start the whole interview process since the employer will already somewhat know you.”  Perhaps that greatest bit of advice about networking (though perhaps it would better be described as an amusing anecdote) I have ever heard was from my mentor at an internship one summer:  “I’ve had interviews where I’d already met the guy.  I knew I wanted to hire him so we spent the whole time talking football.”

While there is and will most likely always be a high demand for engineers, I feel as if most engineering students (and by extension college students)these days are trying to focus on classes and activities that they know will beef up their resumes while universities not traditionally geared towards sending people into industry seem to gear their curricula towards academia.  I am by no means saying that one side is better than the other, but am instead wondering if there are universities that offer students the choice between gearing their college path towards industry or academia.  If universities gave students a path that would prepare them for industry, such as by offering classes on modern day industry practices or chances to alternate between working and studying during semesters in order to gain valuable experience, I feel as though those students would be able to enter the professional world with significantly greater advantages than we have today.  For example, the Notre Dame CSE program could offer the chance for students to work during odd semesters and study during even semesters in order to gain industry experience as well as offer classes to those students who are confident that they want to enter the job market a wider array of business classes, classes in the most commonly used languages in industry, classes on how to develop startups/new product ideas, etc.

Remembering Challenger (Reading 05 Response)

January 28, 2016 marked the 30-year anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.  The events of that day are well documented for the most part:  73 seconds into the flight the shuttle broke apart, leading to the deaths of all 7 crew members.  The cause of this disaster, one so costly and devastating that it grounded the shuttle program for 3 years,  is two-fold.

First, from an engineering perspective, there’s failure of the O-ring seal of the shuttle’s right solid rocket booster (SRB).  When subjected to low temperatures (< 50 degrees F) such as those present on the day of the launch, the O-rings become brittle and can no longer form the necessary seal  This material failure allowed pressurized, high-temperature gas to leak from the SRB and impinge on the shuttle’s external tank (ET), leading to the complete structural failure of the system.

Second is the fact that the shuttle was even allowed to launch in the first place.  Engineers at Morton Thiokol, the NASA contractor who had manufactured the SRB’s, had warned about the risk the cold weather the morning of the launch posed and even recommended waiting until it was at least 54 degrees F before launch.  Despite these warnings and recommendation, NASA managers decided to proceed with the launch.  From Nasa’s perspective, launching a shuttle carrying the first U.S. civilian into space with millions of Americans would demonstrate the value of the shuttle program in the eyes of American government and public.  From Nasa’s perspective, the possibility of O-ring failure wasn’t hazardous enough to warrant serious concern.

Roger Boisjoly, one the Morton Thiokol engineers who had warned NASA about the launch, would later pass on his personal files to the Rogers Commission, which was assigned to investigate the Challenger disaster, as well as secretly meet with an NPR reporter to disclose details of the problems at Morton Thiokol.  These acts not only branded him as a whistleblower, but also left him shunned by his colleagues, cut off from any space-related work by Thiokol, and blackballed from the space industry by NASA.  In essence, his life became a living hell.  But was it worth it?

While the hindsight offered by looking back at the Challenger disaster 30 years later would place Boisjoly firmly on the moral high ground for reporting his findings to the public, would his actions still be ethically sound in the context of 1986?  In short, yes.  Boisjoly’s passing on his files to the Rogers Commission did not involve going outside of approved channels in order to raise legitimate concerns about safety and well-being.  Even the seemingly ethically ambiguous act of meeting with the NPR reporter 3 months after the disaster was still in the right as his request for anonymity left it out of the public eye.  Boisjoly unmistakably did the right thing in handing over his information.  Why would it be ethically wrong for an engineer to hand over information that would help identify the cause of a disaster (one that has already happened mind you) and hopefully help prevent future disasters?  That’s basically telling engineers to go against everything that have been trained to do in order to protect their careers.

If there was any ethical wrongdoing committed during the investigation into the Challenger disaster, it would definitely rest with Morton Thiokol and NASA’s actions towards Boisjoly.  Again, Boisjoly had acted within approved channels.  The only “crime” he had committed was not submitting to the groupthink and providing evidence that painted those organizations in a bad light.  The fact that NASA and Thiokol reacted with such magnitude only makes them look even worse in light of the disaster, like a child throwing a fit when he finds out he’s in trouble.  Not only was it unethical in the fact that undue harm was caused to Boisjoly for doing nothing wrong, it was unethical in again perpetuating a culture of trying to find excuses not to act (and thus protect careers) as opposed to genuinely trying to protect customers.

Boisjoly’s story is an example of both the good and bad aspects of whistleblowing.  Whistleblowing is good in that it exposes unethical and possibly dangerous practices, leading to public scrutiny, organizational overhauls, etc, all of which ultimately lead to safer products and more well protected customers.  It’s bad in that company cultures will most likely shun the whistleblower for going against the flow and rocking the boat, the magnitude of the retaliation depending on the legal avenues which the company has at is disposal (i.e. the company will probably take different actions depending on whether or not the whistleblower acted within approved channels).  Whistleblowers can therefore seen as a weird mix of saint, martyr, and vigilante, sacrificing themselves so that we the customers may live a better life.  They either die a hero, or live long enough to see themselves become the villain…

ubuntu (Reading Response 04)

Yes, I am fully aware that the title of this post in the context of computer science most commonly refers to one of the most popular Linux distributions.  However, the “ubuntu” I am referring to in the title is the South African philosophy of “human-ness,” “humanity towards others,” or the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.”  I chose this title because I firmly believe that this philosophy can be applied to more than just great open-source software.  I believe that people practicing “ubuntu” could help solve one of the tech industry’s biggest problems:  the lack of diversity.

Let’s start off by asking the question:  is there really a diversity problem in the tech industry?  Well, if the relatively recent release of Google’s workforce demographics is anything to go by, then the answer is a solid yes.  Is this an issue that really needs to be addresses?  Well, the fact that several major tech companies are making efforts to improve the diversity of their workforce certainly points to it being a problem that needs solving.  But if we want to attempt to resolve this issue, we must first understand where this imbalance in demographics comes from.  Let me preface this next section by saying that these are just some of my opinions as to why the lack of diversity in tech has arisen, which I have formed through both the readings as well as my personal experience.  I realize that my perspective on life will not fully cover the full range of experiences felt by everyone in the tech industry who feels the effect of this lack of diversity and I welcome and encourage additional view points and discussions.

One of the major factors that contributes to the imbalance in demographics in tech is the set of stereotypes associated with the tech industry, e.g. pale, socially awkward nerds with a love for gaming, D&D, etc. who have been coding for most of their life.  There’s even a whole show dedicated to satirizing all of these stereotypes!

I’ve mentioned before how the real danger of stereotypes isn’t the stereotypes themselves, but the lack of awareness of their presence and using them for discrimination.  The stereotypes about the tech industry and community are no exception.  In this case, the lack of awareness of how harmful the current stereotypes of the tech industry really are as well as the media’s constant perpetuation of those stereotypes have pushed away many great, intelligent people who wold have thrived in the supposed meritocracy of Silicon Valley.  We now have scenarios where students are choosing to study other fields because they feel they won’t fit in with the hackers (less people study computer science = less people entering industry = less innovation = ??? = less profit) or, in the worst case, people are being actively discriminated against by either being passed over for job opportunities or being the subject of racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks simply because they “don’t fit the culture.”

Not only are minorities and women facing these obstacles created by the tech industry stereotypes, they also face the added pressure to “overcome” their negative stereotypes to even be considered on par with their coworkers.  Victor Foreman felt it while searching for internships in Silicon Valley.  On a more personal note, I have a friend who faces this “stereotype threat” everyday here at Notre Dame.  I’ve comforted them while they broke down in tears from the pressure to perform at a level where, in their mind, they can prove to everyone around them that they actually belong at this school.  Even though they are one of the smartest, most thoughtful individuals I have ever had the privilege of meeting, I’ve helped them through sleepless nights, panic attacks, and multiple discussions of just throwing in the towel and dropping out because they are afraid of reinforcing negative stereotypes.  It’s absolutely heartbreaking to see it happen in front of you and to realize that it happens to many other people as well.

So what needs to change?  The way I see it, there needs to be a set of short term solutions to try and remedy the current diversity issues with the tech industry as well as a set of long term solutions to ensure that these issues die out with time.  The short term solutions would work to create a more accepting environment for all people, removing the “stereotype threat.”  Programs like Google in Residence and Code2040 or even simple acts like creating codes of conduct to establish guidelines of acceptable behavior would hopefully create the safe, collaborative learning environments that foster the innovation and growth necessary for the Valley’s meritocracy.  The long term solutions are about providing everyone with an interest in tech with the resources needed to develop their skills as well as working to redefine the stereotypes associated with the tech industry to make a career in Silicon Valley more appealing to all, such as Harvey Mudd’s strategy for increasing the number of women computer science majors.

All in all, solving the issue of diversity in the tech industry comes back to ubuntu.  If we all work together to create an environment of sharing and uplifting all people who surround us…  well not to sound stereotypical, but we would be making the world a better place.  Take it away Tommy Wiseau…

 

Balance (Reading Response 03)

Going through the readings for this week was…  Okay let’s be honest, it was kind of depressing.  Reading both posts by the Slaughter family (cool name by the way) made me think that perhaps it’s impossible for men and women to “have it all,” to strike that magical balance between climbing the career ladder while maintaining your idyllic family life.  Not gonna lie, this is an issue I’ve also grappled with in my personal life, having turned down the chance to interview for a job position after learning that the job would require changing positions, most likely with relocation, every 6 months.  I know what you must be thinking:  “But you’re young and mobile!  You shouldn’t be thinking about settling down right now!”  To that I have…  nothing really to say.  I have no comeback or witty response.  All I can do is shrug and say, “Sorry, but my family will ultimately always come first.”

So it seems we’re at an impasse.  On one hand I feel the pull of the tech industry to be constantly giving everything I have to my work.  On the other, I feel the budding paternal drive to be present in my family’s life.  Though I do believe that achieving a perfect balance between work and life is impossible, unless of course you are some superhuman with unlimited energy and no need to sleep, I do believe it is possible for men and women to reach a balance that is suitable for their particular lives, but will ultimately involve sacrifices on either side.  Being available for your kid’s adolescent years might mean sacrificing a more prestigious position.  Maintaining an executive position might mean careful coordination with your significant other.  The point I’m trying to make is that men and women should prioritize what is most important to them, and then shape their lives around those priorities.  As a mentor at a previous internship once told me, “Work life balance isn’t something that magically happens, it’s something you make for yourself.”  When it’s time for me to start my career and family, I’ll take the time to reflect on my priorities and decide what sacrifices need to be made to achieve a balance I am comfortable living with.

On that point, I think companies should do what they can to accommodate workers and the priorities they set for their lives, e.g. a mother should NEVER be punished for choosing to have children and stay home to raise them during some of the most critical stages in their development.  Companies like Facebook and Google are already making strides in this area by providing things like generous maternal and paternal leave, “baby cash,” etc., but I think these are only bandaids, temporary solutions to a much larger problem.  What really needs to change is the general attitude towards treating work as the “be all end all” of life, not just in tech but across all industries.  Doing so proactively as opposed to waiting for the leaders of industries to age and start families of their own would result in many of the issues involving work life balance being solved or at least significantly reduced.

As to whether or not companies today are ethically obliged to help their workers achieve work life balance, I couldn’t say for sure.  After all, a company’s goal is to produce the best product possible and it makes sense to strive for a workforce composed of only the best.  What I will say is this:  Look at Google.  Google shows that you can still be competitive while maintaining a happy workforce.