Reading 10

Net Neutrality, also known as “Open Internet”, is the concept that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally (assuming it is legal). This means that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot slow down access to certain sites, or provide faster connections to other sites. A common example is Netflix, where some service providers have been requiring Netflix to pay fees in order to ensure that customers receive fast access to the streaming site. Net Neutrality forbids this kind of behavior, as all traffic must be treated equally. To ensure this, Net Neutrality proponents want government regulation of internet providers that provides explicit rules on what is and is not legal for ISPs to do with regard to their traffic. Proponents claim that preserving a free flow of traffic on the internet is essential to the good of the users, and to support technology businesses. They are concerned that if traffic is allowed to be prioritized, then this will hurt innovation as the barrier of entry for new competitors, such as technology startups, will be extraordinarily high. It would have been extremely difficult for Google/Facebook/LinkedIn/etc to rise in popularity if they had needed to pay for users to be able to access their services on the internet. On the flip side, opponents are concerned with heavy-handed government regulation. They think that if the space is regulated too much, it will stagnate as companies find it difficult to make business cases for new technologies.

 

Personally, I firmly believe in the concept of Net Neutrality. From a customer perspective, I am paying for access to the internet, not access to particular sites. I do not want to have my access to lawful sites be determined by my service provider. Also, as an engineer who enjoys working on new and interesting ideas, the startup argument speaks to me. I think that the steps taken by the FCC with the new proposed rules are a great way to start enforcing net neutrality. The idea of classifying ISPs as common carriers seems logical to me, as the internet is as ubiquitous today as landline telephones have been in the past.

 

There is of course a danger here of over-regulation of the internet industry. The internet is known for being a free spirited area where anything is possible. However, I think the current proposals strike a good balance here, and provide for a very soft hand in regulation that provides for the bare necessities. As The Verge reports, the FCC has not applied over 700 of the rules for telephone carriers to ISPs. As for the idea that this puts an undue burden on the companies, treating all traffic as equal is actually easier from a technical perspective. It requires no extra work to treat all traffic the same. While it may bring in more profit for the companies to make deals to favor traffic, it also requires more engineering work. I also do not really see the argument that it will hinder innovation. The goal of net neutrality is to allow the internet to continue to grow as it has been for the past 20 years. As content types change user demands, infrastructure will continue to evolve to support this.

Project 03

Our letter to Senator John Kasich can be found on Casey Hanley’s blog: https://caseyhanleyethics.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/letter-to-government-representative-regarding-encryption/

 

I do not think encryption is a right, but rather that privacy is. Encryption is a tool to protect this right in the modern world, and so should be protected in the same way that right is. Just as citizens have free speech to speak out against their government, they should also have encryption to protect their private thoughts from that same government. Not having a safe place to discuss ideas will severely hamper the free exchange and discussion of free thought, something upon which the United States was founded and prides itself. Therefore, the right to privacy, and through it encryption, should be protected by the government for the people.

 

Unfortunately, to me encryption is not that important of a political issue. This is not because I do not think it needs to be discussed (it definitely does), but rather that I see very few politicians who are willing or even capable of having a realistic conversation about it. I should definitely be supporting the idea, and general technical literacy, much more than I do. I believe this is at least in part due to the fact that I, being a young computer science major, spend most of my time with people who are aware of how the technology works and what the implications of compromising it are.

 

While there may seem to be a competition between privacy and national security, I do not necessarily view it that way. To me, it is of a more cyclical nature. New types of privacy will continue to arise as new mediums do, just as the concern over digital privacy has arisen in the past 50 years. Along with those, new technologies will also come to light to protect these new technologies. The law will always be one step behind this process, as is the nature of the judiciary process. Therefore, there will be a continuous game of cat and mouse between the law and the goal of protecting the nation, and the new technologies that are being developed. This process can be seen on a smaller scale in the evolution of “secure” encryption algorithms – as algorithmic flaws are located, new algorithms are developed, and the race begins again. This will continue on both a micro and macro scale, for example, with the eventual advent of quantum computing putting prime-based cryptographic algorithms out of commission. The only way that one side will win is if the other gives up or is forced to stand down. I do not see this happening any time soon – there are passionate people on both sides of the debate, and more importantly, the creation of new algorithms is an essential part of the technical innovation that the United States prides itself on so much. To hold back the encryption side of this chase would be to handicap the technology companies that are doing so much for the economy, and thus give other companies and countries an opportunity to surpass them.

Reading 09

The DMCA, of course, is not encouraging of piracy. It requires the endorsement of anti-circumvention measures such as the Rovi copy protection system. It condemns the circumvention of protections as an illegal act. The safe harbor

 

I believe that downloading or sharing copyrighted works or information can be ethical, but it depends on the situation. I have no problem with people downloading digital copies of works that they already own. This of course applies to movies, but also extends to things such as old video games and emulated games. I do not buy the “sampling” argument as a legitimate excuse, as I believe that it would be a slippery slope. Once you have it and enjoy it, why acquire it legitimately? Where this argument becomes interesting is in sharing content that you own, either digitally or in another medium. No one would have a problem with someone lending their copy of a DVD to a friend, but is providing someone a digital copy also ethical? I believe that it is, as what that person does with it once you provide it is not in the provider’s hands. Assuming that the provider has a reasonable belief that this person will act ethically and return or destroy the media once finished, it would be ethical for them to share it.

 

In high school, we participated in a program where every student had a tablet computer (in the days when tablet meant you could draw on the screen with a pen) to use for classes to take notes and complete assignments. These computers were naturally also used for entertainment, and games could often spread quickly through the student body. Oftentimes, they would be free games, such as Bloons. Other times however, they were paid games. Frankly, I don’t know where I stand on the ethicality of this. I do not think that many students would have paid for the games, so I do not think there is much lost business here. If anything, it was good publicity for the development studios, and I would hope they gained some new life-long fans from the sharing. On the other hand, the software was often distributed in a very care free manner, which didn’t quire feel right to me.

 

At the end of the day, I do not believe that piracy is a major problem today. I agree with the mindset that has been shared by many writers online in the last few years – that those who pirate movies or software are not really lost sales. The people who are pirating movies would not have paid for the same movie, so there is not a lost sale here. Further, they are serving as more advertising for the work, as they will see it and tell friends. Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner Cable, has a similar mindset, saying “Our experience is, it all leads to more penetration, more paying subs, more health for HBO, less reliance on having to do paid advertising… that’s better than an Emmy” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/01/24/whatever-happened-to-the-war-on-piracy/#773e24e47820). Furthermore, as mainstream streaming services make content easier to access, I believe that piracy will decrease. The accessibility factor is very important for many casual pirates, as a simple download is much easier than a drive to a store or waiting for a package to arrive. I know I personally would be generally more inclined to pay for a work than to pirate it if it were easy to acquire, through a Netflix type service, instead of requiring me to go to the store to find it.

Reading 08

In general, the goal of a copyright is to protect a work by giving its author or creator the ability to control who can use and distribute it, according to WIPO. The main ethical / societal goal of distributing and protecting copyrights is to encourage creators to practice their art. If there were no protections in place, it would be difficult for artists or companies to actually make a profit or other gains off of the work, as it could be distributed freely once a copy was released.

 

I think it is difficult to describe open or closed source software as “better” as that is such a vague descriptor. They both have theirs strengths and their weaknesses. The major benefit of open source software that I see from a quality standpoint is that it is available for public scrutiny. This is useful, for example, in cryptography cases, where having the code available for anyone to read can help prevent bugs that would weaken the strength of the software. On the flip side, the benefit of closed source software is that it is more difficult to locate the bugs that may exist, as the code cannot be easily analyzed. This realistically means that proprietary software can get away with more bugs and other issues in the software, as they may not manifest themselves or be exploited as easily. Ultimately, no software, no matter the methodology or the rigor put into it, can be perfect. I think it is even difficult to choose one as generally better, because to me it really seems to be a question that needs to be posed on a case by case basis.

 

I think the distinction between free software and open source is more of a mindset issue than a classification issue. This is something Stallman touches on lightly in his writings, pointing out that they both describe an almost identical group of software. Of the two licenses mentioned, I actually think the BSD license is the more free. Because the GPL attempts to preserve freedom by requiring people to also release the modified software as free, it is actually imposing burdens on the users of the programs and thus limiting their freedom. This also restricts many groups ability to use the software, who for any number of reasons, cannot release the software they create as open source. If I am trying to create software for good, I would want that software to be useable by as many people as possible, so I would choose the BSD license.

 

I believe that of all organizations, the ones that should be endorsing open source software the most are governments and public organizations. These are groups that, by definition, are for the people. The tools that they create are all intended to help the populace. A great way to accomplish that goal is to also release the code behind those tools. I realize that this may not be a practical goal for all software created, as some software depends on the secrecy of its implementation. However, releasing the source code is something that should always be on the mind of organizations, and acted upon whenever possible. When groups make use of existing open source projects, I think that they have an obligation to give back to that community. This can be simple, such as bug fixes or publicity. It can also go further, such as taking partial ownership or committing extended man-hours to support the project. This is mutually beneficial, as the company is enhancing the software for its own use, as well as supporting the project and building rapport with the community at large.

Reading 07

In today’s world, many technology companies work on the business model of providing services to users at no monetary cost. Instead, they require a price of information, which they can collect and categorize, to use for various purposes. I actually do not have a problem with this concept as an economic model, especially considering the immense value that users often get from these “free” services. This model allows all people, regardless of socio-economic status (to a point) to share in the same valuable products and services, as all people have valuable information to share. It is a little scary how quickly and pervasively this new setup has entered our modern world, but overall I believe that it will open the door to the betterment of both parties. The ethical concerns arise when that data is put to use, such as in online advertising.

 

As a concept, I also have no issue with targeted advertising. It benefits both the advertisers, who will see a much improved interaction rate, and the consumer, who will see adds that are actually relevant to them. I understand that some people are uncomfortable or annoyed with being advertised to in general, and that’s ok. For those who do not shut off the advertising systems, I believe that they would rather see interesting adds than things that have no real meaning or value to them. The ethical issue that arises then is providing adds in an appropriate manner, and using the personal data in an ethical manner. Unfortunately, many advertisers seem to employ various tactics that are designed to force the user to pay attention. This can take the form of a large pop-up ad, an annoying sound, or difficult closure method, for instance. It is unethical in my opinion for advertisers to craft ads that are deliberately disruptive, deceitful, or unintuitive. This is not in line with the expectation of the sites that display these advertisements, which rely on them to maintain a good user experience. If the ads are poor, then the user experience goes down, and the entire value of the site goes with it. Therefore, intrusive ads are a long-term loss for both parties. Therefore, advertisers are obligated to themselves, their providers, and their users, to create pleasant, effective ad experiences.

 

The other ethical concern with advertising is the acquisition and use of data. As I have mentioned above, I do not have a problem with companies collecting data. I do however believe there should be more governance on how that data should be handled, protected, and distributed. The thought of selling this data to other parties concerns me, especially when such a marketplace has little to no regulation. I would much prefer for my data to stay in the hands of the company that collects it, as they are the ones I have made the “transaction” with. Even for only that company, there are ways to utilize this data effectively, as can be seen with the success of Google’s Adwords program. However, I realize that this kind of system puts smaller companies at a disadvantage, as in order to collect meaningful data, you must collect from a large set of users. Therefore, I would like to see more rules applied to keep data that is sold or transferred anonymized to protect privacy. It will be important to have the ability to keep companies accountable, and punish poor business practices in this regard as can be done in other industries, such as the stock market.