Introduction

Welcome to L&I SCI 120 - Information Technology Ethics for UWM Spring 2012 semester. 

Students must submit reading response blog entries three times over the course of the semester.  

Each submission must be 350-700 words, properly cited, and use correct grammar and spelling.  These entries are meant to keep your reactions, questions, perspectives, surprises, disappointments, etc., to the readings and to class discussions. I encourage you to comment on each other’s posts.  The following are some guide questions to approach in yourl entries:

What in the readings engaged you the most? The least?

• What happened in class this week surprised you the most? Why?
• What did you learn this week from the readings and/or class discussion?
• How will you take what you learned this week into your everyday life?
• Will anything you learned this week cause you to change your technology behaviors?
• Have you discussed anything from this week with your peers, family, friends, etc? If so, describe your conversation.

In order to receive credit for your posts, they must be complete, thoughtful, and on time. Your writing should demonstrate that you have a thorough understanding of the week’s topic and readings.

Due dates:

February 19 (must discuss material between weeks 1 and 4)
March 18 (must discuss material between weeks 5 and 8)
April 22 (must discuss material between weeks 9 and 13)

 

Below I've provided an introductory prezi-tation to get us oriented.  I will also do video lectures throughout the semester. 

Intro L&I SCI 120--Spring 2012 on Prezi

Orientation Lecture

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Course Communication

Part 3: Textbooks and Materials

Part 4: Assignments and Grading

Part 5: First Week of Class and Conclusion

Writing, Critical Thought, and Analysis Lecture

Part 1: Introduction; critical thought and analysis defined; validity and soundness; necessary and sufficient conditions




Part 2: Fallacies


Part 3: Fallacies (cont.)


Part 4: Writing and conclusion

Things to Do on Your Final Blog Post

Hi folks.  For the most part, the blog 2 posts were pretty good.  I have some additional requirements for your final blog entry.  I will try to remember to send a reminder of this message before blog 3 is due.   

1) You need to put your full name somewhere in your post if your username on blogger isn’t your full name.  You will not get credit for your post unless you do so.  Think of this like a paper: you need to provide your name, a proper title (subject line/indicate it is blog #3), and document structure (paragraphs).  

2) Do not start off your blog saying “we covered a lot of material the past 4 weeks.” This is a waste of space.

3) Do not give a list of the topics we covered.  This too is a waste of space.

4) Focus on one topic or at most two related topics.

5) If you give an opinion, justify it.  Use critical thought and analysis and source material to support your claim.

6) Type your entry into a word processing software, use spell and grammar-check, and proofread it before you post it.

-Brad

Leisure at the Cost of Someone Else's Misery

Are Consumers of Apple Products Contributing to Global Genocide? on Prezi

The Notoriously Muddy Term

Chapter 10 in Tavani spoke of the Digital Divide and I found the ethical arguments surrounding this issue to be the most interesting read.

  I agree with Jeremy Moss’ argument that access to knowledge is significantly lessened or prevented for people without access to cybertechnology. More and more information is directly found online and not in print. I hear more and more radio contests being done on Facebook and Twitter and a majority of advertising directs users to the businesses website and/or Facebook page. This would not be available to the people without access to the Internet. There is also the lack of broadband coverage in rural areas which affects the availability of information.

  Moss states with his second argument that participating in politics is becoming much more difficult for people without cybertechnology. The new White House page is one of the most instantaneous and transparent means of communicating with the public that the government has ever done. I know that a majority of political correspondence I’ve received in the last 2 years has been digital and I no longer receive the usual flyers in the mail like I used to. I can see how people without Internet access or members of the rural population would fall behind on important political issues and election information.

  In terms of the title of this post, I meant that primarily in regards to the nebulous nature of the ethical dilemmas surrounding the Digital Divide and that is really an off-shoot of the already-established “perceived gap” (Tavani, 301). I believe the Analog Divide will prevent most of the attempts at bridging the Digital Divide as long as sociodemographic issues like class and race are still a factor the accessibility and availability of information.

Prezi by Morris Thompson

Information Privacy on Prezi

Jacob Recha Final Prezi-Tation

Below is my effort at sharing personality development through introspection and online entertainment.

Personality Imprinting on Prezi

Prezi by Lloyd Ellis

http://prezi.com/user/pihiuq9dqe4s/

Prezi by Lloyd Ellis

http://prezi.com/user/pihiuq9dqe4s/

Blog 3 by Lloyd Ellis

Blog 3

By Lloyd Ellis

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

April 29, 2012

 L&I SCI 120 - Information Technology Ethics

Instructor:  Bradley Compton, PhD

 

           

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are both amazing technologies that have taken off in the last 2 decades. Many issues and concerns also have come to light with these new advances. As we know ethics can be the deal breaker between what gets to be made marketable, public, and or an industry standard. When all is said and done it can either be a great tool or chaos.

Class discussion shed some light on the varying different topics of AI. It showed that we can all have different ideas on how and why things are and the way they will be in the future.

I myself can relate as I depend heavily on technology to do my job, get up and to work, and just for pleasure with daily living. A necessity no but it has become a norm now. “In the future, will humans depend on the kind of smart objects and smart environments made possible by AmI technology in ways that exceed our current dependency on computing devices.”

I believe we already overly depend on technology. So the future may be hell. The issues that may come along with this are privacy concerns, freedom, and basic right to just live without concerns. “ Cas notes that no one can be sure that his or her actions are not being observed; nor can one be sure that his or her words are not being recorded.”  Just the other day I asked a coworker if his new oh one had N.F.C where he could just swipe the phone. No need to pull up an app. N.F.C . short for Near Field Communication (go Android!) Anyhow he said why would he want that his concern would be who else can just grab his info.

After thinking about it he had a point but I will remind him when we work together again. If someone wanted his info they already have it (see Cas’s quote). Big Brother and hackers alike are everywhere. You never no.

Besides this there is always the issue of what you do may be what you do that is now public. This is known as Pervasive computing; a computing environment where information and communication technologies are everywhere. What I make of this is be smart, make wise choices, as autonomy may not be what you think it is.

References

Tavani, Herman T. 2011, 3rd Edition

               

Final Prezi - Cybercrime and 'Anonymous' by Jessica Lindner

Final Prezi-tation - Digital 'Pirates'

Digital 'Pirates' on Prezi

Personal Responsibility

Am I Contributing to Genocidal Activity Abroad? on Prezi

Final Prezi-Tation: Cybercrime

Cybercrime: Me and you on Prezi

Climbing the Mountan of Rhetoric

Final on Prezi

Identity and Experience Online

Chelsea Schneider

Blog #3 - Cyber Racism

James Tungate

Blog #3

Effects of cyber technology on racism in society

            In a world where technology is advancing at great speeds, we can only hope that everything else can just keep up the pace. On the other hand we also hope that some things would become a thing of the past and just be forgotten. One of these such things is racism, for decades we as a global society have worked hard and struggled at eliminating racism from the world and would love to see it become a thing of the past and not of the future. Unfortunately that isn’t the case; Cyber racism is very real and is very dangerous.

            The great advances in the technology we use to communicate ideas and thought’s doesn’t exclude the idea of racism. The fact that the modern technology has been used so much to express racism has led to the creation of the term of “Cyber Racism” which is credited to being coined by the author Les Back. Cyber racism is defined as a situation where one that holds a belief that a certain race is far superior or inferior than others and uses the cyber world to express this belief, in the form of a webpage or other media applications. (L. Back, Aryans Reading Adorno)

            When we discuss how cyber technology has allowed the growth of racism and helped extend the racist messages, we must look at its foundation. Studies have shown that usage of cyber technology and the internet have mainly been called a white thing and are generally associated with white people by those belonging to a minority. This is attributed to being due to cultural differences, cultures such as those of the African American community have always been of the thought that the internet cannot be trusted and mainly use it for entertainment purposes. This overall unbalance in usage by racial groups is the main reason racism is seen as being heavily towards minorities as the user is generally not a minority. (Tavani Pg. 310)

Another main reason attributing to the reason why racism has been credited with flourishing in the cyber era is that the internet provides anonymity to the users for the most part, obviously you aren’t always hidden but for the most part people feel safer doing things they normally wouldn’t want associated with their real identities. Most people find it’s easier to spread racism via the internet because they will not face reprisals from those they are targeting.  One such example of a person who normally wouldn’t have spread racism in his real life but did online was the high school child in Louisiana who created a fake Facebook profile and used it to spread racism in his community and terrorized the African American students at his high school. The young man who was spreading the hate turned out to be a 17 year old African American student who never had shown any racism in real life but he felt he could do it online and felt safe doing so. (J. Daniels, Cyber Racism in High School)

Prezitation - Information Privacy

Information Privacy and IT Support on Prezi

Reflection Blog - Weeks 9 - 12 - Nakia D. Willis

Nakia Willis Information Technology Ethics – Blog 3 Segment Review Blog – Weeks Ten, Eleven and Twelve The content covered throughout weeks ten through twelve dealt with a few interesting social topics tied into the world of information ethics. I enjoyed the discussions for this segment of the course, especially the subject of the use of technology and how it relates to racism. In reviewing the postings, it seemed that many in the class were divided when it came to this topic, simply due to the conflict that it presents in regards to free speech rights in this country. As the discussion progressed, class members brought up areas that I had not thought about such as rhetoric on gaming systems, something that I am now more aware of since gaming is a practice of my teen-age son (I know, I’m dating myself). The conversations and readings regarding gender in the field of information technology was not something that I had not thought of on a personal level. However, because of the inequitable number of women in fields such as technology, mathematics and engineering, the divide will most likely cause a lack of consideration when it comes to gender related topics in the IT world. Because IT is not a career path often chosen by women, much like the topic of race, discrimination regarding gender will probably continue until the numbers equal out a touch (Mankiw, 2011). Week eleven continued on a path of interesting social topics including the issue of IT in the political realm; specifically whether or not the Internet is a forum used best for positive advancement or negative declination regarding politics. Many seemed to agree that within the political world, the prevailing trend is leaning towards those who agree with the choice candidate’s point of view. In this respect, the Internet is definitely contributing to a shift in the direction of polarization as people tend to gravitate to things/places that interest them. Week twelve involved a discussion concerning the ethics of using technology in war. This was very interesting because in my view, the irony of the ability of the US to respond to terrorist threats with technology. In my opinion, the issue of ethics in reference to responding to a terrorist attack should be a moot point. My reason is simple, if someone attacks civilians unannounced, or attacks out of uniform, or without warning, then the group or persons carrying out the attack do not deserve any sort of ethical or traditional considerations when it comes to a counterattack. Reference: Mankiw, G.(2011). Principals of Microeconomics. 6th Edition.

Eriks Pukite - Hacktivism prezi

Hackivism, Cyberterrorism, & Anonymous Group. on Prezi

Blog #3

Adam Schmittinger

L&I 120 Sec 001

Information Ethics and Technology

Blog #3

“Smart Houses” seem like a good idea to me. I found chapter 12 in Tavanni to be a very good read when talking about the current technology and future problems that will be associated with AmI. Can the technology be useful in our everyday lives? Sure. Will having all the small, annoying, repetitive parts of our day really help us out in the long run?

                As with all technology it can be used for the good of the world but at the same time relying on stuff like smart houses and computers to make our lives simpler may have a larger impact than we are hoping.  We can already see with the technology that we have today more and more people are finding less and less reasons to leave their house.  Less and less actual face to face social interaction is taking place and this is with the limited technology we have today.  If we truly had no need to leave the house I wonder if we would.

                The book states that we as a culture are becoming very technologically dependent which could lead to many bad things. Increasing our dependency on technology to much could lead to us not knowing how to complete the tedious things we do now on a daily basis.  These tedious little jobs we have to accomplish are what keeps our brains stimulated and give us a sense of accomplishment.  If we take the tasks away and let a computer do them what will happen to us? Will we find other things to use our brains on or just lose that ability to function without the machines?

                Having said the negatives I do see many benefits to this technology that may outweigh the negatives.  Things like automated grocery lists, adjusting the lights to our specified intensity, or even turning on my computer when I get home are all conveniences that I think I would enjoy. Having a house that could call the ambulance on its own in case of an accident would be a lot safer for an older couple.  Or the fire department when I am away from my house and something happens. There are many benefits to a “smart house” that would make a lot of peoples’ lives much simpler.

                As long as we don’t lose sight that machines are there to help us with our daily lives not take over we will be safe.  Technology over the years has for the most part improved people’s daily lives and made the world a safer place to be in. As long as people don’t depend too much on machines and keep things in perspective I am looking forward to the technology that will be developed in my lifetime. 

Behind Anonymous Timothy Zielinski

Behind Anonymous on Prezi

Drones piloting drones

        A few years back I lived on a submarine that was able to be outfitted with enough nuclear ordinance to qualify the submarine as fourth largest nuclear power in the world, just between France and China. So I have spent a lot of time pondering over the ethical aspects of indirectly killing people. At the same time I have been 'lucky' enough to also be forward deployed and have to face the risk of close range combat. This is why the question, "Do you think robotics changes the ethical nature of war? Why or why not?" hit kind of close to home.

        A couple of months ago I met a pair of UAV pilots on a training mission and their attitudes towards operating drones and going hot seemed eerily similar to the ones of my friends who would work targeting on the missile systems. I wouldn't say that there is a disconnect from the chance of killing people, but there is a distance. I think the best way I've seen this distance illustrated is in this game. 

        So what causes this distance, and is it allowable? There's a quote from the movie Jarhead that helps explain this, "We can shoot 1,000 yards. To go that far in Vietnam, that would take a week. In World War I, a year. Here, it's gonna take about 10 seconds." Technology has sped up battle, progressing from cavalry and the like to trench-fighting to the UAVs and cruise missiles of today. This advance of technology in warfare has made it necessary to remove some of the fighters from the front lines, and remove their targets from their line of sight.

        My brother spends a lot of time playing video games, killing millions upon millions of digital 'bad guys' and doesn't bat an eyelid over it. On the other side of the coin a very good friend of mine has killed three 'bad guys' in close range combat while in Afghanistan a few years ago and tells me he still has dreams about it occasionally and has weekly appointments with a therapist. This, in my mind, shows two extremes in relation to the distance from combat that people can have. And while I would hardly compare those piloting UAVs and the like to kids playing video games, I don't look at them in the same light as I do marines on the ground.

        Now I also won't make the argument that we should go back to war without UAVs. They serve a purpose, they allow combat missions to be completed with no chance of death for the operating force and still allow for a controllable amount of collateral damage. They also significantly change the mentality of those waging the war when their actual life is not on the line.

Piracy and Intellectual Property by Kia Reinders

Piracy and Intellectual Property on Prezi

Password for job? Prezi

Password for a job? on Prezi

McCuen, Tricia - Cyberbullying prezi

Chelsea Schneider-Blog Three

Chelsea Schneider

Turning Into the Tube

Tavani mentioned that intelligence is a distinguishing character of humans. However, with this ambient intelligence it is really scary to think that technology may take that distinguishing character away. With the two choices we have when it comes to this technology we can gain control or lose it.

With a utilitarian approach I feel that the bad outweighs the good. Computers, just like humans can make incorrect inferences. This makes me think of all the times I asked my car to call my mom and it dials home. This just requires more corrective action. Also, the information that these computers do save about us have it saved probably until and after I would die. I feel like my privacy is being taken right from under me if this technology was to get any more intrusive.

The episodes from Network sum up how I feel. We are really becoming the “tube”. Yes it may be nice to not have to do so much physical work and thinking because a machine can do it for us, but I feel that our morals and values will then change. What would happen to hard work and the feelings of accomplishment? Our society is becoming “Turing’s men” and we are acting more and more like computers. But in an episode of Network they said that we need to go to ourselves because that is the only place we can find truth.

After these topics that we discussed I defiantly found myself doing more research on my own instead of Googling and putting my phone down more often. I feel that I was taking advantage of the sense of accomplishment. No one likes a lazy society and I want to at least to my part so that it doesn’t happen.

When I mentioned this to my family and friends however they had different reactions. They want a robot that does everything for them. I guess they should take this class and maybe they would think differently. They don’t realize the amounts of information be collected on them all the time. I am defiantly aware of where I go on the internet and where my information goes. I am determined to not become the “tube”!

Who can share what I share

How shared is shared on Prezi

Ricardo Iniguez - Blog #3

Can ubiquitous computing help a family with a hectic schedule gain more family time?  The ‘intelligent home’ scenario used in chapter 12 (Tavani, p.363) gave us a snapshot of how this technology could help facilitate the everyday activities in a person’s life. My reaction to this topic was opposite of what was posted by some of my classmates and instead of the fear of loosing control to technology, I easily accepted the idea of delegating decisions to a computer.

            In my opinion, there are so many positives to having a smart home. One positive is the idea of having a smart refrigerator or smart food pantry that can keep the inventory of the remaining food in the house. These food storage objects would help save time tremendously by being able to populate a grocery list—and even sending the suggested list to the local grocery store to have ready for you to pick up—based on frequency of previously bought items. They (pantry/refrigerator) could also suggest breakfast/lunch/dinner ideas for the family based on food inventory. As a family, it seems that we spend half the day (sometimes a challenging one since it is hard to keep a 2, 3 and 8 year old calm) going through the grocery shopping experience. The idea of not having to exert all that energy on a task that can easily be handled by software would be greatly appreciated by a busy family like mine.

            Another positive is that the ‘intelligent home’ can turn off any energy-consuming device that is not in use. This could help save a lot of money in the long run, since children get sidetracked and it’s hard for them to comprehend the importance of being green by turning off lights/TV/computer.

            But with these positives, there are possible negative social effects that might arise from having this technology. The main one I can think of is based on the idea of “keeping up with the Joneses.” On a local level, this could create problems with neighbors, friends or even other family members that can’t afford this technology and might be forced to go in debt (by charging credit cards), which could lead to problems for these groups in the future. On a world level, children growing up with the ‘intelligent home’ technology could see other cultures around the world that can’t afford the latest that technology has to give as inferior (cultural inferiority). 

            An ethical concern—which is mentioned in the book (Tavani, p.365)—deals with our obsession with technology. Living in an ‘intelligent home’ the thinking is done for you and could lead to more dependence on technology, which limits human freedom and autonomy as Brey suggests (Tavani, p. 366).

            To answer the question at the beginning of the blog, I believe—basing my decision on the fact that I could afford this house—that this technology could help my family spend more family time together because of the time/money saving efforts that are tackled by the creative software in these ‘intelligent homes.’ I said that my reaction was opposite because I can and have shunned technology—deleted Facebook account because it ate up too much family time—and I don’t ever fear technology because I feel very much in control of my life (I could easily pull the plug on the ‘intelligent house’ if the negative side effects were affecting my family).

Copyright Infringement and Piracy - Kory Hooper

Cyber Crime: Copyright Infringement on Prezi

Jacob Recha Blog 3

Ethical Rammifications of Ubiquitous Computing In A Globalizing World
Jacob Recha
LIS 120 Blog #3

Being something of a mad scientist hoping to create a utopian world utilizing pervasive technology, I have been seeking ways to estimate the ethical theories needed to justify future actions involving the unveiling and distribution of such inventions.

Ubiquitous technology(later ubitech or ubicomp), or ubiquitous communication(ubicomm henceforth), or pervasive technology holds what are some of science fictions greatest fears about the future, especially when combined with ambient intelligence(AmI henceforth).  Take for example the description of the smart home posed by Raisinghani et al. (2004), "surveillance camera recognizes the young mother...refrigerator has studied the family's food consumption..." (Tavani 363), and suppose there were no fail-safes programmed in to stop smart-houses from mixing turpentine or arsenic martinis for their masters, or suppose that if one master commits suicide by chemical cocktail, all smarthouses using ubiquitous communication assume that this is a fit drink for human consumption and learn to pour it at the same time.  There is definite consequence to not adhering to a rigorous ethical standard in limiting the self-awareness of intelligent ubitech, but also a duty to quickly correct mistakes not accounted for in initial programming.

Scientists and programmers who are developing intelligent computing, or developing software capable of learning, especially as the world progresses towards integrating such software into the environments people inhabit as ambient intelligence, are responsible for what is essentially a new area of ethics.  They are ethically responsible, deontologically speaking at least, to make certain such technology does not purposely harm individuals, as well as teaching the technology to learn to avoid accidentally harming them as well.  These scientists are like parents or ethicists that must pass down the ideas of duty, responsibility, or consequence, to their creations.  The first smart house to be built without any of these considerations is a dangerous piece of technology.  As stated previously, how is a piece of AmI to know that one liquid is poisonous for consumption when it is a chemically similar compound, or of a similar weight and viscosity to another liquid, without first being taught what poison is, and what the consequence of administering it to humans is?

Take for a further example an alternate Earth where there is true pervasive computing that is also ubicomp and ubicomm, everyone everywhere has a bluetooth-like earbud that interfaces with nearly all electronics, and streams news and other information directly to the people wearing them.  This alternate Earth is one displayed in an episode of Doctor Who, and eventually the ear buds are used to take away the free-will of the wearers, causing them to march themselves straight to what are essentially cyborg-creation factories.  One might be able to empathize with the mad scientist whose goal was mostly to preserve his own life, and prevent pain for all the people subdued by his technology, obviously infringing on the free will of others en masse is dastardly ethically, but I think The Doctor sums up the ethical ramifications of such actions best:
“But once you get rid of sickness and mortality, then what’s there to strive for? Eh? The Cybermen won’t advance. You’ll just stop! You’ll stay like this forever. A metal Earth with metal men and metal thoughts. Lacking the one thing that makes this planet so alive. People. Ordinary, stupid, brilliant people...

And let's not forget how you seduced all those ordinary people in the first place, by making every bit of technology compatible with everything else."  (33:40 The Age of Steel, Dr. Who, 2007)

Lastly, imagine once again an Earth where everyone has ear buds streaming news to them all the time in any language, devices that interface with almost any machine, the programming would have to be controlled by extremely culturally sensitive individuals.  To be as succinct as possible, "Any group of people who have sought to trade (relatively) peacefully with another group... has learned that at least some knowledge of 'the Other' is needed to avoid potentially fatal misunderstandings" (Ess 110).  This is a truth that becomes more poignant as communication technology and information resources become more ubiquitous and pervasive, and quite obviously, a single piece of mass media communication tech owned by every person on the planet is as pervasive as it gets.  The news correspondents or the entertainment programmers or the board members of various channels will need to be culturally aware to reduce the risk of mass political or cultural incidents.