Reading 13

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

• In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.
• Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.
• Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

A patent is a way for someone to get the right to, for a set period, to an invention or a technology. Patents exist so that people are incentivised to make new inventions without other people stealing their ideas and gaining something from it. This is basically the moral, ethical and economic reason for granting patents. You don't want others stealing your ideas and benefitting from them leaving you behind in the dust. They allow for innovators to tribe and promote innovation.
In my opinion, patents are necessary for innovation to an extent. There is a fine line for when patents promote innovation and when they just cause a monopoly. In one hand, no one would work towards coming up with something revolutionary if their ideas could just be picked up and stolen by a competitor with more resources available to them. Yet, if someone is able to get a 20 year patent on an innovation or technology, they have a monopoly on this. They can control prices, regulate trade and dominate the market. This hinders innovation. Elon Musk seems to agree with the idea that there should be no patent. "Elon Musk, the company's CEO said he isn't really into patents — and, he said, he thinks giving them up is best for everybody." He only did this after basically establishing the number one brand in electric cars. If he had been lagging behind on this raise, I think he would have preferred to keep the patents.  A patent shouldn't be placed on something that is very general. Often the most innovative ideas build upon older ones. I agree that there are some technologies that should be patented, but there are also inventions that have so much potential for growth that we should also consider letting others use it.
As far as patents on software vs physical products go, I don't really think there is much of a difference. Both physical and software based innovations stem from an idea that is unique. Often, people build upon these ideas to create new products. Though I agree that the line between something that could be patented is a bit blurrier with software, I still think that both should be liable under patent laws.
Then there is also evidence of a broken patent system. There are "patent trolls" around looking to exploit this system and make money using the patent legal system. "In October 2017, Apple was also ordered to pay over $439 million as its "VPN on Demand" feature and FaceTime were determined to violate VirnetX's patents." Even big companies like Apple are vulnerable to these patent trolls. These "trolls" are companies or individuals that seek to make money by suing companies over patents. They use "patents as legal weapons". A big red flag that the patent system is broken is that often the "Patent Office has a habit of issuing patents for ideas that are neither new nor revolutionary, and these patents can be very broad, covering everyday or commonsense types of computing". These patents allow for patent trolls to exploit the system and can cause companies to go bankrupt and unable to come up with new products. This type of troll was seen in the show Silicon Valley as well. Often it is easier for companies to just settle and pay money than to fight these trolls in court. Regardless, the patent system does what it was intended to do for the most part. 

Reading 12

The motivation for self-driving vehicles (I'll call the AV's from now on) is pretty obvious. It is something that is pretty much a given when we think of the future. Self-driving cars would make our lives easier and safer. As stated in an article it is estimated that AV's could save up to 35,000 fatalities a year that are caused by human error. It could prevent deaths caused by DUI's and bad drivers. Plus, imagine all the stuff that could be done with self-driving cars. So much time would be saved. We could be way more efficient with our times. This could also open up many types of new industries (maybe like self-driving hotels or something cool like that). Arguments against AV's include the fact that we are trusting a computer with the lives of people. Accidents have happened. People have died at the hands of AV's. Who is to blame when these accidents happen? Further, by having cars connected to the internet and being autonomous, there is the possibility of hacking.
Then there is the social aspects and problems that come with AV's. The social dilemma of AV's is the trust in the vehicle's ability to make the right decisions. As mentioned in one of the articles "most respondents liked the idea of an AV sacrificing itself to save others; but as passengers, they said they would want the car to preserve their own safety no matter what". This brings about a bunch of philosophical questions. What moral code should a car follow? The idea of the trolley problem is interesting for this topic.  "At stake is whether cars can be adequately programmed to select the lesser of two evils: swerving to avoid a crowd of pedestrians if it means killing one pedestrian or the vehicle’s passenger".  Personally, I think a utilitarian approach would be the fairest approach for AI. Accidents are inevitable sometimes. This would, in theory, cause the less amount of harm. There is just no correct answer to this problem. When an accident happens, the situation has to be accessed to see what is to blame. I don't think the company that created the AVs should take full responsibility for the accident. I don't have a concrete answer for who should be solely liable for an accident. 
Having AVs would terminate the jobs of millions. Taxi drivers, Ubers, Trucks, Buses etc. would all be autonomous. This would save companies billions, but also take away the jobs of millions. The government would have to step in and regulate how AVs are being utilized. I read on a different article the possibility of crimes that could be committed with AVs. On road brothels, drug trafficking and more could be some side effects of AVs. This is something that the government and law enforcement would have to intervene in. 
Personally, I would love to have self-driving cars. The technology is worth the sacrifices that would have to be made. We already trust planes (self-flying) with our lives. To an extent, these are somewhat the same. I believe roads will be much safer with AVs than with the system we have now. 

he 

    

Reading 11

From the readings, what is artificial intelligence and how is it similar or different from what you consider to be human intelligence?

• Are AlphaGo, Deep Blue, Watson, and AlphaZero proof of the viability of artificial intelligence or are they just interesting tricks or gimmicks?
• Is the Turing Test a valid measure of intelligence or is the Chinese Room a good counter argument?
• Are the growing concerns over the power of artificial intelligence and its role in our lives warranted? Are you worried about the potential dangers imposed by artificial intelligence? Explain why or why not.
• Finally, could a computing system ever be considered a mind? Have morality? Are humans just biological computers? What are the ethical implications of these ideas?

According to the readings, AI is the use of computers and technologies to perform tasks that a human could accomplish. To me, it is a computer being able to learn from data and use this data to become more efficient at certain or multiple tasks. To an extent, programs such as AlphaGo, Deep Blue etc. can be considered AI by definition, but to me, they seem more like cool gimmicks. When I think of AI, I think of Amazon Alexa or the AI robot Fiona from Silicon Valley. AI to me has to have some personality to it. Otherwise, it's just an algorithm that someone created. The Turing test is a test that designed to test a computer's ability to think. It states that if a person is able to interact with a machine and not be able to tell whether it is a machine, then it successfully passes the Turing test. To me, the Chinese Room argument is not a sufficient enough argument to counter AI. A computer is simply following a set of instructions given to it, though not necessarily having a mind of its own. But to an extent, we also work the same way. Our brain is simply following patterns and learning from it. In the same way that computers receive an input, process it, then send an output, we work the same way. Our brain takes in an input, processes this input and reacts to it. They are called neural networks for a reason. That is because they seem to behave in a similar manner that our brain does. I think the growing concerns with AI are somewhat justified. This technology has the power to completely change our lives for the best. Face recognition technology, self-driving cars etc. can have a positive impact on our lives. However, these can also come with many consequences (not always safe, not always accurate, don't possess the same reflexes that a human might). The fear that AI will become terminator-like and destroy humanity is not really a concern for me. This is so far fetched and grounded in fiction that I don't think it will happen any time soon or ever for that matter. Like I mentioned before when I think of AI I usually associate it with some type of personality as well. I think many people will consider smart robots or computers as having a mind and a moral compass. Even I think of my Alexa as a person sometimes. However, I don't think it can be considered a mind with morality. Technology just isn't in the same level. While we are to an extent a biological computer, I don't think a machine will ever be more valuable than a life. We can always build new machines and computers, but once a life is taken there is no turning back. This is something that we will never have the ability to overcome. Technology will always have limits, but humanity does not seem to have any. 

Reading 10

From the readings and from your experience, what exactly is trolling? How does this behavior manifest itself and what are its causes and effects? Likewise, what is cyberbullying and how is it different from regular bullying?

• What ethical or moral obligations do technology companies have in regards to preventing or suppressing online harassment (such as trolling or stalking)?
• What do you make of Gamergate? Is this evidence of the dangers of anonymity on the Internet or is this behavior something we simply need to tolerate in order to maintain freedom of expression?
• Is cyberbullying a major problem on the Internet? Do people, especially children, need special protection from harassment or should they just "deal with it"?
• Is trolling a major problem on the Internet? What is your approach to handling trolls? Are you a troll?!?!?
• Are "real name" policies useful or harmful in combating online abuse? Do you use services that require you to use your real name? Why or why not?

Finally, is anonymity on the Internet a blessing or a curse? Is the Internet itself a platform for useful and fruitful discussion or is it a wasteland of memes and trolls? What good can come out of an online dialogue?

Trolling is the use of anonymity in order to harass or infuriate an individual for amusement. This behavior is manifested in the comment section of videos, in online forums, via online gaming, and basically through any form where a discussion is allowed online. These comments have many impacts. “A single troll comment in a discussion—perhaps written by a person who woke up on the wrong side of the bed—can lead to worse moods among other participants, and even more troll comments elsewhere,” the Stanford and Cornell researchers wrote. A single comment can cause more troll comments to begin or a comment war to begin. These comments can also skew the view of individuals that see it. Cyberbullying is similar to trolling. It is the use of technology to bully other individuals. The difference from regular bullying is that cyberbullying is done anonymously. You may never know who the bully is. Regardless, it can be just as deadly and dangerous as any type of bullying. 

As far as the moral and ethical obligations that tech companies have to prevent trolling and cyberbullying, they should implement a system where this type of behavior can be reported. With AI technology getting better and better, it is also not unrealistic for companies to implement a "moderator" that can catch trolls and bullying before they take place. While freedom of speech should still be a concern, obvious trolling and harassment shouldn't be tolerated and should be discouraged from sites where this behavior has no space. 

Gamergate seems to be a small group of individuals in the gaming community concerned with ethics in game journalism and with protecting the "gamer" identity. This harassment campaigned targetted women in the gaming industry. The threats that they made to the women involved is not something we should tolerate. The people involved in this "movement" used the anonymity of the internet to hide their identity. When threats of rape and murder are in place, there should be some type of consequence. This can't simply be freedom of speech. 

Cyberbullying has always been a problem on the internet. I think now more than ever, light has been shed on this problem and cyberbullying seems to be happening less, at least from what I can tell. Back in our middle school days, the insults would be going left and right. Gaming, Facebook, Twitter were all full of ridiculous comments. This may have been because we were all 12 years old and had little regard for what we said. Now being more mature, we have a better understanding of the world works. There may still be 12-year-old kids trolling and cyberbullying but I have not had this experience. Kids need to be made aware of what is acceptable. But to an extent, they might have to deal with it on some platforms. Not everything can be a perfect world. The same goes for trolling.

Real name policies are good at combatting online abuse. If your name is tied to you, people are less likely to say something to someone that they wouldn't say face to face. Still this is not the solution to end all cyberbullying. I use some services that require my name (Facebook, Youtube). 

Anonymity is both a blessing and a curse. Tor and the dark web can be used for some life-changing movements. People oppressed from using their right to free speech can express themselves freely in this browser. Revolutions can be planned. Still, the darkest and most vile human actions take place on the dark web. Anonymous online dialogue can change the world for the better and can also just get the worst out of humans. 

Reading 09

From the readings, what exactly is Net Neutrality? Explain in your own words the arguments for and against Net Neutrality. After examining the topic, where do you stand on the issues surrounding Net Neutrality?

• If you are in favor of Net Neutrality, explain how you would implement or enforce it. How would you respond to concerns about possible over-regulation, burdening corporations, or preventing innovation?
• If you are against Net Neutrality, explain why it is unnecessary or undesirable. How would you respond to concerns about providing level playing fields or preventing unfair discrimination by service providers?

In either case, discuss whether or not you consider that "the Internet is a public service and fair access should be a basic right". Additionally, do you have trust in an unbridled free market or does the government have a role to play in ensuring a level playing field?

To my understanding Net Neutrality is the fair distribution of internet resources. It is "anti-discriminatory" laws of the internet. Basically, these are laws that prevent you Internet Service Provider from controlling your data usage and how your bandwidth or network acts on certain websites. 

One of the main arguments for Net Neutrality is the argument that without it, innovation would not be possible. "keeping the internet an open playing field is crucial for innovation. If broadband providers pick favorites online, new companies and technologies might never have the chance to grow". Repealing net neutrality would make broadband providers the "gatekeepers" of the internet. They would be able to prioritize internet access to websites that have paid them to allow users to visit their website. This could hurt small businesses that are unable to pay this fee or toll and would make the big companies more powerful. This, in turn, would not incentivize innovation. Another argument for keeping Net Neutrality is freedom. The internet should be a basic right for everyone. America is built on this idea of freedom. Why should our internet be constrained and controlled by companies

Arguments for repealing net neutrality include the prioritization of essential services that demand bandwidth, such as devices made for the IoT. For example, smart cars and medical devices that require bandwidth and are essential could be put above bandwidth needed for less important traffic. Another argument is innovation from ISPs. By being able to charge premiums for internet, these ISPs could make money that will incentivize them to build their infrastructure, which will, in turn, benefit everyone. 

After reading these articles on Net Neutrality, I am all for it. The internet should be a resource that we all should be able to use to its full potential. It should not be controlled by a few big corporations for the benefit of the companies and the government. The biggest innovations from the past few decades have all started from technology start-ups. These start-ups used the internet in order to promote their brand and get people on board with their ideas. The idea that repealing Net Neutrality will drive innovation does not make sense to me. Having an open and even playing field when it comes to internet resources is what allows for innovation. I do consider the internet a public service. While the government may have somewhat of a say in ensuring a playing field, it should be minimal and only necessary for things that impact public safety. It shouldn't be a complete free for all, but it should still be a free market. 

Reading 08

The concept of Corporate Personhood is the idea that a corporation is an entity that has some of the rights that human does, even though it is an abstract concept with no real human characteristics. Some of the rights that corporations have are the right to free speech, the right to religious expression and more. Courts have even extended some Constitutional rights to corporations. However, even though they are treated with the rights of humans to an extent, they don't often have to face all of the consequences that may come for doing something wrong. For example, since a corporation is not an actual physical being, a corporation cannot be placed in jail for a crime committed or can't be killed. This brings upon many legal issues when dealing with corporations. How can they be held liable? Socially, how are corporations expected to behave? Should they have a moral compass by which they abide by? These are some of the ramifications that having corporate personhood brings to the table. 


The Google Antitrust case study took place when Google used its size and power in order to promote its products and negatively impact the sales of the competition. The company itself has gotten so large that over 90% of all searches done in the internet are done via Google. Their closest competition, Bing, has less than 2% of all searches. The algorithms that they use behind search engines and how websites and result come up can have a critical impact on where traffic is redirected. The EU believed that Google had “It has denied other companies the chance to compete on their merits and to innovate, and most importantly it has denied European consumers the benefits of competition, genuine choice, and innovation.” Hence the EU hit Google with a fine of $2.7  Billion.  But, who is to question what Google does? This isn't the only way that Google has used its titan reputation to their advantage. More recently: "Google has been bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android, and it “made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators” to exclusively bundle the Google search app on handsets." Basically, Google has a Monopoly on the Android Market. All phones that run Android nowadays are basically running some sort of ChromeOS. Even I associate Android and Google many times. Though there are other options for App Stores and search engines on Android devices, it is rare that they are used. Google is so large that they can basically set their own rules. They can grow faster by elimated and even completely taking over the rest of the competition. Hence, they were fined the EU for a record $5 Billion. They appealed this fine. The question is: does Google have the right to use its size to their advantage? 

As far as the question of corporations being held responsible for having the same ethic and moral obligations and responsibilities as an individual person, I believe that they should to an extent. A corporation is made up of individuals, if a corporation commits some type of crime that requires punishment by law, the specific individuals in the corporation that committed these crimes should be held liable for them. Not the corporation as a whole. The individuals in the corporation should be held to the same standards as an individual person. 

Reading 07

1. After reading some of the articles above, address the following questions:
• What is the motivation for developing and building many Internet connected devices? What are the arguments for and against the Internet of Things (IoT)? Would they make our lives easier?
• How should programmers address the security and privacy concerns regarding IoT? Who is liable for when breaches or hacks happen?
• What do you believe will be the social, economic, and political impact of the Internet of Things? What role should the government play in regulating IoT devices?
• Would you fear a pervasively connected world with billions of internet capable devices? Explain why or why not.

The overall motivation for developing the internet of things is to make our lives as efficient and easy as possible. No longer will we need to do simple mundane tasks that a computer can take care of. Using the data gathering from all of these different connected devices, we can see trends and learn about our problems. All of this data connected to the same network and available securely to the correct hands can be a very powerful took. Regardless, there are always going to be cons to the internet of things. "With great power comes great responsibility" - Spiderman's Uncle Ben?. All of these devices connected to the internet can be exposed to hackers. Let's take the car example. An internet connected car nowadays can let us know when the car is in need of maintenance and even look up the nearest garage that could take care of this issue for us. It can send diagnostics of the car in real time to the manufacturers of the car, where they can do something to fix a problem. I've even heard of cars that can be connected to the internet, drive themselves and avoid all red lights by using machine learning and stoplight patterns. The possibilities of smart internet connected AI cars are infinite. It is something that will revolutionize the way we travel and interact with each other. This is just cars. We can have devices that are attached to our bodies, home appliances, etc. Sticking with the car example for now. We are talking about a 2 ton moving body that can cause a lot of harm. As noted in the first article, the researchers were able to get control of the car wirelessly. "Their arsenal includes functions that at lower speeds fully kill the engine, abruptly engage the brakes, or disable them altogether. The most disturbing maneuver came when they cut the Jeep's brakes, leaving me frantically pumping the pedal as the 2-ton SUV slid uncontrollably into a ditch. " We can't assume everything is completely secure and unable to be hacked. Cybersecurity will be a key field in the future as everything is rapidly becoming a part of the network. Programmers should always keep in mind that their technology will impact real lives. It is not all in the code. They have the responsibility to account for as many possible security concerns as possible. I don't think they should have all of the blame if something does go wrong, however. 
As far as the social, economic and political impact of the internet of things, this will be a show. With all of this data out there, privacy will be almost certainly gone. All of the movements, talks and actions of people will be more easily accessible. Even now with apps like Snapchat, Find my Friends and others, all of our actions are recorded. Imagine what this will do to politicians and people in power. It could have significant impacts on how people act and the actions that they perform. This is both positive and negative. 
I am all for the internet of things. Still, there needs to be a balance. There is data that people don't need to know and should be kept local and private. However, if this data can do no harm to myself or others and whoever is using it has my consent, they can have all of the data that they want.