Freedom of speech and Internet censorship- two concepts that are complete opposites of each other.  Freedom of speech is the ability to say whatever you want without and repercussions from the law or any other governing body.  In today’s wired and wireless society, this freedom can be very limited.  Once something is posted to an online blog site that is viewed as offensive, it can be removed or blocked entirely from any further viewing.  Therefore, is that a violation of freedom of speech?  However, was the site not posted for a while?  Does this mean the author got a period of time where he or she could get his or her views out?  Many activist groups and governments have been working to find solutions to these answers and more.

The First Amendment reads:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The main point to address with this amendment is whether or not violent or graphic material should be allowed to be mainstream for all eyes to see.  The best and most used example of this is pornographic material.  I can almost say with confidence that the majority of you all knew of ways to circumvent the “18 and older” “restriction” when you were younger.  Would it have been a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit your young eyes from seeing what you wanted to see?  The law itself is perplexed on this issue.  There have been many rulings and re-rulings on such an issue.  These rulings in more detail will be in my presentation.

Why do people censor the Internet?

This question can be addressed through many different views based on which country you are looking at.  In the United States and the majority of other countries, it’s mainly for prohibiting young children from viewing pornographic material.  In the Middle East, it is used to censor anything that deals with religion.  However, no censorship program compares to that of China, who censors based on religion, form of government, rebellion, controversial ideas, and many other reasons.

Why are people outraged?

While some may view limited censorship as good, others find it completely bothersome.

See YouTube link:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=8nEtP_TuTj0

People such as this “poor soul” have seen censorship as a major hindrance to being able to find what they are looking for.  An personal example is my high school’s protection system.  Because some freewebs.com websites had porn on them, the school blocked all freewebs.com websites.  Therefore, any student run website for projects was henceforth blocked from access at the school.  To me, this is censorship gone too far.  Or, it could be out of pure laziness that the school blocked all freewebs.com websites so that they would not have to block websites on a case by case scenario.  No matter what, it was a major hindrance to me.

The presentation on Monday will focus on exact rulings on Internet censorship as well as many examples of how censorship has affected the world.  The main focus, however, will be Google and China, and how what the company is doing in that country is affecting the rest of the world.

YouTube link:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=quaZi5sckwE

Note:  watch the first 5 minutes and then go to 9:30 to see something just for fun

Works Referenced

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47995.html

www.wikipedia.com

Spam.  We all know it.  We all get it.  But why?  The origins of spam begin before the commercialization of the internet.  Spam used to be repetitive sending of the same email (EMP) or other methods such as ECP or UBE.  Now it affects us all and causes us all to click the delete key over and over again, or just empty out a spam-filtered folder each day.  The main ethical question is what should be done about spam?  Legislation is a possibility, but with all legislation there comes some penalties.  Some people fear that legislation will legitimize the existence of spam, and therefore I believe it would cause people to focus spam efforts on “acceptable” means of spamming people.  However, legislation will also cause those punished by law to pay heavy costs for which no revenue is being gained.  Therefore legislation can be viewed as a good economic benefit. 

How do you think legislation will affect the amount of spam that everyone receives?

Source:  http://www.wurd.com/cl_email_faq_spam.php

Online Predators.  They are everywhere, and there are shows on television catching them for viewers’ entertainment.  Sources such as CNN.com say the key to protecting your children is starting early.  Children must be informed of the risks of being online so that they can watch out for predators.  My only concern is if this is enough.  At such an early age, can children really tell if they are being preyed on?  Then there is also the whole “defiance” against your parents at this stage (or any, for that matter).  Some children don’t look out for risky situations because they are care free and unconcerned of the risks involved.

If you had a child, how would you protect them from internet predators?

Source:  http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/23/safeonline.101/index.html

In one of our readings for Monday’s class, the topic of technology moving humanity forward in life is discussed.  Research can be easily spread at lightning-fast speed and to a plethora of people.  In “ancient” times, it used to take months to have a paper peer edited and then sent to get published.  By the time it would be published, the research would be outdated and used just for mere reference.  Nothing could be used to further research going on in the present.

However, this entry isn’t about the ease and spread of information processing.  It is about going back in time, at least in doing work.  How often has a form said, “Please type the information in below?”  Then you go to one of your parents and go, “How do I do that!?”  Then you go into that deep and dusty closet of yours and pull out that ancient machinery known as the typewriter.  You learn the ins and outs of how to use it, and take extreme care not to make a mistake, because depending on how old your machine is, it may not erase it.

With new technologies evolving and making our lives easier, what do you think the effect will be on older technologies when we are forced to use them?  Will there ever be a time when old technology will become completely obsolete?  How can you support your answer?

Within the last week of class, many interesting point of views on information and data sharing arose from the inner depths of our minds.  One person’s view intrigued me the most.  It was the view that music (which is just data in its essence on the Net) should be free to everyone.  I believe the person said that we should not have to pay for the music.  My thought is how are we going to get music in the future if this is the case?  Music comes from artists, and those artists make music to make money to survive and continue to produce more music.  If we remove their source of funding, the music industry will ultimately fall.  All that will be able to survive are personal and garage bands that are there just to create music.  Sure they might be popular around their proximity, but as far as a global image, I doubt they will get far.  Bands will be left to get all their money from live shows.  That means concert tickets will start to rise since it is the only source of funding for them.  Tickets could soar to the thousands of dollars.  The idea that people who like the music will contribute money to bands of their choice was also brought up.  But my only concern with that is will it be enough money to support the band? 

With the rise of the idea that all information, data, and ultimately- music should be free, what is the future of the music industry?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/02/robot.tea.ap/index.html

Japan has current technology that will make and pour tea, locate its target, and deliver the beverage to its recipient.  There is something special about the environment in which these robots work, however.  The room where the tea is served is controlled by sensors in the floor, tables, and couches.  It monitors the movement of people and delivers accordingly.  But the technology itself isn’t the questions.  It brings up a variety of ethical issues.  In the article Tomomasa Sato mentions that “A human being may be faster, but you’d have to say ‘Thank you.’”  What does this mean of society?  Are we coming to an age where we don’t want to entertain the motives behind common courtesy?  Do we really want impersonal interaction with the services that are provided to us?  The second part of this article mentions that this technology (robotics) would be great to aid the elderly or provided basic services to those that need health care or entertainment.  I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a nursing home, I don’t want to be “entertained” by a robot.  I want those live therapy dogs or some personal interaction.  The third and last point to bring up from this article is the matter of privacy.  Is it right to have a robot know everything down to the very movement you make recorded and analyzed? 

There are a variety of questions raised in this entry.  What is your overall reaction?

As college students, we can all probably say that we don’t pick up a copy of the nearest Wall Street Journal or local newspaper.  Why should we?  Then again, those faithful Kogod business students are one of the few exceptions of this case.  However, print newspapers, in general, are fading away.  Grandparents, parents, siblings, and friends alike can all toss aside that physical copy of tens of pieces of papers put into sections by topic, and log on to the internet to read all the news that they would ever want to know.  This way people don’t have to read or fish through what they don’t want to, all because they can search for what they want to know.  But the real question is, “What is the fate of the hard bound copy?”  While there are still faithful recipients of these copies, the newspaper industry is hurting.  Why bother paying for something that can be found on the internet for “free.”  I put free in quotes because you have to initially pay for the internet connection, but after that everything is at your disposal.  This brings into play the concept that “information is free.”  It seems more and more people are demanding more information for free.  How do you think the newspaper industry is handling the situation?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/02/22/computing.award.ap/index.html

This topic has been under discussion before, even in class.  It’s the long-winded debate on women in the computer technology industry.  Many people feel that this industry is biased towards the dominant middle-aged white male.  This article breaks tradition because it shows that a woman won a prestigious computing award that for the past 40 years has been awarded to a male.  To make things even more interesting, the award went to a 74 year old woman.  Not only does this break the gender assumptions associated with computers and technology, but it also breaks the tradition of seniors with the technology.  Now there are a few things to take into consideration, however.  She was involved in the industry for many years prior to winning this award.  However, she also was involved in really intricate and detailed parts of the industry as well.  Take these things into consideration when coming up with a response for the discussion question.

With an elderly woman winning the prestigious Turing award, how do you think this will affect the way women and seniors look upon technology and their approach to using the technology?

Do you remember that time where you dropped your cell phone into that mini golf pond?  Or that time when your internet was out due to a storm?  Or your power was gone due to a power outage? Or what about the worst catastrophe- your computer died?  How did that make you feel?  Angry?  Depressed?  Agitated?

Addiction.  It affects us all.  I know from personal experience that when any of these events happened to me (all but one), I was left distraught.  I needed that internet access.  I needed to be in touch with my friends.  I needed to check my email every ten minutes.  What was I going to do with myself until I was able to do all this again!

There are always new addictions that arise out of a capitalistic market.  Internet is just another one of these.  The main question is, “How can we avoid or treat this addiction?”  China has boot camps for video game addicts.  But internet addiction, at least in my opinion, is more widespread than just the youth of the day.  It affects everyone.  Workers can’t live without their Blackberry’s, children without their AIM, and moms without their emails.  Is there any solution to this problem?  Or will it ever become more extreme than what it is today?  What are your views on the matter?

Science fiction has always been in existence since first printed books were published (granted this is debatable).  All it truly entails is writing about something that is not currently in existence, like robots, aliens, etc.  Granted, the specifics of it may go further in depth than that, but this is the general knowledge the public associates with science fiction.  But the issue in question is quite similar to H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds.  When the story had its debut on the radio, it invoked a mass panic.  Everyone was convinced that it was really happening, and they feared for their lives.  However, with the introduction of the Internet, stories such as these are readily available to anyone who types the words “science fiction” in their favorite search engine.  Because of this accessibility do you think that widespread panics such as those associated with the radio broadcast in 1938 (http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/wotw.html) would ever happen again?  Or do you think that people now know better enough than to believe what they hear on the radio?  Do you think widespread panic could be created through another means?  How do you think it could happen?

Now I know that this title can be misleading, but I am talking about any instant messaging program for a business.  Many businesses are adapting to this (relatively) new technological advancement in the communication field.  However, some are resistant to this change.  But why are they inhibiting the control over what their works are doing and saying to each other?  Let’s look at the benefits and negative effects that are caused by this communications application, the instant messenger.  First, the communication benefit is first and foremost the most important of all reasons.  It allows workers to communicate, send documents to each other, get necessary information, and all this at the click of a button or a few strokes on the keyboard.  This allows all this information to be expedited to the place it needs to go whereas the old method of printing and sending manually could take hours or days to reach its recipient.  The use of email could be said to take the place of this application, but if you are focusing on something important you might never check that inbox of yours.  Instead, how about have a little window pop and start blinking when something urgent is needed for attention?  Instant messenger (IM) can do that!  But what IM does cause is a major problem.  With people in such short reach of each other, people tend to abuse this privilege and talk about non-work related issues, leading to less worker productivity.  So what should businesses do?  That question should be up to you for discussion.  On a side note, Stacey Carl of Air Products mentions, “Without IM the whole business (Air Products) would fall to pieces.”

All information is taken from Craig Anderson's article, Violent Video Games:  Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions.  Web URL:  http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

Video games are the root of all evil in society's children, or so says the multitudes of people who fight the video game industry.  But the truth of the matter, at least in Craig Anderson's perspective, dives much deeper into the technological and psychological realm of video gaming.  He brings to the reader's attention multiple myths and facts that people have on the effects of video games.  There are a few items on his list that may even shock the most knowledgeable or opinionated of people on such an issue.  One thing specifically, I read that "unrealistic video gaming," such as cartoon violence, actually increases violent action in older teenagers and adults.  Even E-rated video games (for everyone) have had effects on these people to cause them to do more violent acts than what they would have without the gaming.  Another interesting fact is that video games have actually had effects far more severe than second hand smoking on lung cancer and calcium intake on bone structure.  Overall, many valid points are covered in this article.

Which of the 11 points Anderson makes is most poignant in your opinion?  Why do you say that is the most powerful compared to the other 10?

Everyone’s heard of those online chat rooms and dating services.  But are they truly to be respected compared to the formal “going out into the world” and finding that special person?  However, this is another issue for another day.  This entry is all about internet dating and another controversial method of dating:  bar hopping and clubbing.

My job today isn’t to tell you which was is more ethical and proper, but rather to inform the pros and cons to both sides and provide my input on the matter.  I want to know what your views on the matter are.

First I’ll start with internet dating.  Millions of people have used services such as e-harmony to meet their “loved ones.”  They put up a lot of personal information about themselves and then hope that the service that they pay for provides them a decent match.  They then interact and possibly go on a date, going into the occasion with the perception of knowing the information that was provided to them.  However, the downfall to this method is that it is incredibly impersonal to begin with, and the sense that anyone can lie on the internet is always there, lingering in the back of the mind.

With clubbing, is it really more ethical for people to meet under the influence (now I do know that this isn’t always the case) as compared to the internet’s lack of any personal interaction?  The settings aren’t considered chic and up-scale.  The rooms are loud and congested.  Is this really a good setting to find someone you could love?  I guess the only benefit that I can see over the internet is the initial personal interaction.  However, how much of the real personality is being shown at a club can also be misperceived.

So which is more ethical?  Why is internet a better place to find the “perfect” one for you (or clubbing)?

When are the buttons pushed too far?  Online privacy is always a heated debate.  People post things on blogs and in their instant messenger profiles, open and freely accessed to the general public.  Some claim that it's freedom of speech to print off other people's profiles and xanga entries and then publicly disclose them to those who didn't have prior access to that information.  Here is a given scenario:

A person writes his prose in a private journal, but feels that he wants to display it to his friends.  Doing so, he limits his entry to be seen only by friends that he's allowed.  On one specific occasion, months from posting this one article that was about the word "tomorrow," the person finds his article being written on the white board as he walks in to his physics class.  One of his friends had looked through all of his entries one day and printed out the one about "tomorrow."  He then decided to print the entry out and display the main character's thoughts on the board to the rest of the class.

Now if you haven't guessed already, that person whose story was revealed to his physics class was me.  Despite my obvious bad choice in friends, there is a major ethical question that arises from this situation.  Who was wrong; was I wrong for posting something I didn't want the public to know about on a source that could be so readily accessed, or was the other person wrong for reading my private note to the class because he thought he'd be a "smart" person by doing so?  My opinion on the matter is that the latter was more ill-advised, be it that it was the whim of the person's thought process anyway.  Let's consider a few points.

1) The entry was marked as private.  Only friends that were allowed access to the entry could see it.  It then lies upon the shoulders of the reader to determine if it is ethical to report what they have seen to people who are less fortunate and can't read the entry.  In their defense, it was displayed to them, why can't they share their ideas on the matter?  There has to be a right to free speech.  But what about the feelings of the writer?  Which brings us to point number 2.

2) If the writer, being me in this case, did not want his views to be read or overheard by other people than the designated online, then he should not post the entry to begin with.  But then this brings up the controversial issue of point number 1.

3) If there was a disclaimer to not reproduce the information read to the public, would that stop people from doing what the person did?  I would hardly think so.  Some people just have a mindset to diverge information to the public.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have people who gossip.

There are a variety of other points to make on this issue.  But I'd rather hear what people have to say on their own behalf of this issue.

What would you have done if your private thoughts were displayed and publicly announced to try and humiliate you?

This entry is a deviance from the main topic.  It is based off a class assignment and discussion:

When will AI come to our time?  It has been in best-selling books and blockbuster hit movies, but in the average day to day world, it has yet to form into existence.  The ethical question to ask yourself is, should we try forcing AI to evolve from fifteen year old kids or let it gradually form from scientists years of hard work?  The first issue is addressed in Charles Platt’s “What’s It Mean to Be Human, Anyway?”

        For several years a contest has been held for programmers who think they can create the most “human” application.  People are then put up against these computers to be the most human, judged by a panel of more people.  Is the contest ethical?

        Humans are being put up against computers to be picked out of the entire lot of both computers and humans and labeled as “most human.”  I my eyes, this is placing either computers as our equals or down-grading humans to match the limited capabilities of computers.  Using this logic, this contest itself is unethical no matter which way you look at it.  You are either creating intelligence that can replace a human being or you are mocking the intelligence all together.

        Also, finding ways of obtaining artificial intelligence has been the goal of many scientists around the world.  Should we allow contests such as these that bring forth fifteen year old boys who are doing the same thing?  It could end up that millions of dollars of research and training would be all to waste for the efforts of one child.  Does this mean that we should abandon all paid workers for achieving this goal?  I think not- I just find that the concept is ironical how some do it for profit and some do it as a game.  No matter way you look at it, society should benefit from the discovery, whenever that may occur.

Discussion Question:  Take this situation in the eyes of a business firm that deals with AI.  What is your perspective on how contests such as these affect your firm?