Writing 09: Intellectual Property

Ultimately, I feel that intellectual property should be given fewer protections than physical property. Intellectual property laws have been abused to exploit the rights of users and loosen the definition of ownership by equating services and products. Of course, the idea of protections for creative and inventive work is important. However, these protections must be proportionate to the amount of effort and time taken to achieve the creation.

In the case of patents, these protections are usually reasonable. 20 years is a suitable amount of time for mechanical and procedural innovations that often take 5-10 years to research and bring into production. Software, on the other hand, is a very different story. Oftentimes, software patents are created for very generic and abstract "designs" that take little time to invent and cover a wide area of software development. Worse still, many of the regulators approving the patents understand little about the modern software industry and are more likely to think that frivolous software patents contain true "inventive value."

Another cause of abuse is the transfer of patents and ownership of patents by corporations. Invention should not be a transferable object. If you invented something, than you, and only you, own the intellectual property for that invention. It seems absurd to me that you can transfer "ownership" of that intellectual property to another entity that has contributed nothing to the creation of the invention. Having the ability to transfer intellectual property contributes nothing to promoting creation and invention and only allows opportunistic companies to exploit other people's work for profit.

Copyright is perhaps the tool that is most often used to disregard the rights of consumers. The very idea of the modern copyright is absurd: the protections last beyond the lifetime of the creator, can be transferred to heirs or corporate entities, and can be used to prevent derivative work. Furthermore, companies use copyrights to redefine "ownership" by boldly proclaiming that users, despite having purchased the copyrighted work, have no right for copying, modification, or transferal of the work.

While streaming services act as a "band-aid" solution to the problems with copyright, I see them as ultimately supporting a system that abuses their users. I want to have ownership to a product, not be a member of a "service." As a member, I have no control. I have to abide by whatever rules the corporation sets, and I have no say in the way that I am treated. Additionally, the content I want to view could be locked behind different streaming services, all with their own rules, restrictions, and pricing.

For these reasons, I think that the distinction between open source software and free software is important. We need to frame the discussion in terms of the natural "rights" of the users, rather than "privileges" granted to them by corporations. Open source software represents a push against the threats to innovation brought about by corporations. By making many elements of software development open source, software development has been able to speed up tremendously by forcing collaboration and sharing rather than petty squabbles over intellectual property (think Java vs Google).

Writing 08: AI and Automation

I think that the artificial intelligence will be an important and dominant factor in human society in the near future. The popular AI programs of today (AlphaGo, DeepBlue, Watson, etc.) show great promise as building blocks for more general AI systems that could rival human intelligence. The main two problems of the current contenders in AI are high specialization and low adaptability. These systems usually excel at a single, specific task; but lack broader intelligence needed to perform outside of their task area. To me, these systems seem to correspond to specialized neurons or subregions of the brain. For that reason, I think they work well as "cells" or building blocks toward more general systems. Abstraction of these units in a similar way to ensemble methods could provide more room for generalization. Furthermore, I think a larger focus on AI programs using other AI as tools and for evaluation metrics is on the near horizon.

Despite all of this progress in AI, I still question if artificial intelligence will be able to mimic human intelligence. For me, human intelligence isn't just about logic and reasoning skills; I think other elements of the human condition such as passions, suffering, and moral values (such as altruism and sympathy) all play significant roles in abstract thought and intelligence. In particular, I think that human intelligence is so powerful based on our ability to connect disparate, seemingly unrelated experiences to the task at hand.

Because of this, I think that the Turing test offers an incomplete view of intelligence. While the AI program may be able to produce the "right" responses to sound human enough under the test conditions, there is no guarantee that the machine is processing the information in a human-like way (Chinese Room problem). Thus, I think more efforts should be made to understanding the structures of the human brain and artificial neural networks. Currently, both artificial and natural intelligence systems are largely black boxes: while they may produce desirable results, we have very little knowledge about the meaning of the connections producing the outputs. Without this understanding, I think that we will not be able to create a machine that is truly equivalent to a mind.

With this in mind, I think it's fair to say that automation and AI offer great promise as an aid to humans rather than as a replacement. We've already seen how much computers have been able to greatly increase the productivity of a single person and improve quality of living. I think AI could also offer much of the same promise. Of course, as seen with the information revolution, automation can greatly affect the role of humans in the workplace. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing though. I feel there are great areas for growth in uniquely human areas such as care, education, and design. I don't think that we should arbitrarily throttle AI advancement or automation in order to maintain blue collar jobs; rather, we should focus more on making sure that those affected have support systems and training programs for finding work in an industry sector with more need for humans. This will require both government funding/regulation and industry guidelines for managing a changing workforce in the face of technological advancement.

Finally, I believe that the decreasing human need in the workforce due to automation pushes us to reevaluate the economic model of our country. With more and more of corporate productivity being supplied by automation, I think we need to consider some sort of Universal Basic Income in order to redistribute these productivity gains back to the populace.

Writing 07: Censorship

I believe that the Internet has become an essential public service that everyone has a right to access. In modern society, access to the Internet is becoming just as important as access to water, electricity, roadways, and other utilities. Sectors as far reaching as news, job searching, communication, and banking have all moved the majority of their activities onto the Internet. Just imagine how difficult modern life (and work especially) would be without email or web searching. Nowadays, if you don't have an email address, it's almost the same as not having a phone number or physical address. It's easy to forget how reliant we have become on Internet connectivity, but try to spend one month away from the Internet while working or studying at university and you'll quickly realize how necessary it is even for basic tasks.

Since I view the Internet as a utility, I believe that there should be as little restriction of content as possible online. As an analogy, it would be absurd (and unlawful) for a city to restrict roadway access to only people who support the current governor. In the same way, it would be similarly outrageous for companies like Google and Facebook to moderate content based on its political or social stances. Free speech only has power when it protects unpopular speech. That said, I still think that there are exceptions. For example, content moderation is acceptable and should be applied in the case of explicitly illegal content such as terrorism, human trafficking, and child pornography.

Moderation is ethical in the case of non-centralized, small, topic-based communities such as forums and other discussion groups (such as Facebook Pages and Reddit subreddits). In this case, these communities are analogous to private property where the landlords have the ability to set the rules of engagement. Moderation, though, should always be done by a human hand. When we entrust algorithms to moderation, we lose accountability, flexibility, and understanding. A recent example of this is with the many recent controversies with Youtube and its content management algorithms. These algorithms are notorious for shutting down channels automatically via copyright strikes despite fair use, while the creators have few avenues of recourse to combat these claims. Another brazen example of the ineptness of Youtube's algorithms has been in the recent Google account bans doled out to some users for spamming emojis during a Youtube livestream. This account ban affected all Google services and prevented people from accessing the Gmail and Drive services.

I am very concerned about online censorship, especially due to the actions of China with respect to the Great Firewall and the Great Cannon. As our society becomes more and more reliant on Internet as a means of communication and information exchange, nefarious governments and trolls gain more power over large parts of the general populace and can almost shape reality to their whims. There is no easy solution to this, but I believe the large amount of centralization in the modern web allows for these entities to easily gain control over the vast majority of web traffic. By pressuring just Google and Facebook, China can control the news stories viewed by the majority of Internet users. Unfortunately, decentralization is not enough. The Great Firewall isn't just a software issue. By controlling all Internet access points into the country, China can easily filter the packets flowing into and out of the country. There's no practical way for citizens to lay down their own Internet infrastructure to combat this. However, there is some promise in satellite Internet and projects like Starlink that may offer alternative Internet infrastructure that can circumvent Internet censorship through centralized pipelines.

Writing 06: Corporate Conscience

If we are to treat corporations as people with respect to rights, we should also treat them like people in respect to responsibilities. These responsibilities extend to moral and ethical considerations that must be respected when dealing with immoral entities or making decisions that can negatively affect the lives of the general populace. No company exists in a vacuum: no matter what they do, their actions in some way have moral consequences. Because of this, corporations cannot simply take a backseat with regards to ethical practices. In fact, I would argue that corporations have a greater obligation than individuals to uphold the moral values of our society due their incredible influence over our livelihood.

Ultimately, the law should be enforcing ethical practices on corporations. While this does limit our economy in some ways, regulation is necessary in order to ensure that the rights of consumers are protected and respected. Corporate competition is not enough to ensure that upholding these rights continue to be a major factor in business decisions. Corporations already enjoy many privileges not afforded to individuals in regard to accountability and culpability. Thus, regulation is needed in order to maintain a balance between corporate growth and consumer protections.

Moreover, being ethical in your business decisions and your dealings is simply good business. Honesty and transparency are highly valued among consumers, and if you neglect these, you are practically begging to be destroyed in the future by a competitor that understands the importance of these values. While these values do incur some overhead on the part of the business, good customer relations should always trump quick, short-term profits. A lot of the greatest business collapses occur when companies decide to put their investors before their consumers and use tactics such as stock buybacks to artificially inflate the value of their business without actually increasing the quality of their profits.

In order for our economy to encourage ethical practices and good consumer relations, there must be healthy competition within all industries. Without this competition, corporations naturally begin to ignore their consumers since the quality of their products and the morality of their practices have no influence over their products. Oftentimes, the most unethical businesses come about due to monopolistic practices. Thus, the law should encourage businesses that grow due to better products and discourage those that try to achieve growth through anti-competitive means such as large buy-outs, artificial deflation of sale prices, etc.

Government should play an active role in keeping businesses in check. The government's most important responsibilities lie in trust-busting and corporate oversight. The government also has a responsibility to enforce open standards regarding utilities so that the controllers of the pipelines can't disadvantage their competitors by restricting access through physical or proprietary means. These open standards are becoming increasingly important as our world becomes more connected through the Internet of Things. Additionally, setting "standards rather than rules" isn't enough. Standards are not legally enforceable and thus would have little effect on corporate behavior. This can be seen now in the lax actions Google and Facebook have taken to ensure that user data is not abused. Despite a large number of lawmakers speaking against these companies, the government is powerless to change their behavior since there are no applicable laws to enforce against them.

Writing 05: Privacy vs Security

The worry about Big Brother and the "surveillance state" isn't just an acceptable reality, it is our reality. In order to see this, you need to look no further than the atrocities occurring in China and Hong Kong. In China, there is an extensive network of monitoring and tracking such that, even if you leave the country, your actions can be still be viewed and recorded at any time. If you ever say something that it out of line with party ideology, even seemingly innocuous satire such as saying that the president of China looks like Winnie the Pooh, you and your family can be "disappeared," sent to re-education camps, or accused of crimes that you didn't commit. You aren't even safe abroad as the Chinese government will threaten whatever family and friends you have that are still living in the country. China of course will say that this is for the purpose of protecting "national sovereignty" from "Western corruption." They will say it's a matter of "national security." However, as can be seen in modern China, this justification for national defense over personal freedom, privacy, and civil rights is ultimately detrimental for the overall populace.

In the fight between privacy and security, I think the government should always ere on the side of privacy. Privacy, once lost, is nearly impossible to ever regain. Especially in the age of cameras and recordings everywhere, privacy is an ever dwindling resource. In a world without privacy, we face judgment at every corner. There is no forgiveness, no expression of unpopular ideas, no "going against the flow."

I think encryption is a key part of maintaining our right to privacy. We should be allowed to communicate without the possibility of outside actors snooping in on our every action. Of course, there is a cost to national security because of this. However, such is the price of maintaining a free and democratic state. Our values as a nation are worth more than simply maintaining security and defense. If we give up our values of free expression and privacy, we have already lost, even if the country survives in name only.

Writing 04: What good is whistleblowing?

In general, I think that whistleblowing is a force for good and is a necessary component of a democracy that values freedom and truth over mere security of the status quo. Whistleblowing exposes the corruptness of large bureaucracies and corporations where complaints through the "official channels" are often dismissed and the reporters often punished without due process. I don't see why a reporter of illegal behavior is often punished more than the actual entity committing the crimes.

Often in cases involving negligent behavior, I find that it's the fault of leadership and management. These are the individuals that are responsible for evaluating the safety and ethical considerations of the creations of their engineers. I think it is wrong to assume that purely technical workers like software engineers should be in charge of the responsibility and usage of their creations. Oftentimes, these engineers are powerless to stop their managers when they present findings that would hurt their company or organization's bottom line. Too often, managers only look at the money and not at the costs to the public in terms of safety and ethics.

I think technical workers are obligated to speak the truth as they know the most about the safety and usage of their creations and face the least amount of corrupting influence caused by concern over profits. I also believe that the truth should be made public, especially in this day and age of "alternative facts" where politicians and corporations can deceive the public without recourse. Even if these entities commit illegal acts, they are more often than not simply slapped with a small fine. Thus, I don't think these organizations have any right to condemn whistleblowers and sue them for their allegations when they already have so much legal protection due to their enormous profits and redirection of blame.

That being said, I don't think that I would have the courage to be a whistleblower if I was presented with some great injustice in my corporation. There is just too much at stake: I could lose my job, my reputation, and possibly my home and family. What does it matter if you're right if you just get punished and have your life destroyed because of it? I think that I would instead pursue a path of internal reform in whatever capacity I could manage.

Writing 03: How to Create a Welcoming and Inclusive Community in Computer Science

For me, I think diversity in Computer Science means providing a space for people of many different ideas and backgrounds to share ideas and contribute. I believe the best way to achieve this is to support groups of different races, socioeconomic statuses, genders, and beliefs in the pursuit of Computer Science so that there is always a good mixture of different people in the workplace. While I do mostly agree that a complete meritocracy seems like the most fair and equal system, I think that this system can leave us blind to new ideas and perspectives due to a concentration of similar biases. Thus, I feel that diversity within CSE is a worthwhile goal.

In order to achieve this goal, we must learn to tolerate and work with people who may have different values and perspectives. I think this is particularly important in the light of the "culture" of Computer Science. From my experience, computers and coding has a lot of stigmas and stereotypes associated with it, ranging from the nerdy kid with classes trying to hack into something to the "brogrammer" image of Silicon Valley. Furthermore, there is this general idea in society that Computer Science is an extremely complicated field in which only those with innate talent for working with computers can excel. As a part of promoting diversity within CSE, we have to be mindful of these deeply-ingrained beliefs and actively seek to dispel them. I worry that these images of the tech industry can have a depressing effect on the participation of those with different backgrounds from the typical programmer due to feelings that they "don't fit in" or "aren't meant to code."

As the president of LUG this year, I have seen firsthand the challenges associated with promoting diversity within Computer Science. I feel that I am always torn between maintaining the rather clique-y and exclusive feel of the original club and trying to include people who are newcomers, who don't fit in with the typical culture of CS, or who are women or minorities. For me, it's very difficult because there are many trade-offs that need to be considered when transitioning to a more inclusive community. For example, when planning events, the officers and I have to consider what would be best for our members (and potential members) as a whole rather than simply what we think would benefit us or people of the same experience level as us the most. As part of this, we have to also look beyond our current membership and consider what type of community we want to build in our club. I think this kind of forward thinking is important in the discussion of how to promote inclusivity in Computer Science and shows how we must work proactively rather than reactively in creating structures to support minority groups.

Unfortunately, as part of these efforts, I feel like we must express some degree of self-censorship and change the way we normally act in some cases. As part of being inclusive, we must consider the way our words and actions come across to people dissimilar to us. This can take many forms, such as avoiding telling jokes that may make people within the community uncomfortable or showing restraint and empathy when we disagree with the viewpoint of another person. I recognize that this is a trade-off that does not sit well with many people (including myself at times); however, I feel that it is critical to improving and expanding the community of CS.