A Discussion of Ethics and Computer Science

By: Keith MacDonell - kmacdone Net neutrality, in a nutshell, is the idea of an open internet. The article "What is net neutrality and what does it mean for me," states that it is "the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others." In addition it makes it illegal for the ISPs to deliberately slow down content from competing content providers or charge content providers for faster delivery (What is net neutrality...). An ISP, as the name would indicate, provides internet access to paying customers. Examples of these companies include AT&T and Verizon. An example of a content provider would be Netflix. However, the two are not always separate. For example, Comcast provides Internet service, but it also provides video content through its subsidiaries. Obviously, there are arguments both for and against net neutrality. One of

By: Keith MacDonell - kmacdone Corporate Personhood is the legal concept that a company enjoys some of the same rights afforded to individuals. According to the article "How Corporations Got The Same Rights As People (But Don't Ever Go To Jail)," these rights include the right to free speech and expression, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, double jeopardy, and more. Legally these rights given to corporations protect them from the government. As the article points out, however, corporations can't go to jail even if convicted of wrong doing. One of the social ramifications of corporate personhood are that companies are free to express themselves without fear of government reprisal. The ethical ramifications are that since they are treated as people, corporations should be expected to have the same moral and ethical obligations as a member of society would. I found it very interesting that IBM did business with Nazi Germany. Apparently th

By: Keith MacDonell - kmacdone The article "The Convenience-Surveillance Tradeoff" commences the article by saying "People love free stuff." Basic economics would disagree with this on the premise that nothing is ever free. There is a common phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" that encompasses this idea. There is always a cost for something even if not monetary. This is known as opportunity cost. To have the opportunity to get something or use a service, there will be some sort of cost. For example the opportunity cost of watching the Notre Dame football game this afternoon is that I cant watch the other football games that are going on at the same time. More specifically in this situation, the opportunity of accessing sites on the web to utilize their various services comes at the cost of your information being collected and data mined for the purpose of monetary gain. The ethical issue comes from whether or not people know that their

By: Keith MacDonell - kmacdone I fully oppose the idea that technology companies should weaken the encryption of their devices or implement a "backdoor" that could be utilized for government surveillance purposes. I can understand the desire to have a way to get access to the information on the phone of the individual responsible for the San Bernardino terrorist attack. However, there are several issues I am concerned with in this situation. My first concern is with the security issue of weakening encryption or implementing a backdoor. Despite best efforts to make such features available only in the case of a government investigation, this would also make the devices more susceptible to hackers with malicious intents. Because of this, it would negatively impact the privacy of every consumer/citizen using the device. On top of this, a cynical, but somewhat realistic view of government, brings up the question of abuse of power. Eventually, there could come about some instan