Been a while bloggers. Absence makes the data stream grow deeper doesn’t it?
Just wanted to share this well written perspective piece about technology. Gives some good insight into the user perspective of social media privacy.
With the War ongoing and the dilemma of ethical technology use ever more blurry. Many lawyers have been conducting legal research on the matter and the issue stands whether or not it is a legal issue at all, or simply a moral one.
This topic was brought up by what is being called the “White Paper Memo” saying the President has the right to kill indiscriminately using drones…including US citizens (don’t you just love the freedom of equality).
For an introduction to the topic, please visit the link below.
The link below is a video that discusses the issue of Drone Warfare and the argument against it’s ethical and legal use.
The link below is to a video of Harold Koh, legal advisor to the US Department of State, arguing that the use of drone warfare is legal according to United States and International law.
Regardless of a person’s stance on the issue, we have to agree that to every action there is an intention, and there are those things that are unintended.
Yes folks, it’s happened. As crazy as it may seem… it is possible that weaponry can be printed. With the creation of a new form of technology there is always a down side. The use of the 3D printer for weapons has been a discussed possibility for everything from gaming dice and simple manufacturing to medicine and military use.
Now understand me correctly, these weapons are not your class A firearms. in many cases the guns printed only lasted a handful of rounds or less. The article The 3D-printed gun: When is high-tech too hot to handle By David Cardinal gives a bit more information on the problems of printing 3D guns. Plastics simply are not the kind of quality materials that guns need to hold themselves together. But he also brings up the main issue:
Few issues generate as many opinions as gun ownership. Almost every country in the world recognizes the special importance of firearms and regulates them. In the United States, the right to own a gun is written into our constitution as part of the famous Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights. Tempering those rights are a slew of state and federal regulations including laws requiring those who manufacture weapons for sale to be licensed, the weapons they create to be numbered and registered, and the guns to be readily detectable. 3D printing is threatening to turn the existing system of regulations on its head.
It’s quite true. Rep Steve Israel has called for a renewal of the ban on the company Wiki Weapons from offering gun printing services claiming that the guns cannot be regulated nor detected by traditional methods, which in turn can cause tracking terrorism and other kinds of organized crimes to be nearly impossible. This article entitled The world’s first 3D-printed gun By Sebastian Anthony from ExtremeTech.com sums up the issue quite nicely:
In short, this means that people without gun licenses — or people who have had their licenses revoked — could print their own lower receiver and build a complete, off-the-books gun. What a chilling thought.
But hey, that’s the ambivalent nature of technology, the great enabler. In just the last few months, 3D printers have also been used to print organs, blood vessels, and drugs. In a few more years, when 3D printers move beyond plastic resins, who knows what we’ll be able to print.
For every piece of technology we create, there is usually a number of pros and cons. In many cases the pros are larger in number than the cons, but at the same time the few cros are much larger problems than we realize. At what point do we critically regulate the uses of certain technologies, and when do we draw the line between the 1st Amendment and the well being of the population? Are we really being enabled and is it taking us in the wrong direction?
If you’re a Mac user you know some of the connotations that go along with Macs. Yes, they’re expensive. Yes, many wealthy schools and people have Macs. Yes, Apple is a large company that has made quite a bit of money on their flashy (aka beautiful) products and unique marketing scheme. But, is that really cause for making people pay more online?
Yes, you heard me correctly.
Being a Mac user I can’t say that I’ve come across this problem. Mostly because the site found to have done this kind of marketing was Orbiz, which is a site I don’t particularly use, because I’ve not needed to book hotels before. But several articles from US News, CNN, and CNet have given information about this type of business practice, one that I find personally to be unethical. The CEO of Orbitz comments on the matter (From CNNs report):
“CEO Barney Harford told CNN that Orbitz recommendation results are part of an attempt to pair customers with the hotel they’d probably pick. In this case, Orbitz will offer recommendations based on what other PC or other Mac users selected as their final hotel, on the assumption that spending habits are the same, he said.
“What we have found is … that Mac users are 40% more likely to book four- or five-star hotels than PC users,” Harford said. “That lines up with (the fact that) Mac users are typically more willing to spend more money on higher-end computers.”
Now when one reads this 40% is a pretty high number. But, what if you consider that 40% of students are the purchasers of Mac computers? According to SeattlePi reports, Microsoft hasn’t been very attractive to this new generation. Though the information is almost 2 years old the trend is apparent on college campuses, coffee shops, and cyber cafes across the nation. Students are a fairly large sum of mac users, and I ask why should they pay more? Aren’t loans enough to pay off?
Of course this is all here-say as well, there is still a lot of information that isn’t accounted for. There is still that 60% of Mac users to take into account. There is still the fact that some people receive Macs as gifts like I did with mine (I’d like to know what % that is). But, regardless of that information, it causes a kind of socioeconomic profiling that I simply cannot reconcile, even if it’s for the sake of marketing. It’s almost as bad as The Nations report on how women pay more for everyday items (even medical insurance) than men do. It’s simply unreasonable. If The United States is a nation that stands for equality, then why are we being reduced to stereotypes based off something as small as the kind of computers we use? Why do human lives and choices have dollar signs all over them at all? All I know from this information is I won’t be using Orbitz anytime soon…or later in my life.
First off, apologies for not posting much. Summer is crazy between work and well…work. Oh, the joys of being the intern.
Second, if you love computer ethics, never really thought about your imprint on a technological scale, and/or love anime…you may want to see this film. One of the most thought provoking films I’ve seen concerning the possible impacts that large internet powers (like Google and Facebook) can actually have on society that is totally dependent on them. Especially when things go terribly wrong.
**Warning: Watching this film may give you warm fuzzy feelings you may not feel comfortable with. Not recommended for children due to strong language and mild adult humor.**
Hope you’re all having an awesome summer. Peace!
A New York court on April 8th declared it legal to view child pornography on the internet claiming thst it is not “possessing” child pornography if it is merely being viewed (See full article here).
The issue the, New York court of appeals states, is that viewing online doesn’t mean you posses the media its self. If you view a lawn mower online doesn’t mean you own it right? Well, they aren’t wrong on that point, but we aren’t talking about inanimate possessions any more are we? We’re talking about children, living breathing beings being abused for the sake of entertainment (I’m sure that if one of the court members own children was in one of those online child pornography sites, they’d be playing a much different tune). What about hiring hit men? If one isn’t killing anyone themselves are they still held responsible for the death? The way I see it, viewing pornography is the same as hiring a hit man because it is another way of enabling the creation of child porn simply because of the increase in demand for it (and an increase will inevitably come as viewing increases).
On a side note I was dicussing pornography with a friend and they made a good argument. They wondered how is pornography is not considered prostitution when you’re paying people to have sex with other people…like prostitutes. So why isn’t porn specifically illegal like prostitution considering they have the same definition?
Regardless, online morality might be taking an “interesting” (to put it lightly) turn because of this ruling.
Want to know what you can do to help fight against child pornography? Click here.