Patent Trolls

From the readings, patents are an exclusive right granted for an invention – a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem.  Patents offer protection to individuals for their inventions for a limited time period, usually 20 years.  What this means is that an invention can not be commercially made, used, distributed or sold without the patent owner’s consent.  The patent owner holds the right to decide who may or may not use the patented invention during the protected duration, after which the invention enters into the public domain.  While the patent owner may give permission to, or license, other parties to use the invention, further selling their rights to someone else, the patent owner is required to publicly disclose information on their inventions.  The readings indicate this is to enrich the total body of technical knowledge in the world.

The articles argue that the progress and well-being of humanity rest on its capacity to create and invent new works in the areas of technology and culture.  How then, do we foster an environment that promotes such innovation?  Some argue that patents provide the incentives needed to individuals by recognizing their creativity and offering the possibility of material reward for marketable inventions.  It could be said that without patents, researchers and inventors would have little motivation to continue producing better and more efficient products for consumers.  Another reason for granting patents, according to the readings, is that the legal protection of new creations encourages the commitment of additional resources for further innovation.  Lastly, the government believes the promotion and protection of intellectual property spurs economic growth, creates new jobs and industries, and enhances the quality and enjoyment of life.  Aside from these social and economical reasons, there are clearly underlying moral and ethical pushes.  Seeing as it is illegal to go into your neighbor’s house and steal their TV – their property – why should intellectual property be treated different?  After all, they are your thoughts, your ideas, and your solutions.  If anything, I feel like stealing someone’s creation of mind is an even more intimate and uncomfortable crime.  You are not only taking something that belongs to them, but something inside of them.  Something internal and embedded in their being.  Patents are a way to protect against this uneasy ethical situation.

Consistent with some of the reasons above, I do believe patents should be granted.  I think patents are a great step to providing a legal foundation for innovation.  Yet while they are certainly beneficial, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are absolutely necessary.  I believe the assumption that innovation would not sustain without patents is a bit aggressive, insinuating that we as people are solely invested in monetary gain.  That we as a society look forward to nothing more than personal pride and success.  I don’t doubt the thought, “what’s the point, someone will just steal my idea anyway” might cross a handful of people’s minds.  But the point is to better our society as a whole; to work towards the common good.  What if patents didn’t exist and someone found the cure for cancer.  Would they withhold it because they were scared someone might steal it?  I highly doubt it.  Patents do provide increased incentive, but are not the be-all and end-all of innovation.

The second argument surrounding increased resource commitment I do buy.  If someone were to show immense progress in a given field, without total domination, a patent would protect their work while still enhancing movement in that field.  Their work could inspire others to commit additional effort into research or the like, without completely diminishing the legitimate authority of work of those before them.

It is clear that there are issues surrounding patents on software.  Historically, courts have viewed programs as unpatentable mental steps.  Later, they distinguished a mathematical algorithm – something unpatentable – from a system in which the computer or software interacted with other non-obvious elements to yield a useful, concrete and tangible result – something worth a patent.  Yes, there is an obvious issue that the legal system doesn’t understand software and programming, and is thus incapable of constructing a defined solution to software patents.  But beyond the fine print arguments in the articles, I struggle with the ethical approach to software patents.  On the one hand, I put myself in the shoes of the inventor.  High key I’d be pissed if someone ripped off my software and used it as their own.  After all the blood, sweat and tears that is often poured into software innovation, I can’t envision the morality of someone being able to just swoop in and take all that was done.  But on the other hand, I look at Elon Musk and the message he is sending through Tesla.  He removed all patents as he believed they acted in a manner contrary to the company’s goal.  We have talked about our community as computer scientists, striving to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers.  We hope to promote progress and create better solutions for tomorrow.  But often times these patents delimit this movement.  I look back to the first week of class and the ACM Code of Ethics.  Here we have one imperative, “Contribute to society and human well-being“.  Scroll down and you find “Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.“  and “Give proper credit for intellectual property“.  According to Musk we have some conflicting values here.  The only way to respond to this, I believe, is to grant software patents where they are due, but reject them when they become an active hindrance to our mission to provide the best possible products and solutions for our customers: or in this case, the world.

The existence of patent trolls in the software industry is definitely evidence that the system is broken. According to the articles, patent trolls are companies who accumulate armloads of broad software patents and then sue people who infringe them by accident.  They might patent obvious things related to interface, object orientation, algorithms, application extensions, or other crucial computing techniques.  These trolls form an “impenetrable patent thicket”, making it impossible for other tech companies to write useful software without violating these patents.  Trolls are essentially running a 20 year monopoly, taking profits from the other guys, and strangling innovation.  The articles stipulated that inventors are spending more money defending themselves in court than they earn from patent royalties.  If firms are constantly in fear of stepping on the bad guy’s toes and being sued for it, there is no way they will feel comfortable pursuing creative solutions. What’s even worse is that these patent trolls are mostly non-practicing entities.  That meaning they have no products and no major source of income aside from patent licensing and lawsuits.  So not only are they monopolizing basic, common intellect in the software industry, but they aren’t even doing anything with it themselves!  After 40+ years of movement in court surrounding software patents, it is clear something new has to be done.

Self-Driving Cars

According to the articles, the main motivation for developing and building self-driving cars is to drastically improve transportation safety as well as accelerate the world’s transition towards a sustainable future.  First and foremost the government, in conjunction with these technology companies, is looking to better public safety. 2015 saw nearly 40,000 auto-related deaths in the United States; 94% of which are estimated to have been the result of human error.  Federal auto regulators bet that the nation’s highways will be safer with more cars driven by machines and not people.  Obama was quoted saying that self-driving cars have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives each year.  As pointed out in the readings, a self-driving car can’t get drunk or distracted.  They can’t text while driving or put their makeup on in the rear-view mirror; and thus there would be a complete elimination of this kind of human recklessness.  Additionally, Tesla indicates that the hardware needed for their self-driving vehicles provides a view of the world that a driver alone can not access.  8 surround cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and a forward facing radar allow the vehicle to see in every direction simultaneously, and on wavelengths beyond human sense.  This kind of intelligent system has safety reinforcing capabilities beyond any human driver.  Aside from the obvious implication that successful AI in self-driving cars can reduce a majority of fatal automobile accidents, they also provide the opportunity for societal and environmental improvements. These types of benefits however are founded in the rise of the sharing economy. That is, car companies no longer see the same validity in building cars and selling them to customers.  After all, who is going to drop 6 figures on a vehicle??  However partnership with a ride sharing platform allows a real business to be built.  Tesla argues that self-driving cars will lower the financial cost of transportation for car owners and provide low-cost on-demand mobility for non-car owners.  Uber suggests that prices will fall so low that the per-mile cost of travel will be cheaper in a driverless Uber than in a private car.  Lyft says there will be less traffic, less pollution, and less parking.  It would also eliminate typical commute frustrations making for more convenient and efficient travel.

Despite these potential benefits, the practicality and ethics of self-driving cars open up huge areas for debate.  One argument lies within the testing constraints of self-driving cars.  Tesla assured their systems were calibrated using millions of miles of real-world driving.  Other third party testers also sought to prove safety through failure-free miles.  However one of the readings suggested it would take tens to hundreds of years to drive the miles needed to demonstrate maximum failure rates. We want to get this kind of technology out, but obviously not at the risk of any drivers.  It’s great that people believe self-driving cars will save lives; but how exactly do we know that for sure?  Another practical issue with self-driving cars is they do not mimic a human driver.  Infrequently do humans adhere exactly to the rules of the road.  This might include going over the speed limit, not coming to a complete stop, or making a turn out of your lane.  Many people might find it frustrating to travel in exact accordance with every traffic law.  Additionally, because there is innate human “error”, self-driving cars might not be able to respond to situations posed by a human-driven car.  Thus far, some autonomous vehicles have had trouble navigating more difficult problems involved in driving.  Some might argue there is an intuitive nature to driving, and while humans are prone to error, they are better able to read certain situations as a product of emotional intelligence or the like.  Given time and advanced technology I believe self-driving cars would make our roads safer.  But at these preliminary stages, I am not convinced that a self-driving car would 100% be better suited in certain driving scenarios.

More obvious arguments against self-driving cars relate to the ethics.  One issue being the “social dilemma of autonomous vehicles.”  What this issue boils down to is how should an autonomous vehicle react when multiple lives are at stake?  Should the car sacrifice its driver and/or passengers for the safety of multiple others?  Or should the car prioritize the safety of its passengers?  We see a paradox between people’s approval of autonomous vehicles sacrificing its passengers for the salvation of a majority, and their willingness to actually own or ride in one themselves.  After thinking a lot about it, I don’t have an answer as to how programmers should approach this dilemma.  There is no ethical win.  There is no obvious answer or if-then rule to guide autonomous vehicles in these kind of scenarios.  And no matter what we decide, there is an utter diffusion of responsibility.  Who becomes responsible for an accident?  The driver?  Vehicle owner?  Car company? Programmer?  I don’t have the answer to that either.  It appears from the articles, and I would have to agree, that everyone hypothetically wants to minimize casualties, but everyone wants their own car to protect them.  Why are safety ratings so important?  Why do parents support their children getting big SUVs?  It’s because every time you get in your car, you want to feel safe.  Every time you are involved in a risky or bad situation, you make a conscious choice.  You can accept that a human felt.  And that a human withheld their values.  And that they took responsibility for their actions.  But how can we as a society ever accept a strictly utilitarian approach to human lives?  Take for example that in the future I am driving my kids to school.  I approach a life or death situation which reduces to 4 lives in the vehicle versus 10 lives externally.  I’m sorry, but I am 100% saving the lives of my children.  And I would never, ever be able to forgive myself if I purchased a car that was essentially “programmed” to kill my children.  Take another example.  I’m driving down the road and 5 drunk pedestrians are illegally j-walking.  There’s no time to stop and so I either hit the 5 drunk pedestrians, or I swerve off the road and hit a biker on the sidewalk wearing a helmet.  According to utilitarian principles, I would swerve my car and thus punish the safety conscious.  I would punish those following the rules doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Many social and economic impacts were listed earlier: people might engage more in ride sharing, car purchases could reduce, could the economy suffer because of that?  What about jobs that are replaced by automation?  Truck drivers and Uber drivers would lose their ability to make money.  How would legal processes work when testifying against a self-driving car?  At this point, with so many questions and concerns about self-driving cars up in the air, I think it is the role of the government simply to monitor and regulate the design and development of cars, create uniform policies, and require transparency from the automotive and technology companies.  It is hard to define their exact role when we are still innovating and applying.

I personally would not like a self-driving car.  Self-driving cars require people to fully trust Artificial Intelligence with their lives and be willing to give up total control of their vehicles.  I enjoy driving manually: taking a drive can be relaxing and fulfilling.  But most importantly, I am not willing to sacrifice my values and rights as a human being to act in certain situations.  I described a few of those scenarios above.  Additionally, what if I need to get to the hospital immediately but my self-driving car won’t go above a certain speed limit?  Or I decide at the last second I want to go this route and not that route?  What if the car just simply malfunctions and now I’m fucked as a product of technology?  I’m just not ready for that kind of vulnerability.

Project 3 Reflection

After having gone through all of the challenges posed throughout the podcast series, I made no changes in my technology habits.  Quite frankly, I found most of the challenges a bit irrelevant and further felt no impact from them.  The challenge relating to what my phone knew left me with no surprises.  I have very few applications on my phone, all of which only accessed my camera, photo roll, or microphone.  Nothing about this challenge left me feeling uneasy, nor did I feel the need to change any of my privacy settings.  If any of the challenges got me thinking it was the second challenge, which had me visit a website and check the protection functions of my browsers.  I found out that my browser wasn’t blocking any trackers nor protecting from fingerprinting.  While this initially hit me with a little “oh shit” feeling, I still was not inspired enough to download any applications to increase my protection.  I’m just simply not concerned enough with privacy at this point that I felt it was necessary.  But who knows, maybe I will decide to go back and download the protection service offered on the page at a later date.  The next challenged required I visit a website, login through Facebook, and see what kind of predictions they could make about me and what my identity is.  If anything, this challenge made me feel more confident about my privacy online seeing as though there was not enough information provided by my Facebook for them to generate a prediction.  If they couldn’t categorize me, why would I need to change my ways?  The challenge of sitting alone for 15 minutes as well as the results of my personality test provided no additional concern whatsoever.

In choosing between personal privacy and technological convenience, I chose convenience.  This is a pretty easy decision for me.  While many people argue that privacy is about more than having “nothing to hide”, I nonetheless have nothing to hide.  Where I am at in my life and the privilege I have grown up with, I do not feel overly concerned with what type of information about me is going where.  Additionally, I am careful about what I put out on the internet.  While I am not running tons of blockers or privacy protection services, I am also not throwing my entire life out online.

Setting my own personal opinions and experiences aside, I definitely think that privacy is something worth protecting and fighting for.  My reflections on privacy in both my podcast and my blog posts are approached solely from my life perspective.  However I know that many others aren’t as fortunate as I in what kind of privacy they need and when.  Therefore I definitely think it is something to be regulated and monitored.  Because of the way we function today as a society, a product of the internet and increasing technological capabilities, certain private information has been sacrificed that was once not.  It is the responsibility of tech companies, 3rd party data sellers / buyers, and our government to not interfere with our privacy to the extent of it harming the individual or the common good.  So while I think it is naive to say that we can revert to a time where all was held in secret, I discourage our society from falling down a slippery slope, in which all rights to privacy are overlooked.

Trolling

Lindy West defines “trolling” as a type of online recreational abuse, usually through anonymous means, intended to waste a subject’s time or get a rise out of them, or frustrate or frighten them into silence.  Various Urban Dictionary definitions include “being a a prick on the internet, unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent bystander, because it’s the internet and you can” or “the art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off using dialogue; requires deception and convincing your victim you truly believe in what you are saying no matter how outrageous”, and “forcing a response through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, or asking blatantly stupid questions.”  Though the exact “requirements” for being a troll might vary, the issue boils down to a few defining characteristics.  1. There are two sides: “trolls” and victims.  The victim is considerably harmed mentally, emotionally, or in extreme cases, physically by these trolls.  2. The troll posts/publishes content specifically intended to gain a response from their victim as well as gather mass support.  Trolling is all about “sending the message that the victim is outnumbered”.  3. Trolling happens online whether through social media sites, forums, or message boards.  4. There is a scale of trolling beginning with innocuous questions to spark an argument, to juvenile name calling, to dangerous stalking and harassment.  A handful of the articles also point out that the volume and intensity of harassment is magnified for women; particularly young, disabled, colored, fat, or transgender.  The fiercest trolling traditionally comes from white, male-dominated communities.

From both the articles and my experience, it is clear there is no unified manifestation of such behavior.  Some might engage in trolling because they are self-conscious; unhappy with their own lives and eager to bring others down so that they may feel lifted up.  Such behavior might arise from deeply rooted malicious intent.  The troll might actively seek to harass others online because they gain some kind of sick pleasure from it.  Some trolls might just be incredibly opinionated and active in voicing those ideas in which they truly do believe.  It is impossible to generalize what exactly the reasons are for one to troll nor their intentions and motivations because it is different with each case.  However regardless of the cause, either a specific “spark” activating trolls or just having boring and pathetic lives, the effects of trolling are incredibly real and substantial.  No matter how much you might try to ignore it, threatening and negative comments are first and foremost going to make you feel shitty about yourself.  They can make you internally question who you are, your life, or your work.  It can cause psychological damage as well as professional consequences.  For gamer Zoe Quinn, her personal life was being used to inflict professional damage despite it being completely unrelated.  Who she was before the harassment began was gone now; she had lost a part of her life and soul.  It can drive people from their homes as it was for gamer Anita Sarkeesian.  It can make you feel unsafe.  The articles proclaimed an endemic of online harassment, driving users away from participating in online life.

As the articles discussed, there is a very difficult trade-off technology companies must face in regard to preventing or suppressing online harassment.  Reddit needs to “strike a balance between communities who don’t get along by promoting civility without censorship, and give people a place to share their opinions while fighting against harassment or other hate speech.”  Twitter needs to uphold their mission as a place for one to exercise freedom of speech while also not playing host to an uptick in targeted harassment.  In each case there is an internal struggle between pushing people away who rely on social media as expressive outlets and pushing mild-minded people away who are fed up with such aggressive harassment and would just rather “unplug”.  Is there a way they can please their entire user base?  Or is that just a fantasy?  I definitely agree there is some line to be drawn on social media.  Reddit is identifying the most toxic users and taking action on them; issuing warnings, timeouts and permanent bans to its most abusive trolls.  New policies are in place to hide indecent content and block users.  Twitter is also improving their abuse reporting process and blocking process.  I believe these kinds of steps to reduce online harassment are of the moral obligation of these kinds of companies.  They can take ethical actions to encourage moderation and better online etiquette while still maintaining within their “jurisdiction” as public forums and places of expression.

GamerGate is a movement by a collection of gamers largely focused on harassing feminists game developers and critics.  Threats of rape and death, and driving women and their families from their homes are not something we need to tolerate in order to maintain freedom of expression.  As one of the articles pointed out, human behavior can change by law and by society.  Rising attention is being paid to the issue of online harassment as a result of this “movement” which is already a start to shifting societal views.  As the readings indicated, sexual harassment in the work place used to be a minor issue often overlooked.  Now, this kind of behavior is never accepted.  While trolling is routinely treated as part of the landscape of being online, and a commonplace for most women, I think that GamerGate is exposing the true dangers of anonymity on the internet.  And while online harassment will be difficult to completely eliminate, it is definitely not something to roll over us.  We need to draw the line somewhere.

Before reading the articles surrounding the “Real Name Fallacy”, I was someone who fell into the assumption that removing anonymity would improve online community behavior because it would make people more accountable.  However many studies have shown that forcing real names could increase discrimination and worsen harassment.  As it is pointed out, “system designs can’t solve social problems without social change” and  “conflict, harassment and discrimination are social and cultural problems, not just online community problems.”  If real name policies are not actually to improve online behavior, all they would do is remove the right for one to define and control their own online identity.  Anonymity, while it lessens inhibitions, can be a great form of protection to the LGBT community, abuse survivors, etc.  It really is a blessing and a curse.  However, online harassment seems to be an issue of straightening social norms regardless of whether people’s names are visible or not.

From my personal experience, trolling is not a major problem on the internet; however it is apparent from the readings that this is a major concern for many, many people.  I have not experienced any trolls and thus have not had to handle them.  Lastly, I am most definitely not a troll!

Fake News

According to the readings, “Fake News” is a term used to define news driven stories that are made up, incorrect, or exaggerated beyond all relationship to the truth.  These fake news stories often come from websites with “legitimate” sounding domain names, where the articles themselves are meant to have the look and feel of a real news story.  On Facebook, these fake stories maintain the same appearance and placement on one’s news feed as real stories thus making it difficult for one to immediately discern the difference.

After reading the articles it was obvious that I am one of Facebook’s and professional hoax writer’s worst enemy.  This is because I never share or comment on news articles, I never click on ads, I ignore anything that looks like clickbait, and I have literally not once taken a look at the “Trending Topics” section on news feed.  To support Zuckerberg here, “News and media are not the primary things people [I] do on Facebook.”  I utilize Facebook in the way it was originally intended: connect with friends, share pictures, and watch the occasional cute animal video.  With that being said, the deluge of fake content for me personally, is harmless.  After scrolling through my news feed upon writing this blog post I very rarely came across news articles in general, let alone “Fake News”.  Most frequently, articles from various sources were being posted or shared by “Newslinq” and “Pupltastic”.  Whether they were fake news or not I am unsure, because I simply didn’t care enough to click on it.  Due to my distaste for reading, my utter disinterest in politics, and my tendency to follow the idea that ignorance is bliss, my response when I see such potential fake news stories is nothing.  While the readings acknowledged that most Facebook users only read headlines and not the actual articles, I can say my laziness expands beyond that and I don’t even read the headlines.  I simply continue scrolling right on by until I reach content that interests me, like food recipes.  Nonetheless, it is obvious that I don’t rely on social media for daily news.  However, I also don’t read the newspaper, watch news television networks, or listen to news broadcasts.  Therefore, I don’t consider myself to be living in an echo chamber, partly because there is nothing to echo.  I find myself exposed to news by word of mouth from family, friends, or teammates, all of whom have very different ideas and opinions.  Thus there is not a reinforcement of the same ideas, and content is mixed such that I do find objectivity in the information.  If you haven’t realized already, I am quite unenlightened when it comes to world news (admittedly too succumbed by my busy life at ND) or national politics (this one is intentional), and so the personal infliction of fake news on my life or my “bubble” is quite minimal.  However I know this is not the case for the majority of people and I analyze the ethical issue at large.

The first ethical issue I see, which is not addressed in the response questions but I feel is necessary to discuss, is the moral obligation on the part of hoax writers.  From teens in Macedonia to suburban dad Paul Horner, the financial incentive of producing viral hoax stories seems to subsume the unethical complexion of their actions.  These types of writers have found the best way to generate trips to their site and further making money from advertisements, is through sharing false content.  Therefore they intentionally write articles and create absurd headlines solely for the purpose of tricking people.  On the one hand, is the gullible nature of certain groups of Americans really the writer’s problem?  To their defense, the lack of fact-checking with other sources seems to be our issue as readers.  Upon reading any article, real or fake, a user can decide to believe the article or not.  If someone really cared about an issue, then check your sources, do further research, etc.  However as the readings stated, this kind of “business” is growing bigger, more mature, and more complex, making it harder to identify fact from fiction.  Is this then truly something we can beat as readers?  Regardless of what is on the other end, it is left to the personal opinion of the reader to accept or reject it.  Yet it would be ideal for that person to at least accept or reject real information.  The main issue I have here is what one article suggested: that we are losing the “public and economic value in reporting accurately about difficult and complicated events.”  Reporters are now being pressured into writing “clickbait” articles. Does this de-legitimize the profession of real reporters?  Articles argued Facebook should “support the well being of society”.  Well, shouldn’t citizens do this as well?  Isn’t it immoral to present false information as real: fraud to some extent?

This also becomes an issue of social network platforms as they acquire the traditional functions of news media and become a place where Americans congregate to discuss politics.  As with the writers, I am very conflicted in the ethical obligations of Facebook and Twitter.  On the one hand, it’s a reflection and a “sad indictment of our democracy that our voters could be so easily misled.”  It is not technically the mission of Facebook to be a reputable news source.  This is something users have brought upon themselves; an emerging function on the part of the consumers.  On the other hand, now that is has happened, Facebook needs to acknowledge its new influence and take on the complimentary social obligations.  Whether it likes it or not, Facebook has become the most “efficient distributor of misinformation.”  This can upset delicate balances of power.  In then becomes a responsibility of social network sites to both protect users from dangerous untruths and keep national conversation honest, while also promoting a place of free-expression.  How exactly they should go about doing this is very tricky.  The readings discussed Facebook already having had allegations of bias in their “Trending Topics” section as a result of an “injection tool” in which topics that weren’t authentically trending were shown as such.  Additionally, topics that were trending were left off and summaries of the articles were said to be skewed.  In a panic, Facebook fired the editorial team responsible.  This scandal clearly showed that Facebook users were not okay with the idea of the private entity censoring information.  They felt Facebook should not be allowed to determine what is legitimate and illegitimate.  So how then, do they expect FB to monitor Fake News?  I personally am comfortable with Facebook censoring information because as I said before, I solely use the site for friend connections, pictures, videos, etc.  However many are not comfortable with this.  The readings also indicated that even though Google and Facebook are cracking down, inhibiting sketchy sites from using their advertising platforms, there are hundreds of other ad networks.  Those two thoughts together make it nearly impossible for Facebook or Twitter to completely censor out or eliminate fake news.  I then think the extent of Facebook’s responsibility lies within identifying, flagging, and slowing the spread of false news.

In order to do this, Facebook is enlisting in the help of its own users as well as 3rd party partnerships.  They are making it easier for users to report fake news stories with simple drop down menus.  Established 3rd party fact-checking organizations will then assess the accuracy of the individual news stories.  Disputed stories will not be able to be promoted as ads in news feeds.  And although users will still be allowed to share the stories, they will be given a warning and the story will be flagged.  These changes Facebook is attempting to employ I think are reasonable and sufficient to fulfill their social duties.  I think this method of utilizing data, algorithms, and AI to discern fact from fiction avoid negative allegations against Facebook, while still taking action to please their audience.  I am comfortable with private entities classifying information as fake because the whole idea is that people can’t have it both ways.  They can’t complain of misinformation and then complain of editorial bias and censorship.  If they want false information removed, then someone has to classify it as such.  And we already established its naive to think people will just stop writing false content.

The rise of social media and “Fake News” has thus far proven we are living in a “post-fact” world, where virtually all authoritative information sources are challenged by contradictory facts of mass quantity and dubious quality.  We have seen with the last election it was possible this “post-fact” world to disturb very critical political structures.  The strides that Facebook, Google, and Twitter are taking to remedy some of these damaging tendencies are good, but ultimately I don’t see final truth prevailing in our future.  We are now living in a world where people believe everything they see on the internet.  People will always be seeking profit and thus always publishing wrong information.  While we can slow this industry and inhibit the spread of fake news, we are unable to stop it, resulting in a coin toss between true and false.

Corporate Conscience – VW Emissions

Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, an entity entirely separate from the human beings associated with such corporation (ie. managers, owners, and employees) have some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by the natural person.  Corporations were created to allow people to put property into a collective ownership to be held with perpetual existence untied to any one persons’ lifespan, or subject to laws regarding inheriting property.  They allowed a number of persons to be united in one body for a common purpose.  Acknowledging that a corporation achieves a legal interest and identity both separate and distinct from that of its shareholders provides multiple economic benefits.  The separateness makes capital markets possible.  Additionally, it provides a mechanism for society to make long-term, inter-generational investments that are not linked to government or to a specific family.  The encouragement of such investments act as a means for wealth creation, as well as enforcing accountability on corporations by providing a large outlet to sue.  I believe that it makes economic and legal sense to establish corporations as an entity individualized from any of the human assets comprising the corporation.  In doing so, I don’t think anyone would disagree that there then needs to be certain rules and regulations specific to corporations.  It then follows that certain rights also need be given to corporations.  As stated before, corporations were a way in which to create investments not linked to the government.  It makes sense that corporations should then be granted the right to operate without reorientation by the government.  It also seems elementary that corporations be able to sue in federal courts; or on the contrary, find themselves criminally responsible if they get caught doing bad things.  So while I agree that a corporation is clearly not a natural human person, and thus we must take extreme care in making the rights of a person and the rights of a corporation comparable, it would be naive and irresponsible to not root certain rights, as well as responsibilities, into the political structure of a corporation.

As it stands now, corporations are granted the 1st amendment right to free speech, the 4th amendment right for protection against unreasonable search and seizures, the 5th amendment right to due process and protection against double jeopardy, the 6th amendment right to a counsel, jury, and speedy trial, and the 8th amendment right to protection against excessive fines.  Additionally, corporations face equal protection under the law.  With this, people seem to really struggle with the social ramifications.  The idea that an intangible, business “object” can maintain the same rights as a human person understandably causes a feeling of uneasiness.  We as humans have an inherit dignity and an innate sense of being “special” that is threatened when a legal entity indirectly connected to the human person is given the same kind of treatment.  From a legal standpoint, this makes perfect sense.  If a corporation is treated as a unique entity, then certain rights and regulations need to be placed on such entity so as to clarify their political and legal standpoint.  However, lack of legal clarity allows corporations to take advantage of the extension of their 1st amendment right.  In a way, companies can choose which laws and regulations they feel like following given some “religious belief” or certain aspect of speech.  This becomes tricky in regards to the ethical nature of things.  As with the Hobby Lobby case, is it unethical to deny their employees birth control?  Or is it unethical to prevent Hobby Lobby from expressing their religious beliefs?  Ethical ramifications also come into play when allowing corporations to spend money in candidate elections.  Shareholders and employees have no recourse if they disagree with how corporate money is spent in campaigns, and democracy is put at risk.  Is it morally right to allow companies to spend their money as they please; as money can be said to be equivalent to speech?  Or is it unethical to allow a sort of political discourse.  It is obvious there is no clear cut answer in response to these consequences.

In regards to the Volkswagen Emission’s case, I believe Volkswagen was incredibly unethical.  VW cheated emissions tests over a period of 6 years, emitting up to 40 times the legally allowable level of pollution, by installing software in the electronic control module meant to detect when the car was undergoing testing further reducing torque and NOx emissions as compared to under normal road conditions.  They were in blatant violation of the US Clean Air Act, and more so were guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice, and falsifying statements in maintaining that the inconsistent test results were a “technical issue”.  Eventually VW came forward admitting to intentionally designing and installing this “defeat device”.  Someone then wrote the code, had the code signed off on, and knowledge of its implementation.  This was no mistake.  Everything was intentional, and to knowingly break regulation laws in order to gain a competitive advantage in the diesel market is utterly immoral.  I believe VW is being appropriately punished for their actions.  They will pay upward of $18 billion in damages including $4.3 billion in civil and criminal fines and owner compensation.  They will also face 3 years of criminal probation, new audits and oversights, and investing in zero emission vehicle infrastructure and awareness programs.  6 high level VW group executives were charged with lying to regulators and destroying documents leading to their indictment.  I believe this punishment is an appropriate combination of reprimanding the corporation as a whole and the individuals responsible.

If corporations are afforded the same rights as individual persons, they should most definitely also be expected to have the same ethical and moral obligations.  Rights are not given without the unwritten responsibility of the human or entity with whom the rights are given.  Rights come with a sort of social contract to govern oneself responsibly and for the common good.  If VW is awarded the rights to act separate from the state, they must also assume the moral responsibility to follow the laws of the state.  This meaning, they can not utterly neglect to comply with standards instilled for the protection of our environment and our citizens.  If they want to be treated as humans, they need to mimic the traits of human personhood within the corporate form and follow the social and ethical contracts of our society.  The actions of VW were thus unacceptable and they should have be punished accordingly.

 

Online Advertising

Continuing along with our discussion of privacy, it is obvious that some people find the idea of companies gathering and further analyzing extensive information on them to be an invasion of privacy.  However from the readings it appears that few people are actually willing to do anything about it.  The first article discusses this idea of convenience vs. surveillance (or privacy) in regards to a certain type of advertisement – that is, advertising through deals, coupons, or membership benefits.  Although a pop-up video or side-bar advertisement online is what one might immediately think of, companies often seek to promote themselves by providing some tangible incentive.  For example, enrolling in a loyalty program means acquiring cheaper prices, but it also gives stores access to information about your shopping habits.  Likewise, signing up for social networks allows you to connect with others for free, all the while your online behavior is consistently tracked.  In each case, consumers are offered something of value in exchange for their valuable, personal information.  Overall, this tangible benefit proves to be more alluring than the repulse of giving up personal data.  If people are willingly entering into these “contracts” per say with grocery stores, retail stores, Facebook, gmail, etc., with the knowledge that information is being sacrificed, then why do they continued to be surprised??

If you don’t want Facebook obtaining data on you, don’t sign up.  If you are seriously that concerned with your transactions being tracked, pay with cash, I don’t care.  But you can’t have it all.  In today’s modern world of technology, it is nearly impossible to have utter privacy.  Should you want that, I can guarantee there are ways to obtain it.  But data mining can exploit customer information is so many advantageous ways, without any actual blatant violation of privacy.  Now, should a Target employee break into my home and pull my shower curtain back while I’m in the shower to see what kind of shampoo I use, yes I would classify that as an invasion of my privacy. However, complaining that companies track your spending or online habits, or your social and personal preferences, is like complaining the person behind you in line is peeking over your shoulder to see what your buying.  Or that the people eating next to you at a restaurant saw what food you ordered.  I personally find this kind of information gathering to be perfectly fine and by now, inevitable.

Like most people in America, according to the article, I am willing to give up this personal data in exchange for deals.  Why?   Well, because I love free things.  As my mom and I would say, “It’s all about the coups!”  This explicitly plays out in scenarios such as Target where they have an entire Guest Marketing Analytics Department devoted to understanding consumer’s shopping and personal habits to better effectively market to them.  And while some people might be “creeped out” at what these kinds of algorithms can detract and predict, I honestly think it is really cool.  Target’s ability to render our conscious and unconscious patterns into data sets can revolutionize how they sell to us.  If that’s the case, power to them!  If Target wants to send me a coupon for Starbucks coffee because they know that is where I purchase my drinks, that only benefits me.  Send it on over!  I find the psychology behind the “cue – routine – reward” loops fascinating.  Further, I see no ethical issues in marketers taking advantage of it.  If they are better able to sell me products and services, it is ultimately going to enhance my shopping experience.  It will make finding and purchasing goods easier.  Isn’t that worth something to people?

While Facebook isn’t sending me coupon booklets or weekly special alerts, they are partnered with four of the world’s biggest data brokers aimed at improving targeted advertising on the site.  While I pay essentially zero attention to any of the ads they provide anyway, if I were to catch a glimpse of one, I rather it be something I am actually interested in or could use.  Without our data, their advertising would be worthless.  More so than I already find it, to be honest.  If websites are going to extract a ton of personal data, at least I can physically see what they are applying it to.

I apologize, but I must go on a tangent now about how ridiculous the article Data Doppelgängers and the Uncanny Valley of Personalization was.  The author went on and on about how personalized ads and experiences are supposed to reflect individuals.  When the system gets it right, it’s creepy.  When the system gets it wrong, it’s creepy; because it “knows us better than we know ourselves”.  It can anticipate intentions we don’t even know we have causing “self-observation and self-doubt.”  Who am I?  Is the internet right: do I really want to vacation in Africa?  What is this coupon for Martins: do I even like asparagus?  Get over yourself.  First off, anyone who puts that much thought into the content of customized advertisements has far too much time on their hands.  Secondly, if the internet or the like is realizing some deep undiscovered desire of yours, then they’re doing you a favor.  But this emotional attachment to advertising is what is causing people anxiety about the ethics of it; not the actual practice of ad-targeting engines.

Okay, I’m back.  It is clear by now that I do not find it unethical for companies to gather info and data mine to better online advertise.  With that being said, I do believe companies still have a responsibility to their users in regards to this information.  That being, keeping it’s anonymity.  While Target or Facebook refer to customers by ID, it takes one second to draw their name from their credit card or Facebook name.  It would be highly unethical to link their information with their name and expose such connection directly.  This information should also only serve to benefit their customers which in turn will benefit their company.  Selfish activities with such sensitive information would be problematic.  Although I found it to be a bit of a stretch, the article discussing does it matter entertained the idea of profit-seeking corporations exploiting a person’s limits and abilities to pursue their own self-interests through manipulating them where they are vulnerable.  One example was a company realizing a person’s tendency to make questionable purchases late at night.  When a person is probably tired from the day and not thinking straight, aggressively persuading them to make poor purchasing decisions for their own financial gain I can definitely see as unethical.  However this arbitrary line would be so hard to draw.  It is nearly impossible for me to differentiate an ethical ad from an unethical one.

In terms of online advertising, I do not find it too invasive.  Ads in the middle of an article or on the side of my screen I simply ignore.  Pop-up videos, I can patiently wait to exit out of.  Long advertisements before  YouTube videos I just look down at my phone, or click to another tab.  For me, it is incredibly tolerable.  I truly don’t even recognize they are there.  If I do, it is because the ad actively intrigued me, in which case I would have ad personalization to thank.  Therefore I do not use ad-blockers.  (My computer is also such a piece of shit I think it’d break down should I try to install anything.)  After reading the articles, I’m glad I don’t.  I, I’m sure as well as others, had never thought about the concept that removing ads directly removes company revenues.  Consequently content quality and quantity on the site can be reduced.  Since the internet can track everything, and bill sites on a per-view basis, it is easy to cut their money while still consuming their resources (pages, thoughts, news).  While ad-blocking might make pages easier to read, speed up load times, or cut down on security risks, I don’t see advertisements as this heinous impediment on my internet exploration.  People are free to surf the web as they wish, and there is no actual law against ad blocking, and companies are willingly putting out websites as their livelihood; thus I don’t see it unethical to use such ad blocking services.  I just don’t find it necessary, especially after seeing the other side of the coin.

Snowden

On June 1st 2013, former contractor and systems analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, Edward Snowden, flew to Hong Kong to meet with two journalists for The Guardian and one documentary maker.  In utter seclusion and secrecy, Snowden would take the next week to reveal some of the Agency’s most highly classified secrets, ultimately unleashing 1.5 million of the government’s detailed documents for potential release.  In order to achieve this extreme media dump, Snowden had been intentionally climbing the ranks and pursuing certain job opportunities within the Agency that would allow him to obtain information of the highest clearance.  With the tools he needed, he then touched, copied, and stole millions of government documents with the intention of exposing the extensive internet and phone surveillance practices used by US intelligence.  The first big story of Snowden’s leak revolved around the US’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which court ordered Verizon to hand over all telephone data of US persons on an ongoing daily basis.  The mass monitoring of ordinary citizens under no suspicion was said to be allowed through a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.  The language of such Act allows for secret court orders to collect “tangible things” that could be relevant to a government investigation.  Both a lose interpretation of relevance and an almost limitless list of “tangible things” allowed for the sensitive collection program.  A second story revealed the existence of a previously unknown surveillance program called Prism, which allowed the NSA to track online communication data of internet giants such as Google, Facebook and Yahoo through presumably “back door” accesses.  It was now known that Britain’s GCHQ was also participating in this, tapping fiber optic cables carrying global communications and sharing such data with the NSA.  Snowden proceeded to reveal the US eavesdropping techniques on Italy, China, the EU, and Latin America using phone calls, internet traffic, and hacking network backbones.  35 world leaders had been monitored by phone and 200 million text messages were collected and stored per day across the globe to gather location information, contacts and financial data.  All of this information continuing to be released to the public through articles, video interviews, and documentaries.

Let me start by acknowledging the potential benefit drawn to the public by Snowden.  NSA’s invasive call-tracking program was declared unlawful and was disowned by Congress.  Mass surveillance and warrantless searches, which could have been a violation of human rights, were now halted.  Technologists have re-engineered the security of devices surrounding us on a daily basis.  Flaws in internet infrastructure which the government allegedly exploited were fixed, and encryption was now being used to better secure products.  As a result of his actions, it can be said that the intelligence community was strengthened, the NSA is now more transparent and accountable, data collection practices were narrowed, and domestic legitimacy was enhanced moving forward.  He worked to empower an informed citizenry to defend the democracy and defend their right to privacy.  By exposing the abuses, he would cure them — or so he argued.  And that by bringing to light a handful of the controversial government actions, the other secret programs would live in fear of exposure and functioning on a spirit contrary to that of society’s.  Snowden showed his allegiance as a public servant was to the public first, not the government.  Should this be commended?

No.  Snowden is no hero.  Instead, he misused his rights to digital access and placed the security of the United States and its relationship with its allies at a greater risk, and ultimate harm, than the public reward drawn from disclosure.

The first issue I have with his actions is the utterly reckless nature of his bulk collection.  While his intentions were supposedly on defending the human right to privacy by exposing mass surveillance programs, it is known that the vast majority of the 1.5 million documents had nothing to do with impacting privacy.  Instead, they revealed defense and intelligence programs of great interest to America’s adversaries, as well as some of our closest, well-kept military secrets.  Not only was he so careless in which documents he obtained, but he simply passed them off to journalists and publishers with nothing more than a mere hope they would do the right thing with them.  He found it acceptable to take some of the US government’s most highly sensitive information and leave it for a future with no certainty.  Are you kidding me…?  The “constitutional Oath” with which he was attempting to stand up for did not remotely match with the scale and type of information he leaked.

Keeping in mind the risks he took throwing such secrets up in the air willy nilly, you would have at least hoped for some magnificent revelation in society.  Too bad this was not the case.  First off, much of what Snowden revealed centered on this idea of the NSA intercepting electronic communications.  Considering this is exactly what the NSA does, I’m not sure what public shock and awe he thought would come of this.  Personally, these revelations have not impacted my views on government intelligence or data acquisition.  Am I more worried the government is listening in on my phone conversation about where to go to dinner, or the security of our nations secrets?  I think the latter.  If you are worried about what they’re finding, then maybe they should be listening…just a thought.  Secondly, the volume and diversity of Snowden’s disclosure provided no unified argument.  His statement was relatively unclear, leaving public opinion about surveillance almost identical to before the leaks.  Instead, he accomplished a deterrence in our relationships with other countries.  For our allies, they demanded answers in regards to our spying practices, and later questioned the US’s ability to do anything discretely.  For our enemies, we had now lost intelligence and lost investment in such intelligence operations and mechanisms.  50-60% of our nation’s intelligence is provided by signals intelligence: with an erosion in that ability, how were we to secure the safety of our citizens?

Lastly, Snowden took no effort to express concerns about the US intelligence activities within the bounds of federal whistle-blower laws.  Going straight to the media, to me, shows his arrogance; that he knows best.  And that somehow, one employee would better be able to serve the well being of our entire nation than a government organization backed by Congress, the President, and the like.  I am not saying it is wrong to have convictions.  But quit the CIA, become a politician, and serve your case that way.  Or simply go to a superior.

Ultimately, Snowden violated the Espionage Act on multiple charges.  That’s a fact.  You are a criminal, you know you are a criminal, so stop complaining that you are being described as one.  And if you love your country so much, and are willing to sacrifice your life and incredible amounts of government secrets to “protect it”, how about you pay the price in your own country.  Don’t blow the whistle and then flee.  Face the consequences, which you knew would ensue, in your “beloved” country.  You’re a coward.

Having had both my parents work for the CIA, and further discussing the issue with them, I definitely take more of an inside approach rather than a public approach.  I believe you have to be committed to be working within your job.  If you don’t think you can comply with the standards required to have high security clearance, don’t take the job.  The vow is not “I will keep my countries secrets safe if I think I should.”  It is I will. Period.  And for that reason, he is a traitor.  If we begin making independent decisions in terms of national security, where would we draw the line?  Allowing people to act upon individual standards is simply not how we can function as an intelligence community.  A pardon would demoralize those personnel who devote their lives to national security, who follow the rules laid down, and who do their job as they should.  He was not ethical, he committed crimes, he should not be pardoned.

 

Project 2 Reflection

 

From my experience, I think the most important part of the guide is simply the idea of preparation.  When you are a Sophmore, it is a great idea to attend networking events or the Career Fair simply for exposure, and to help gain an idea of what is to come for you.  That way you are more comfortable and relaxed in these types of professional situations come Junior and Senior year.  Because Sophmore year is considered a low pressure test run, many students decide to just “wing it”.  While it may be acceptable at that point in time, it was from this practice that I realized how important preparation really was.  With pressure from my parents, I decided to go to the Fall Engineering Expo when I was a Sophmore.  However as a last minute addition to my schedule, I had done no preparation for it.  The night before, I was struggling to throw a resume together.  While my dad had both created and reviewed numerous resumes in his day, I was not at all confident in the one he had helped me prepare.  The day of, I was scrambling to find something to wear.  Without a previous need to own business clothes, my options were non-existent.  While I managed to borrow a skirt and shoes from an older teammate, the frantic rush of the morning left me on edge throughout the night.  Needless to say, my lack of preparation only heightened stress on a day you would hope to be on your game.  It was from this experience that I learned how necessary it was to be prepared.  Having an outfit, resume, and business pitch you are confident in will create the clarity of mind you need and further improve your delivery skills in both networking and interviews.  Getting your business “story” straight is the ultimate foundation for being a persuasive job candidate.  Knowing and developing your story is something that can not be done without preparation.

While my internship, interview, and job process went incredibly smoothly, some might not be so lucky.  To go along with the idea of preparation, I think some people might wish they knew earlier all the resources available to them.  I don’t think nearly enough people take advantage of the Career Center; myself included.  Yes, Flanner Hall might be on the edge of campus and yes you can convince yourself you are far too busy.  But this is your future!  Make the time to see a counselor about your resume, cover letter, offer letter, or really anything at all.  It will lighten the load and make you feel about better about your situation.  Remembering that rooted confidence will make everything else about the process easier.

I’m not going to lie; being a sociable, female computer scientist, I was at a huge advantage in terms of getting hired.  In addition, having a high GPA and Division I Athletics on my resume, I never really felt super stressed.  With that aside, the best advice I received came from my mom; and I believe it applies for anyone and everyone regardless of major, GPA, etc.  And that is, you will end up where you are meant to be.  Being a part of a Catholic institution and being able to believe in the idea that God has a plan for you can greatly reduce anxiety.  While it might not be what you hope for or expect, it will all work out.

I believe Notre Dame provides ample resources to support students in their transition to the workforce.  I also believe that it is incredibly unrealistic to adjust the CSE curriculum to better prepare for on-the-job training or work.  Although there will be certain concentrated areas of career interest among CSE students, there is no one size fits all.  Thus it is difficult to create classes, topics, or lessons that are relevant to everyone’s future.  One thing I consistently heard throughout the interview process was that it was highly unlikely I would much knowledge learned in college.  Most of my work would require on the spot learning.  I think this is just a fact we need to accept, as it is too difficult to predict for each student what is truly necessary in the working world.  The only thing I might suggest is offering a shortened course on tackling the technical interview.  There are workshops and mock interviews already available, but a voluntary course on the weekends might be something students are interested in; similar to an ACT or SAT prep course in high school.  I say a prep course for the technical interview as that is of interest to many CSE students as well as the most difficult form of interviewing.

Whistleb(l)oeing

Beginning in 2004, Boeing has found themselves under immense stress in attempts to solidify their compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  This act forced public companies to show that they sustain checks and balances on both people and computer systems as to guarantee the accuracy of their financial statements.  The idea being that if they can prove control of their data and more so the prevention of manipulating financial numbers, stockholders would not be unethically deceived.  However, federal guidelines surrounding the information technology portion of the Act were often found vague and difficult to interpret.  With criminal penalties at stake, large headline companies such as Boeing had no option other than to pour time, energy, and an incredible amount of money into assuring their compliance.

I found Boeing’s initial response to the Act incredibly appropriate.  Hiring full-time staff consultants to engage in testing systems affecting financial reporting, running frequent internal and external audits, and maintaining daily progress updates all demonstrated their sincerity in securing their systems.  However internal turmoil would doom success early on.  While financial teams were used to audits and following strict regulations, IT staff were taken aback.  They were openly hostile to the audits and became frustrated that documenting every single approval for a coding change was not conducive to their fast paced culture.  Additionally, standards for controls by the auditors kept changing seeing as though federal regulations were so unclear to begin with.  Such uncertainty coupled with an eagerness to fail systems early created high tension between IT and auditors.  Some employees even felt a “threatening” culture, pressured to produce evidence for audits ahead of normally scheduled events.  While this kind of atmosphere is certainly not ideal, I do not see any wrongdoing on the part of Boeing in terms of handling their IT personnel.  They were seemingly just trying to do the best they could with the information they were given.

After 3 years of failing both internal and external audits to prove Boeing could properly protect its computer systems against manipulation, theft and fraud, coupled with the rapidly deteriorating morale of the company, it is obvious the pressure for Boeing was now higher than ever.  How could a company as resourced as Boeing continually fail to patch database and software security holes?  At this point, I imagine Boeing only to be disorganized and in utter desperation.  While it is required by SOX that data and computer system access be restricted to those only on a need to know basis, it seemed as though Boeing exposed such sensitive audit findings to a large number of employees who did not need such access.  Although this was definitely a fault of Boeing, I do not necessarily blame them for this slip up among the madness going on.  I also can imagine their despair in incurring heinous expenses to fix their computer infrastructure, yet still failing controls and missing evidence.  While I can’t confirm nor deny the internal complaint that  Boeing was altering their internal audit results, I can say I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.  If it were, there would definitely be an ethical dilemma should such alterations result in highly negative consequences for shareholders.

It is apparent Boeing was struggling to achieve the proper controls on their computer systems.  However Boeing argued that their computer control challenges didn’t affect their financial statements; which was presumably the ultimate goal of SOX.  Additionally, the Act only cared about the classification of deficiency at years end, and thus Boeing argued there was no correlation between missing internal milestones and tests and their ultimate failure.  Lastly, companies have a reasonable time to fix deficiencies before they are considered a “material weakness” and reported to shareholders.  Material weakness being defined as profit or revenue figures being off by a large amount.  Because Boeing’s computer systems don’t affect their profit or revenue figures, it seems as though they would have no material weaknesses, nor the ethical obligation to report it to shareholders.  It is without a doubt they were experiencing difficulties, but I don’t see any that need be released to anyone outside the company just yet.

Notwithstanding the fact that it was wrong or unfair to treat poorly the employee who first raised ethical concerns internally, I support Boeing’s firing of both employees whom leaked company information to the public.  They were both in blatant violation of company policy on disclosing information to the media.  Even if it were that internal complaints or concerns were not being addressed, the media is not remotely the appropriate next outlet to resolve such issues.  Media reports are prone to distortion, inflation, or personal opinions.  It is this carelessness of the employees; to leak sensitive information to a potentially unreliable and untrustworthy source, that I think their firing was completely warranted.  While they might have felt they were being ethical in such actions, it is really not their place to raise concerns in such a public channel.  As well, given the information in the articles, it seems as though Boeing was putting forth good effort to improve their compliant status, while also not committing any flagrant inadequacies.  Yes, they have problems, but were such problems large enough to require such exposure by these employees?  I don’t believe so.  In my opinion, you could argue they were unethical in releasing company “secrets”.

These workers should not have been protected under the SOX Act as the whistleblower provision protects employees of publicly traded companies from being fired if they deliver the suspected fraud and/or security violations to a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, a member or committee of Congress or a work supervisor.  AKA, not the media.  The Whistleblower Protection Act on the other hand prohibits employer firings for leaks to the media, BUT with the caveat that the wrongdoing is deemed a “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety”; which judges felt did not apply to the Boeing case.