CP373 is a course that very much differs from all the other courses we would have taken at our time here as a computer science student at Laurier. There is no programming and no theory of programming really. However, it still serves a great purpose. As it allows us the opportunities to critically think about programming in another view. Views as the user, views as a law maker, or views as a society as a whole. 

Module 3: Ethical Analysis and Response was a really good topic for me because of the blog, we had to read “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. I found this reading to be the most interesting and engaging readings out of all the readings. So it really made this topic stand out for me and I would say it was inspiring. Next I would say Module 6: Digital Surveillance because it was using Edward Snowden as the main example. The example was very interesting to read up on and made me more engaged so I could learn more on this topic so I would say this was very informative for me. Finally, Module 8: Video Games mainly because we get to talk about games which is something I already enjoy doing so it was a delight. 

I would like to drop the porn topic from the course. I just think it was not really necessary in my opinion. The goal of the course can still be obtained without the need of the porn topic.

Two topics to add could be for an ethical course in computer science can be the digital divide and newer technologies. Digital divide was covered but I think making it a whole topic can be interesting and gives something for students to think about because personally I did not think about the digital divide at all. Also by newer technologies I mean a topic where we would discuss upcoming technologies and ethical impacts they could bring into the world of computers. 

I think the blogging experience was nice for me. I think since it is such a different way of learning that it was engaging and interesting for me. So I would say I much prefer this blogging over traditional assignments.

The point system is new to me and I think for a course like this and how it was laid out made me come to enjoy the points system. So I would say my experience with it has been great. Not sure how this system would be applied to our regular computer science course at Laurier but maybe it would allow for people to want to do their assignments.

Overall, the course has made me enjoy reading and researching different kinds of topics again so that is a plus for me. I think regarding my future careers, it has helped in the sense that I can research more and mainly that I can view things in a much broader sense. I can see the different views and get more perspectives of things. Therefore, in my future career I think this course has helped me be more open minded regarding how to view technology.

Pornography should be regulated in my opinion. To regulate such a thing, I think we need to consider why we should do it first. We should regulate it because I am of the idea that it would make porn more accepted in society. We can begin to regulate it by putting up restrictions. If a site wants to be able to display any and all kinds of porn, it should pay a certain fee. If another site wants to display only certain kinds of porn and commit to only these types, then it would pay a fee of its own but a lesser amount. The same can be done for stores that sell porn as well. We are essentially taxing porn. I think doing this would ensure that no outrageous porn is created or at least get into the public eye.

If people are worried about prositution, regulating porn could cause an increase in the amount of porn available to people which mean prositution can go down. Prositution could go down since most people become more satisfied with their urges through porn. So, I think regulation of porn can reduce prositution. 

I would like to say that porn is a way to express yourself so it is part of the freedom of expression. Although that means offensive porn should be treated as “hate speech”. Essentially any porn that displays aggression towards a certain race or gender for example can be subjugated under “hate speech”.

I think protecting children is the hardest part of this all. However, if we use the approach in the first paragraph where we enforce a price. We can also enforce that the sites/brick stores ask that the person accessing this site be of age. 

Now I think the government should regulate porn. I think this is too big for society to run it. Like I said earlier, the government can regulate it by introducing a pricing system. The government can do this because they hold a good deal of power.

Of course with regulations of price, there can also be other regulations. Such as wearing condoms. The regulation can be similar to, if everyone is okay with no condoms then no condoms indeed. However, if anyone is not okay with it, especially the one being penetrated, then condoms should be used. 

1. What had happened was that a group of people created a robot that would go onto the darknet and purchase random goods. Of course due to the nature of the darknet, it was bound to have purchased something that would be illegal. Eventually the robot bought 10 pills of ecstasy along with 11 other items. The police eventually arrested the robot but after some time it was returned to the owners, along with the items purchased except for the pills. The owners were also not in trouble. 
2. I think doing something illegal for the sake of experimentation is ethically okay but it of course depends on the experiment and the goals the people want out of this experiment. The robot ended up buying something illegal but was it ethically wrong too? I think not. Even though the owners did not tell the robot what to buy, they are still responsible in the sense that it is their creation and by nature, it will buy something illegal because of it being placed in the environment such as the darknet. I think this aspect should not be legal. 
3. I think arresting the robot made no sense. The robot is a creation of humans, it does not have it’s own mind or opinions or anything. I do not think we are close to producing moral agent robots that can be legally liable before a court. At this point, all robots actions should be held responsible by its creator. 
4. The analogy between dogs and robots is very fitting. Owners are responsible for the actions of their dogs because dogs (even though they are intelligent) are not in the same realm as us in terms of legality. The same is for the robot. Therefore as responsible owners of dogs or robots, they must know the capabilities of their dogs/robots so that they can best react to any negative doings. Such as if you know your dog is more dangerous than most, do what you can to avoid such dangerous acts. The same for robots, if you know the robot could potentially do something that is not wanted, try your best to prevent it. 
5. 1. Software Developer. The developer is at full responsibility as they know what  this code is capable of. They created a robot to randomly purchase goods. Then place the robot in an environment where the vast majority of the goods would be illegal. Of course the odds of purchasing such illegal goods is much higher in the darknet.
   2.  The Hardware Developer. They hold responsibility as well as they knew the software and its functions as that is how they would be able to create hardware for it.
   3. The System Designer. Integrating two things together requires knowledge of the two. Even at a basic understanding of the code anyone would be able to think that the odds of purchasing illegal items was very likely. Therefore, the system designer is at fault because they could have stopped it but instead went along with the plan. 
   4. The Seller. Someone selling products must know a thing or two about their own products. At a basic understanding of this product, anyone with even the smallest amount of education can understand that this robot if placed in the darknet would be purchasing illegal items at a certain point. So the seller should be responsible for selling such a product.
   5. The Client/Owner. This person would be held responsible as soon as they used it on the darknet. Just purchasing it would be reasonable as they could use it on a market that is covered with legal goods like “amazon.ca”. However, using it on the darknet while knowing full well the environment the darknet is like and the capabilities of the robot is caused for the owner to be at fault. 

Insights on Professional Computing Ethics

I would like to say that computing is not a profession. It is similar to law and medicine in the sense that one must think of what they are doing with an ethical point of view. This ethical point of view is important because as more and more people decide to pursue this route, people need a certain standard to at least consider whenever something small or big is being considered. That is how law and medicine are similar to that of computing. Across the board there are just certain things that everyone or at least a vast majority of the profession agrees is ethical or unethical. Computing is not similar to law and medicine by the reason that in the article it was stated that computing is emerging as a different type of professionalism. It is more similar to software engineering vs the traditional professionalism that law and medicine would be.

 Computing is not a profession because at the moment there are no higher organizations that uphold sets of standards in terms of ethics or simply the technologies being used. Due to this and the fact that you could also get into the field of computing and be just as good as the next guy that has formal education while you would just have personal or informal training. These are why I think computing is not a profession, at least as of yet.

Different organizations are trying to tackle the issue of codifying computer ethics by doing the followings, Inspiration and Guidance for ethical conduct, Support those seeking to act ethically by appealing to the public system of ethics established in a code, Education and Shared understanding(by the professional and the public) of standards of practice, Deterrence and discipline for specific actions by sanctioning code violations, Protect the Status Quo by stifling dissent and state minimal level of ethical conduct, and Promote business interests by forbidding competitive bidding.

The ACM has adopted a code of conduct rather than a code of ethics. It is a model that is more of a list of violations and sanctions for those violations. The code has 3 types of statements. Cannons, Ethical considerations, and Disciplinary Rules.

The strength of the Candian Code of Ethics is that well at least in my opinion it really focuses on the community as a whole. “Contribute to the IT Profession” is something that would benefit the entire community as it allows for people to take the contribution and expand or grow it into something even better. A weakness would be that these codes are not modern so they can be viewed as not with the times and outdated. For ACM, a weakness is that they do not meet some of the traditional criticisms of codes of ethics. In one example from the text was that, it fails to supply adequate guidance when a difficult ethical decision needs to be made. This is a rather huge weakness as this means when the situation would eventually arise, chaos in the discussion could form. However, ACM over is a standard that is helpful in many other situations.

Overall I think I would choose ACM, although the huge weakness is a big downfall, I think overall it is a good code of conduct. 

Orwin’s article in summary is about the importance of in person education. He begins by saying that online education is of course not bad and that yes something is better than nothing. However, we can not confuse something is better than nothing with the best thing and that best thing is in person education. He argues that the instructor needs to see his students, their reaction and expression to things he says and teaches. The students also need the instructor physically present as well so that they engage with someone, probe this instructor with their many questions and interests. 

    I agree with one of the points he mentioned by quoting University of Virginia’s Mark Edmundson who goes on to say “You revise your presentation as it goes, incorporating the students’ evolving reception of it.” Mark Edmundson was comparing teaching in general to teaching jazz. By this he was trying to convey that allowing yourself to teach in a dynamic way would result in a more engaged classroom and of course a better understanding for the students. Of course this would be best when the instructors and students are physically present. Trying to do this dynamic teaching online would mean you need to allow students to speak on their microphones or type in a chatroom which would mean instructors have to stop the lecture to make time to read and comprehend the message. Doing this would result in a huge waste of time and degrading the qualities of lectures. 

    Another point I agree on is “to know their faces and names” I think this is important because it allows the instructors as well as the students to put a real physical face to a name instead of a face of a 2D photo. This would allow for a better connection as well and could make teaching better for the instructor as well as for the students receiving the information.

    I think I disagree for him to have declined the offer to put his lecture online. Although I get his point of view, I think it is a mis opportunity for him to pass up on the online lecture. Like he said earlier in the article, online lectures would allow him to reach people that physically cannot attend his lectures. Like he said earlier as well, something is better than nothing. 

    A second point I would like to disagree with is this “You always teach these students, in this room, at this time.” I think it is wrong to stick to this way of thinking in our current society. We live in a world where so much is now possible because of the internet. This comes with the fact that people are often even more busy now than ever. Long are the days where travelling takes up most of our time, we saved that travelling time but now spent it doing more productive things. So I think allowing lectures to be reached online is just something that people need to consider because of how busy people are but still want a good education.

    Overall I think online education is something that is here to stay because of how society is shaped due to the internet. Since it is here for sure, we may as well take hold of it and make it the best online education possible. However, I do agree that in person education is of course the best way for instructors to teach and for students to learn what the instructors are teaching. Being physically in the same place allows for a better bond over time versus being connected through the screens of our devices

The “Right to Read” is a story predicting what it is like in the future when sharing digital copies of things, specifically in the story it was sharing digital copies of books. The dilemma started when someone needed to use another student’s laptop. The student being asked of this request had to think hard of the consequences of sharing his laptop. In these days, the copies have software that will track who opened the digital copy of the book. The person in the end allowed the person in trouble to access his laptop and if for whatever reason the person decided to read the books on the laptop, the software would at least think it was him reading and not the girl.

     I think that patenting and licensing is starting to become restrictive on creativity and freedom of information. It is not entirely there yet where creativity is totally lost but people are more scared than ever to put out original content as in these days, nothing is purely original, something is a derivative of another and any little thing can be used by people to claim copyright. People are YouTube used to post video called “AMV” . These were pretty much just videos of anime or cartoons and usually fighting scenes with the background music being some type of rock band song at the time. People would say this is how YouTube became so big. However, now it is rare to see these videos as due to copyrights claims, these types of videos are taken down so quickly that there is no reason to continue creating it. Another argument is that creators on YouTube have said they are now more mindful than ever when it comes to their content because of copyright issues from other bigger companies. Since a lot of these creators now depend a majority of their income from YouTube. When even one video is demonetized, it can really hurt their income which hurts how they live. 

A counter argument against my first argument supporting my stance could be that this type of video is just not as popular now which is by it is less seen. However, it could be said that because of copyright and videos being taken down so quickly without notice, it is the reason why it is not as popular now therefore, it is less seen. Counter argument to my second argument supporting my stance could be creators should branch out to other sites other than YouTube. Now this is true however, YouTube is so huge that leaving the platform is the same as quitting your job because the revenue would definitely not be the same. So creators are stuck with no real way of getting out.  

    I am supporting the current system as it is at the moment okay and I do not see it becoming any worse so long as we do not create software such as the one described in the story. These types of software may seem nice at first but they would lead to a world such as a world in that story. Where a student needs to think twice or 3 times to help a friend use his laptop.

I am going to be talking about the game Skyrim which was released on November 11, 2011. It’s main setting is the world Skyrim in northernmost province of Tamriel. It’s narrative is the story of the player’s character, a dragonborn, on the quest to defeat Alduin the World-Eater, a dragon who is prophesied to destroy the world.

The rating for the game is rated 17+ across most of the different rating systems. Skyrim is not censored in any countries as of writing his blog post. 

The game itself did not raise any ethical questions in my opinion but it did allow for it. The game allows for others to create mods which anyone that downloads them to modify the game. The mods are endless, there are some about nudity and murdering children. So these mods raises ethical questions such as, should the developer restrict the freedom these mods allow or get rid of them altogether?

I myself have played the game. It is very good in terms of graphics and storyline. There is robbing and murdering early on but I believe that just adds to the gameplay and creates a more broad gameplay, that many can enjoy. Another perspective is that this game is very violent and the gameplay rewards violences, making the player become accustomed to causing violence.

Against the game, ethically the game creates an environment where killing and robbing is the norm or the way to success in this world. This allows for people to again become accustomed to it without even realizing it maybe. If we were to ethically review the game on a positive side. The game creates an environment for players who have a need to kill or rob but in a more virtual sense to get it out of their system. This would allow people to relieve these kind of things without harming themselves or others, thus it creates a healthy alternative to releasing stress. I am on the perspective that we view this game as a fantasy world and a way for people to live a life they fantasize.

I think overall the ethics of video game development is a very tricky field. You can always argue one side or another of ethics with video games. However, I think overall the video game development and distribution is doing a decent job of creating fun and exciting games as well as making sure they accurately label the ratings.   

To briefly describe the “right to be forgotten”, it means that you will have the right to take down any private information on the internet you deemed to impact you negatively. However, this is provided that this information does not fall into a category that can be used to say that this information is allowed to be online.   

An example that exercises the need to be forgotten can be if a teenager or young child with a social media account posts what they think at the time to be a good photo, or good tweet that contains private information. As they grow up and determine they want it down for reasons such as the information is too private or that this photo is negatively impacting them. The “right to be forgotten” would most definitely be needed here as it would help the now older teenager to take control of the information they decided to post online when they were not fully developed yet to make good choices. 

An example against this would be Logan Paul show casing a dead body in one of his vlogs where he goes into a forest located in Japan where it was known to be a place many would commit suicide. This vlog was taken down but being the internet, many people of course saved in various forms. Logan Paul could say this is a right to be forgotten but I would argue no because this type of behaviour needs to be remembered and shared so that others can reflect on it and understand the negatives of doing such a thing. 

On the side of the “right to be forgotten” The argument is essentially what I said above with teenagers posting on social media. People post content all the time and some potentially could become to regret that choice. The “right to be forgotten” would allow the person to get rid of such a post, provided it was deemed to negatively impact them.  However, on the side against the “right to be forgotten” argues that when this happens, the usual case is that this content most likely has been shared or copied and posted elsewhere. How can we delete that information as well and better yet how can we trace them all. 

A simple scenario that would be very reasonable to the majority would be a teenager posting a picture of themselves online as they were young. A picture that one could use to create a meme for example. Years later they are older now and the picture gets picked up to be used as a meme and is now shared all over. The “right to be forgotten” could very much be helpful here if the older teen decides that this meme is negatively impacting them and they want it gone so their life is not affected. An unreasonable scenario for not deleting a post could be that of a criminal that did something very harsh and it is posted all over the news and social media. The majority would not agree to this being forgotten if years later he has changed and wanted it taken down. This type of information is public and should remain up as it could be considered a part of history for the future to review and talk about later.

If I was to appear before the parliament I would say that we should not tackle the issue as it happens. For example we should not be asking if the content should be taken down or not when the person is requesting it. We should be thinking of solutions to prevent such a situation from appearing. Educating our children to be more cautious of what they post, letting them realize what they post can and most likely stays on the internet forever. Making sure that news coverage and social posts are not posting very private information of a criminal as they report the crime committed. Finally, we should be having classes in school about social media posting and the consequences to consider.

Of the three policies mentioned, I think I would pick having classes in school for this. If more kids are aware of these things and actually put them into practice when considering posting content online, it could help prevent many regretful postings in the future. If the teachers can spin this lesson to be cool and modern then the kids would really be taking this seriously. Just to use cigarettes as an example, my peers and I never thought it was ever cool to smoke because we were aware of the dangers of it and how it affects us negatively healthwise. The same idea can be used for teaching children about posting online which would prevent any regretful posts from occurring or greatly reduce it.   

1. Some newspaper are going for complete disabling policy on comments because they specifically experienced bad commentors that ruin the experience of all commentors. In one of the articles linked, they mentioned that one person would continue to comment pornographic GIF or photos in the comments which of course just causes the comment section to be ruined for everyone. I think some others are supporting anonymity along with even applying moderation policies because it allows for people to be more free on their opinion without the worry of getting backlash. For example if someone has a controversial opinion they can be free to voice it whereas with their name on display even if voice, anyone can go attack them for voicing their opinion even if the person did it in a respectful manner.
2. Reddit’s subreddit call r/Athleanx is it’s subreddit within the umbrella of reddit and has it’s own policy on posting comapared to other subreddits. This is what I like about reddit, depending on what the sub is used for, different policies can be created to help make discussion for that topic be the most streamline as possible. For r/Athleanx at the moment before posting you just need to make sure what you are posting is not a duplicate, so no double posting of the same topic. Another subreddit I frequent is r/Apple and just like other subreddits they have their own rules for posting and commenting. Allowing for discussion to be nicer. There are about 12 rules, just to highlight a few. No reposts, and/or rehosted content. No NSFW content. No content related to piracy or illegal activities. These policies help the subreddit to moderate the content and punish people that are clearly breaking them and especially for people repreating breaking them. The third digital portal is r/iOSBeta similar to other subreddits, the rules are no spam, and be respectful just to name a couple. What makes it different from other policies are rules such as Relevance, meaning your post should prove to be relevance to the times and No low-effort posts. This is to say you should put effort into the post you are about to make so that others can have a good base to start the conversation.
3. Yes I do think academic journals should be treated different than news portals or adult websites. This is because things such as academics should be treated with more thoughts so comments should come with more thoughts into them, people should be more aware of the information they are commenting on and the information they are saying. So the comments in these portals shoud be more regulated, people should be more held accountable to the information said in each comments. However, for sites like children websites, you might not want to be looking at the accuracy of the informaton but what kind of stuff are being said in them. For example you might not care if someone says something that might not be scientifically true but you would care if they comment something absurd or sexual. So I think that the comment sections need to be moderated at all times if possible but depending on the type of portal these comment sections exist in, the moderation should vary.
4. I support moderation of comments. The policy would be pretty generic to fit a wide ranges of topics. Of course you must be respectful and no irrelevant topics. However, it would also include things such as your comment must be conversation continuing, meaning you should add to the conversation and it does not shame anyone else. I think this is a good approach to begin with because I believe that having names on the comments will force user to think before posting something in the heat of the moment. As well as if they choose to break any rules, their account would be flagged depending on how many times it has occurred.

The issue with social media privacy is that once you post something online, it is forever on there. Once you put it on the internet, anyone can capture that, save it for later and do something with it later if they so choose to do so. This is an issue because now the mistakes we make as a child or young adult can live with us forever and even if we were to forget them or forgive ourselves, the internet would never forget or forgive such mistakes.

    I agree on myth 11: social media usage isn’t, can’t be, or shouldn’t be regulated by employers. I agree to this because social is essentially an open place, public space to say anything and everything. I can use this space to voice my opinion and get it read by so many people. Employers should be able to regulate this because if you as an individual work for some company, you are now attached to that company so therefore, what you say can reflect back onto the company, good or bad. I see employers regulating as a way for them to help us be mindful of what we say, to keep us in check so to speak. This can help avoid headaches in the future as well. 

    I also agree with myth 9: You have a right to remain anonymous on the internet. Although I get that on some platforms you can remain anonymous if the provider of that platform agrees with it. However, just like the paper mentioned you shouldn’t lie about your name and age when going into someone’s home. Same logic can be applied for signing up on social media or any platform that asks for your age. The provider of that space needs or wants this information so they can identify you as an individual and you choose to not want to follow this then it is up to you to remain off the internet 

    I disagree with the myth 12: consumers care about privacy. This is because I believe that users and consumers in general are not fully aware of privacy as well as they are so used to getting the “free” products and sometimes companies make it much harder to be more private with our data that caring about privacy becomes more of a hassle. So I think it’s not that consumers don’t care about privacy, it is that most consumers just weight the balance and see that giving up privacy is more beneficial to them. 

    I also disagree with myth 10: social networks are not – but should be – subject to laws. 

Social networks are big spaces and so many people partake in this space, having no laws in it would eventually cause situations to arise that can clearly be seen as horrible acts but with having no laws, the person or people responsible would not be held accountable. Laws would help not just regulate social networks but allow it to become a space where people can share more freely without worrying about this post being used for something malicious that could possibly hurt the person in the near or distant future.   

    I think the issue of digital privacy will be overcome in the future for sure and that we can find a solution that can make all sides happy. Of course, not 100% happy but happy enough. I think it will get worse before it can get better. This is because I see people reacting to these types of issues and then responding to it instead of trying to avoid it in the first place. So, it will take something big to happen so that the people in charge or the majority of the population will actually take action.