my sweet old etcetera

Call me morbid, but I’ve always been fascinated by technological disasters. It’s not the loss of life that fascinates me, of course - I’ve always found that aspect of disasters to be sickening, especially when the losses could have been prevented. That is actually the part that fascinates me: how did these disasters happen, and how could they have been prevented? What could have been done to save lives in the event of an emergency? And, more importantly, what are the implications of these disasters for us today?

When I was a freshman in college, I remember watching the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger on TV. I, like everyone else, was horrified when it exploded before my eyes. In the aftermath, I couldn’t help but think of another famous disaster: the sinking of the Titanic. Ironically enough, Robert Ballard and the crew of the Knorr had discovered the wreckage of the Titanic just a few months earlier.

Fast forward to 2008: today happens to be the 71st anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster. I obviously couldn’t watch the explosion on TV the way I could in 1986 with the Challenger, but I’ve listened to Herbert Morrison’s famous live radio broadcast many times. I’ve always found his cry of “Oh, the humanity” to be particularly heart-wrenching.

Being a science and technology buff, I’m a great believer in exploration, whether it’s on land, beneath the ocean, or in outer space. These disasters, though, remind me that there’s always a price to pay for our curiosity. Despite the dangers, we humans always follow our desire to learn more about the world around us. I greatly admire those who risk their lives to increase our body of scientific and technological knowledge. I, however, am perfectly satisfied to do my own exploration via the Internet (at least for the time being). But who knows? If, someday, I was given the opportunity to do some real exploration, I’d probably jump at the chance. I’d be praying, though, that we’ll have finally learned something from the Challenger, the Titanic, and the Hindenburg. The lesson (in my view) would be this: technology is a wonderful tool with many benefits to society, but it must be respected, because it’s also an extension of our imperfect selves. As we continue to develop more powerful technologies, we must always bear this in mind.

According to this article from yesterday’s New York Times, “on Sunday, AT&T Wireless, with 71.4 million phone customers, started AT&T Mobile TV in the United States. The 10-channel service, costing $15 a month, includes Pix, a channel with movies from Sony Pictures. AT&T will sell cellphones made by LG Electronics and Samsung that can receive the TV broadcasts.”

Whee!  Now I can actually watch Antiques Roadshow on the road, and pray that I don’t get Lost…

“The future of the internet and computing applications is not going to be in the home or at the office; it’s going to be mobile.”

So says Nigel Clifford of Symbian in this article from the BBC News.  After reading “Shibuya Ephiphany” from Smart Mobs (Rheingold, 2002), I have to agree.  According to the book, though, these types of technologies tend to be more widespread in Europe and Asia than in the United States.  Only time will tell how long it takes for multimedia computers, the next generation of mobile devices, to catch on here.  The iPhone is definitely a step in the right direction, but its price puts it out of reach for most mainstream users.  When more companies get on board, though, and prices start to come down, I think we’ll see more users adopting these devices as well.

(Photo: The Balance cell phone by Bence Bogar)

“Forget about likes and dislikes. They are of no consequence. Just do what must be done. This may not be happiness but it is greatness.”

-George Bernard Shaw

Responding to the questions “What did you like about the class?” and “What did you dislike about the class?” is always difficult for me. Taking a course is not merely about likes and dislikes, it’s an opportunity for learning and growth. If I were allowed to take only courses that I liked, I may learn a great deal, but would I grow as an individual? I probably would, but it’s more likely that my mind would be opened a bit more by studying something I normally wouldn’t have were I not required to do so. When I first read the syllabus and discovered that we’d be conducting a scholarly analysis of video games, I thought, “Oh, please! Games? He (Professor Halavais) must be joking!” After completing the module, though, I realized that it was not so much the games themselves that were the subject of our studies, but rather, the ways in which people interact with them and use them to enhance their social (”real world”) experiences.

In my view, likes and dislikes are arbitrary. What I like or dislike can remain unchanged for many years, or may suddenly change after many years. I am not the same person I was last year, and I am certainly not the same person I was at the beginning of the semester. I’ve grown in many ways as a result of taking this course, which means that I’ve come to enjoy certain things to which I was previously skeptical or indifferent (such as Second Life and blogging). On the other hand, my opinion of cellphones and similar mobile devices has not changed - I don’t think I’ll ever have a Shibuya-style epiphany.

Don’t ask, don’t tell

Once again, when asked what I liked or disliked about a course, it’s very difficult for me to answer. I usually don’t answer, unless it’s something that hindered my ability to effectively learn the material. I tend not to comment on the curriculum (except when pressed) because my opinions are just that: opinions. I don’t feel qualified to judge the curriculum because I’m a student and I’m here to learn, not design my own program. I expect that in graduate school, there will be things that are challenging. At times, I disliked the amount of required reading, but at the end of each module, I was always pleased that I was able to gracefully rise to the challenge (it really felt good to say, “I did it!”).

A lasting impression

While I don’t feel qualified to to judge the curriculum, I can say that I loved the online format of the course. I liked the fact that there was variety and balance in my classroom experiences this semester. I had the opportunity to interact with classmates face-to-face on campus, but I also had the chance to interact with my peers in a virtual setting. Classroom interaction is more immediate, but authoring a blog allows me to reflect at length on the topics for each module. I very much enjoyed this balanced approach, and would definitely take another course online.

I’ll conclude by giving my overall impression of this course: I found it to be eye-opening, challenging, and mind-expanding. At the beginning of the semester, I wasn’t sure whether or not I could achieve what was expected of me, but much to my surprise (and delight), I did. I can now proceed with confidence through the rest of the program.

I have to admit that in many ways, I envy my six-year-old nephew. Not just for his abundance of energy, his innocence, and his relatively care-free life, but mainly because he is growing up in fascinating times. On one hand, I’m glad that I grew up when I did: we could roam about freely after school without our parents worrying about us being abducted, we could speed down hills on our bicycles without having to wear helmets, and we spent much of our time outdoors rather than in front of a television or behind a computer. On the other hand, I wish I could shave about three decades from my life so that I might live to see things come into being that are, as of now, the stuff of science fiction. My nephew, in his lifetime, may see humans walk on the surface of Mars, find life on other planets, and colonize the Moon. I know, I know – I’m being just a bit fanciful here. I like to think that the biggest technological advances in the future will be in the realm of science, but after reading the materials for this module, I think it’s safe to say that the biggest technological advances will be in the realm of commerce. I say this because the federal government continually cuts funding for scientific research, so it’s very often quite difficult to make real breakthroughs when money is tight. The one exception to this is the military (as Professor Halavais states in his lecture). The feds will continue to fund technological research and development in the military, so we can only hope that there will be a “trickle down” effect: if something beneficial is developed for use by the armed forces, it might be adapted for use by and made available to the general public.

Our machines, our selves

While scientific research by government agencies is subject to availability of funds, private corporations have much more capital at their disposal. Companies like DoCoMo and Nokia (Rheingold: Smart Mobs, 2002) can afford to take risks, and if they’re lucky, the risks will pay off. Luck is only one part of the equation, though. These companies may be in the business of developing technology, but they are successful because they factor people into the equation. Their executives are smart enough to realize that the future of technology is not about the machines, it’s about the people who use them. The most successful technologies in the future will be the ones that “help people come together instead of pushing them apart” (Rheingold, p. 18). In the future, our machines may be smaller, faster, and smarter, but they still will be an extension of ourselves: of our minds, our limbs, and our memories.

Upwardly mobile

I’ve never really considered myself a student of human nature, so I doubt that I could predict which future technologies would be a commercial success. Most of our current technologies, like the Internet and mobile phones, fulfill our need to connect with one another. Like most students enrolled in this program, I love the Internet and can’t imagine life without it. Unlike most students, however, I harbor a profound dislike of cell phones. I carry one only for emergency use. The thought of using it as a “remote control” for my life (Rheingold, p. 11) makes me cringe. The idea of our future selves relying so much on mobile devices is not one I relish. There are other types of mobile devices, though, that could be extremely useful – for example, we could combat illiteracy with the distribution of powerful, inexpensive laptops to schoolchildren throughout the world, and also bring medical assistance to people in remote areas of the world through the use of telemedicine. We’re already seeing these types of technologies in action, but they are still in need of improvement.

The promise of technology

After reading and watching the materials for this module, I couldn’t help but feel a certain degree of ambivalence about the future of technology. As I stated before, I’d love to see what the future holds, but only if it’s good (although “good” is relative, as I discussed in a previous post). For example, I’d give anything to see our planet free from pollution, but I wouldn’t want to eat genetically engineered food. I wouldn’t want my descendants to be genetically engineered, either.

So while I’m partly pessimistic regarding the future, I have a great deal of hope as well. I don’t need to live to be one-hundred and fifty to see the future; all I need to do is watch my nephew play with his blocks and his Lincoln Logs. As he grows older, he’ll be able to use his creativity and innovative spirit in ways that my generation cannot. We have our share of innovators, of course, but you’ll most likely find them in academic institutions, large corporations, and government agencies because the tools of creation are usually found there as well. As these tools become “decentralized” and more widely available to the public (think Gershenfeld’s “personal fabricators”), the opportunities for innovation and growth will be endless. We’ve seen this before in our previous readings: the greatest advances come as a result of collaboration. Many minds are far superior to one, and if future generations of “digital natives” are given the proper tools, we won’t need to wait for others to provide solutions to our most pressing problems – we’ll have the power to find and implement our own solutions. This is the great beauty and promise of technology: it helps us to explore ourselves and our world, and to reach our full potential. If used for the right reasons, it can also help us become more fully human. Come to think of it, maybe my humanity is to blame for my ambivalence. I love technology, but the thought of machines being such a large part of our lives is a bit threatening to me (I need to keep telling myself that’s it not about the machines; it’s about the people who use them). My curiosity, though, outweighs any fears I might have regarding the future. I still wish I could be there to see it.

In Control from The Townshend Chronicles, some excellent points are made regarding the control of information by government and big business. The author writes that “there is money to be made in controlling informational resources”. This statement is very true: informational resources (such as television and radio) are increasingly being controlled by only a handful of companies, which are becoming very rich as a result.

The author also speaks of historical precedent with regard to the free distribution of information. History has shown us that as long as information is available to many, democracy can flourish. When distribution of information is restricted, power and wealth become concentrated in the hands of a privileged few: think of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, for example. The clergy were very often the only ones who could read and write. The Church was also extremely wealthy. This could not have been coincidence. What better way is there to protect one’s dominance and wealth than to keep the masses illiterate? In many ways, information does equal power.

Today, it’s not just the control of information that produces power and wealth - one need only look at the oil companies to realize this. The world has an increasingly large appetite for energy, and whoever controls the sources of energy becomes very powerful indeed. Mohammad Mossadegh, who was Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, was well aware of this fact. At that time, the British government (via the Anglo-Persian Oil Company), “practically colonized the southern west corner of Iran, directly and indirectly interfering in the political affairs of the entire country (The Mossadegh Project).”

Mossadegh knew that for his country to prosper (and to end exploitation by the British government), they must break “the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests” and return power to the Iranian people. After 150 years of outside interference, Mossadegh succeeded in nationalizing the Iranian oil industry in December of 1951. In response to this action, Britain (with the help of the American CIA), overthrew Mossadegh’s democratically elected government. The struggle to control oil reserves in the Middle East continues to this day, whether or not anyone cares to admit it.

Control, then, begets power; and power begets more control. The author of The Townshend Chronicles tells us that “in the United States, power is supposed to be in the hands of many.” And so it should be. We have learned that there are those who would restrict our freedom of discourse for the sake of earning a profit, but the price is much too high. We must make sure that the balance of power is never compromised, and that the Internet remains a neutral and fertile ground.

I love David Pogue’s New York Times technology blog, so I read it quite frequently. In this post, entitled “Your Birth Tune”, he introduces readers to a website where they can enter the month and year they were born, and it will show them what the number one song on the charts was at that time. I found the site pretty ugly, but strangely addictive (as you can see by my comment - just look for drumdiva!). I expect the novelty will wear off in the next couple of days, but it’s still fun for a trivia and music buff like me!

I found this very interesting article on Wired Magazine’s website today.  Big Brother is not just online, he’s everywhere - and if you’re not careful, what you do or say could wind up online for all to see (thanks to the legions of bloggers who live for this kind of thing).  In today’s wired world, it really does pay to CYA…

Today I realized once again how grateful I am for the Internet and its community of users.  It’s a resource I can usually count on in a time of need.  One such time was last night, when I was installing my new cable modem. 

I’ve been in desperate need of a new modem for some time now, so I purchased one yesterday afternoon and installed it.  The actual installation is simple enough:  turn off the computer, disconnect the old modem, connect the cables to the new modem and the router, plug it in, and turn the computer back on.  Here’s where the fun begins. 

In order to connect to the Internet with my new modem, I needed to call my Internet service provider (who shall be nameless, but not shameless) and give them the new MAC address.  Still a very simple operation.  To test the signal strength properly, they asked me to connect the modem directly to my computer. After the modem was restarted remotely, I could finally connect to the Internet without a hitch.  End of call.  But wait, there’s more…

As soon as I reconnected the cable modem to my router, I lost all connectivity.  So, naturally, I called back to complain.  “What’s going on?”, I thought.  “A Linksys modem should be able to work with a Linksys router, after all”.  After speaking with three more technicians, I was told that I should just bypass my router and keep my modem connected directly to my computer.  Now I was really upset - this was a “band aid”, not a solution.  I’m just supposed to stop using an expensive router?  I told them that I could not accept their so-called “solution”.  The only thing they could do at that point was refer me to Linksys. 

By now, I was very frustrated (and also sleep-deprived from the previous week), so I had forgotten that I would need to reconfigure the router after installing the new modem.  Naturally, I couldn’t find the IP address of the router (which I needed to reconfigure it), so I had to spend more of my precious weekend time speaking with clueless call center representatives.  After my cordless phone died, I wound up calling it a day.   

At lunch this afternoon, I decided to take matters into my own hands.  When traditional sources of information fail me (namely, call centers), I always consult online user forums.  A well-worded Google search will almost always point me in the right direction.  Thanks to these forums (which are frequented by very knowledgeable individuals), I always manage to find a solution to whatever technical problem I might be experiencing.  This kind of collaboration makes my life so much easier.  It’s great to know that there are so many alternative sources of information that are freely available.  Rather than bypassing my router, I can bypass the headache of dealing with tech support.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: online collaboration is a beautiful thing! 

In 1987, when I was a music student in Boston, I attended a lecture by Kurt Vonnegut at the Public Library. He was in town promoting the release of his most recent novel, and spoke to the audience about that particular work, as well as some of his other classic works. He also spoke of his experiences in World War II, including some of the horrors that he witnessed – horrors brought about by technology (namely, weapons of mass destruction).

He also shared these experiences with students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and proposed a rather radical idea to the seniors who were about to graduate in the coming months and enter the workforce. What he proposed was this: students in technical disciplines bear a special responsibility to society, and should be required to take an oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath that was taken by new physicians. According to Kurt Vonnegut, newly-minted scientists and engineers should promise that any technologies they develop would only be used for the greater good, rather than to harm or kill. Needless to say, this idea was not well-received, as many of these students had probably already been recruited by the Department of Defense, the aerospace industry, or other entities that developed weaponry. At that time, technology was certainly advancing, but not as rapidly as it is today. Since technology has become such an important part of our daily lives (and increasingly invasive as well), perhaps the time has come for Vonnegut’s oath.

Why ethics?

I had forgotten about Kurt Vonnegut’s lecture until I read “Professional Ethics and Responsibilities” from A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computers and the Internet (Baase, 2002). When Vonnegut proposed the idea of implementing a Hippocratic-type oath for those involved in the design and development of technology, he was referring to technology in a broader sense. I think that his idea is just as relevant today, especially when applied to information technology. When Baase discussed professional codes of ethics for technologists, I couldn’t help but remember Vonnegut’s words.

Having worked as a computer professional for a number of years, I never really thought about how my job could affect human beings. Since I provided third-level support (as opposed to first-level support from the help desk), my contact with end-users was limited. Why, then, would I need to worry about ethics? Since building and installing software packages was a major part of my work, I did often think about whether or not making copies of installation disks was wrong, but not much else in regards to “computer ethics”. I only knew what I was supposed to be doing, and had a vague notion that somewhere out in the company, someone’s job was made a little easier by the tools we provided (or more difficult, if the software wasn’t installed properly).

A new perspective

Baase’s article made me see things a bit differently. As I mentioned before, I was merely a “middleman”, and had no clue that there could be ethical issues involved in my work. I wasn’t a physician, a teacher, or a lawyer – all professions in which unethical behavior could have a profound effect on someone’s life. In retrospect, though, I see that there were ethical issues involved. There was no established code of ethics for us to follow (as there is for software engineers); it was more of an unwritten and informal code (or just plain old common sense). We all knew that if we installed software that didn’t work properly, it would impact the company’s bottom line due to decreased productivity, and upset the end-users in the process. We were definitely in a position of power because we were responsible for the company’s most valuable assets (aside from the employees themselves), and had we been disgruntled in any way, could have inflicted serious damage to the technological infrastructure of the company.

It makes sense that software developers should have a code of ethics to guide them. They are responsible for developing products that are accessible to different types of user, and therefore have a responsibility to involve users in the design process. One could argue that they, in fact, have a moral obligation to always design with the user in mind. The customers will be happy, and the company (and its employees) will reap the benefits of a sound, well-functioning product.

In addition, computer professionals should, in the course of their work, be honest and fair, respect confidentiality, be aware of relevant laws, honor contracts and agreements, and maintain professional competence (Baase, p. 413).

Software engineers, then, are not the only ones who are bound by a code of ethics. All computer professionals should be aware of how their actions affect others, especially when dealing with sensitive or confidential data.

A voice for consumers

After watching CNBC’s Big Brother, Big Business, I (like others in this class) was shocked to learn that so much of my personal information was accessible to complete strangers. I wouldn’t mind so much if, say, the information was part of a medical database, but the fact that so-called “commercial data brokers” have access to private information for marketing purposes is unconscionable! It’s comforting to know that organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation are fighting for the rights of consumers, but much more needs to be done. I would like to think that our government would step up to the plate and enact more stringent laws to protect our privacy, but I’m not holding my breath, especially since the government is one of the biggest customers of these data brokers.

A “double-edged sword”

Technology, as we all know, is a “double-edged sword”. We’ve all heard the argument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people”, and the same could be said for all of the cutting-edge technologies that have been developed in recent years. The technologies themselves may be harmless, but there will always be unscrupulous individuals who will use them to harm others for various reasons (most likely for financial gain).

It would be nice to have a uniform code of ethics that would apply to all computer professionals and those who work with them, but ethics can be tricky. How, for example, do we decide what’s ethical and what’s not? And who decides? What might be ethical in one culture may not be in another culture. And apparently, what seems to be incredibly unethical for everyday people may just be “business as usual” for many corporations. Many (if not most) companies have corporate ethics or compliance officers, but how can we be sure they’re impartial? Again, it might be best to have outside organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and professional societies monitor companies’ activities.

A moral and ethical responsibility

As technology advances, so do the risks associated with it. There are physical risks, of course, but I find the threat to privacy to be even more frightening. Technology is becoming more invasive, which sometimes has its advantages (for example, when it’s necessary to track down criminals). For now, the benefits might outweigh the risks, but many experts predict that within a few years’ time, the risks will increase. It is imperative, then, that we implement some kind of ethical code (other than our legal code) that prevents one segment of society (namely, corporations) from creating an extreme imbalance of power. In an age when technology is becoming increasingly ubiquitous and even invasive, we must protect our rights as individuals, lest we become faceless entities who exist only to serve larger, more powerful entities like corporations and governments. This may sound like fantasy now, but it could very well be reality in the future. Twenty-one years ago, Kurt Vonnegut proposed what seemed like a radical idea: that people who create technology have a moral and ethical responsibility to society as a whole. In the present day, though, it would be immoral and unethical to believe otherwise.