Reading 14

In a world deeply divided by economic differences and interclass struggles, we face the tremendous task of reshaping government and society, such that everyone is given the same, or at least a similar, opportunity to succeed. Whether you advocate capitalism or socialism, the idea of equity should resonate within you.

Resources nowadays come in all shapes and forms. Primarily we see it through money and material possessions, but I would argue that the most valuable asset any human being can have is education. I was born in Costa Rica over 22 years ago to lower middle class, but very hard-working parents. I have seen how far they have come, and although my father is no where near the point where we can lay back and depend on his assets, he has given me the education he could have only dreamed of having.

Your education is not only your most powerful tool; it's your only true and unseizable asset. In the world in which we live, a well-rounded and transcultural education is imperative for successfully operating on a global scale. Because we are becoming an increasingly technical civilisation, we must ensure that newer generations have the capability to keep up with the changing needs of society. Therefore, I fervently urge all nations to heavily invest in teaching Computer Science to their future leaders.

There is no better long-term investment a nation can make on itself than on the education of its future leaders. Because technology is automating jobs and thereby replacing manual labour, it is of the upmost importance that the most amount of people are trained to program, manage and engineer the systems that will handle the tasks of tomorrow.

In order to make this transition to a more technical society, we must overcome the psychological misconception that some kids are not smart enough to learn or understand code at such an early age; children learn the discrete intricacies of language and can generally communicate effortlessly by age 5. I therefore applaud the K-12 Computer Science Framework for seeking to adapt our education system to a 21st century curriculum.

Nowadays, we're perhaps as likely, if not more likely, to interact with a computer on a daily basis than with a person who speaks a different language (at least in the United States). Florida's efforts demonstrate an effective way in which coding could be promoted to fulfil a foreign-language requirement in high school. However, it should never replace foreign-languages all together, as people will never be able to communicate with machines the way they do with other people.

Computer Science is a field of study which encompasses other, more traditional subjects. Logic, for instance, should be taught as a way to introduce children to the concept of propositional statements. In this class, children could be taught how to determine whether a sentence can be true or false, or undecidable. This can also instil in children the ability to differentiate between a fact and an opinion, since it introduces them to the concepts of deduction to determine the validity of someone's claim.

Additionally, I would teach the concepts of databases through very simple tables, explaining why keys are important in storing information. This can additionally give children a good sense of how to see things and their attributes as keys and their categorical information. Moreover, I think it could contribute to a child's sense of overall organisation.

Reading 13

A patent is, in essence, a governmental certification to protect your rights as the original creator of an invention. This is because of the concept of intellectual property: the notion that a profitable or marketable idea belongs to the creator of an invention.

Within this context, one can have two types of property: material property and immaterial property. The main distinction between the two types of property is not that one is an object and the other isn't, but that the former is obtained and the latter is conceived. One is a process of procurement, and the other a process of creation. From this viewpoint, your intellectual property says more about you than your belongings do; I would therefore argue that, theoretically, your intellectual property is a greater asset than your earthly possessions.

While from the legal sense, intellectual property only refers to inventions resulting from creativity, I would like to put intellectual property in a humanitarian light, and say that most successful inventions require a tremendous amount of work and determination, meaning that the creators of these inventions deserve the right to patent their inventions to avoid someone else from doing so first.

However, one problem arises from this: hypothetically, we may conceive a scenario in which two people have the same idea at the same time. Though highly unlikely, if they were to pitch their idea to a governing entity at the exact same time, to whom should the rights go? In this case, both should be given the patent and given the opportunity to compete against each other, following capitalist tradition.

The retarding effect of granting patents for intellectual property for capitalism, however, is that it hinders product development when existing inventions wish to be enhanced and rebranded by competitors. It's like preventing a team from working together by fragmenting them into groups and preventing them from sharing their inventions and ideas with each other.

Naturally, a big problem with this line of reasoning is that it leads to patent trolling, which refers to when big companies obtain the rights to patents for the sake of profiting by licensing and litigation instead of developing useful inventions and providing helpful services themselves. I would therefore recommend that regulations be placed on big businesses that profit in this way, in order to avoid the monopolization of ideas.

In fact, I would argue that, with regards to intellectual property, different regulations should apply to people and businesses: if a single individual conceives multiple brilliant inventions every day and profits through licensing, then he should rightfully be rewarded for his ingenuity. However, if multiple people are working together to generate faint, generic ideas, the legitimacy of their intent with the patent must be more closely observed.

Finally, while I would not argue for tighter government regulation on most occasions, it just seems that without an impartial third party verifying that some are not taken advantage of by others, there can be no justice regarding the matter. The state must always be serious about protecting the property of its citizens.

Reading 11

If the scope of the capabilities of technology were to be graphed with respect to time, they would show an exponential increase in the last 50 years. The digital age is primarily demarcated by the millions of home appliances and personal devices that have indisputably enhanced human life.

However, with the increasing number of tasks being computerised every day, more and more people fulfilling jobs, which have historically been fulfilled by people, are being let go and replaced by machines and applications. Thus, the controversy surrounding automation is how to reconcile wanting new technology and putting people out of work.

Theoretically speaking, the concept of a workless society is very intriguing: since societies are contingent upon their economy, would the progress of a nation be halted by the lack of labor, or would labor be replaced by different societal pursuits? As Derek Thompson from the Atlantic puts it, "industriousness has served as America’s unofficial religion since its founding." America, in particular, would undergo the biggest transformation, as it's economy is currently the biggest in the world.

In terms of economic theory, technology that fulfils mundane roles has two impacts: a displacement effect and a compensation effect. The idea is that better technology allows less labor to obtain the same result. The displacement effect is naturally the destruction of jobs that could be fulfilled by people. However, as labor is displaced, workers become more skilled and more productive; over time, people are forced to fulfil more specialised, relevant and intricate functions. This ultimately leads to an increase in productivity and wages. This is called the compensation effect.

While I'm naturally concerned about the automatisation of tasks that could potentially endanger human lives, I'm not any more concerned about it than I am about any other technology on which we currently rely. For instance, planes use auto-pilot configurations, which are technically not a 100% fail-proof. Given that, albeit small, there always exists a margin of error, one must keep in the mind the risk involved in subscribing to more dangerous forms of automation (e.g. self-driving cars).

Personally, I think a world without jobs would not necessarily obliterate social cohesion; since the human race is a hyper-social species, I think we hold the ability to transcend into a society that places more emphasis on thought than labor.

However, the right of every single person to have his or her basic needs met would have to be ensured, because productivity cannot germinate when basic living standards are subpar; when people are focusing on keeping themselves alive, they can't focus on thriving in other ways. If truck drivers, for instance, which make up a significant percentage of the US workforce, could have their jobs taken away by Amazon drones, then it would be really difficult for them to become reintegrated in other lines of work: while their jobs would be threatened, their livelihood should not be.

Automation is ultimately a good thing, because it drives people to become more specialised, generating more technical and educated societies, as opposed to labor-driven and thereby redundant states.

Reading 10

Because information nowadays is easily accessible and virtually ubiquitous by virtue of the internet, we have the luck and the privilege of educating ourselves on pretty much anything via a device connected to the latter. News sources, social media platforms, films and other sources of information are literally one click away.

However, while technically unregulated, the access to the Internet's many wonders is somewhat subject to the huge internet service providers which make the majority of the Internet function. A lot of these are companies have business analytics departments who focus on the collection of customer data, meaning that our personal information and browsing patterns are carefully scrutinised and evaluated on a daily basis. Thus, in this world deeply driven by advertisement, marketing extends to the consumerism of ideas as well as material goods.

Nowadays, devices like cellphones facilitate the omnipresence of the Internet. Our mobile phones send and receive packets of information regardless of whether they are being used, giving internet service providers substantial information about our location at any given moment. For example, they could determine, based on your region's socioeconomic and political landscapes, which kind of political content you will best respond to. In the United States, companies can, due to corporate personhood, openly financially support a political party or candidate. In addition to that, they can run their advertisement analytics on you to figure out how to best sell you a feeling and, incredibly enough, a political identity.

Thus, "fake" news are, in my opinion, news written to persuade, not to inform. When news are exclusively written to evoke a reaction, they no longer serve purpose of educating; the argumentative paper is better saved for those who have conducted extensive research on the matter, anyway. However, even argumentative papers don't seek to align you within a political identity: they should be provocative at best.

The concept of "Fake News" is very closely associated to the concept of the personal account; there is a distinct difference between describing the news and framing the news to in a way that fits a biased persons's narrative. Some people have no problem generating a narrative to fit their, perhaps socially unwarranted, political views. And while many may not see the harm in it on an interpersonal level, your association with a person of the like on online media can cause you to be subject to content that is as effective on you as it is on them. So should giants like Facebook be held accountable for allowing so many people to generate support for a political candidate through potentially offensive content on their platform?

Yes; yes they should. Companies as big as Facebook should take the initiative of, in some way, censoring information that is hurtful and detrimental to its community. In particular, Facebook could determine, by simply following posts' share histories, how offensive and hateful content gets spread around, with the intention of blocking it at the source. This could help Facebook better diagnose the undesired affects of its "Trending" algorithms, which "regularly promoted fake news" (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/).

BuzzFeed News, for example, identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.fmNKwRn1R#.eb2A3VNmV). Baseless stories from these websites have generated over hundreds of likes, shares and comments, and they had a real effect when it came to the 2016 US presidential elections: a ton of people were persuaded to vote for Donald Trump based on their unfounded beliefs and party loyalty.

The problem with last year's influence of social media on the US elections is the degree to which these websites have sought mass polarisation. This influence is easily identified by the rise of the alternative and the post-fact culture. To think that we will ever live in a world that transcends fact is honestly delusional; things are based exclusively on the truth, and everything else is an opinion. Therefore, if one bases one's opinions on the opinions of others, one runs the risk of never basing one's beliefs on truth.

Since last year's presidential campaigns, I have had to unfortunately remove people on my Facebook for content shared that I consider quite harmful. It's always better to mitigate the amount of time you are exposed to material which seeks to get a reaction out of you to avoid being another casualty of the way social media can shape and consolidate your opinions.

Project 03

Because your experience with private cloud services entirely depends on the service you choose, it's important to do a little research before anything and determine which one best fits your needs.

For instance, iRedMail is a feasible alternative to Gmail. Naturally, the first and most clear advantage is that iRedMail keeps and stores all information on your machine, and not on somebody else's. Unfortunately, when you do this, you lose a large degree of security, unless you have extensive security knowledgeability. On top of this, one needs to be familiar with their operating system to be capable of knowing how to meet additional system requirements.

You also need to understand how to manage your own database in an efficient way; this obviously requires additional experience with SQL syntax, or with whichever database you decide to use. Since you have carefully chosen the private cloud service that best meets your personal needs, you should also be mindful in your choice in database.

The problem with using your own cloud services, however, is that you must continually be your own administrator. Aside from the difficult installation and setup, it lacks the power that existing commercial cloud services already have. Gmail, for instance, is incredible easy to use and manage; given how widely used it is, it has been adapted and scaled to work with other technologies. Moreover, this scalable storage that you do not need occupying tons of space on your machine is very beneficial for casual and frequent users alike.

Gmail also has a well developed and aesthetically pleasing interface, and with an entire arsenal of tools. Although the server administrator may not be you, you don't really require to know what's going on in the backend if you are simply trying to use an efficient cloud service; going through the headache of installing you own, less secure one, which will easily be outranked by the commercial power of Gmail, is simply not worth it.

In my opinion, so long as I give certain information to a third-party service, which isn't information that is being continually collected about me, but rather details I willingly gave out (like my name and phone number), I don't feel like these services are abusing my trust. Therefore, a private cloud service is just not worth it to me; while I may lose a little privacy, I have no need to manage and maintain my own.

Reading 09

Because in the modern digital age, information is power, the question of net neutrality is essentially the question of the neutrality of power. The legitimacy of the centralisation of information is a complex subject because it has existed since the very first civilisations.

In ancient Mesopotamia, for instance, religious leaders were not only seen as the only medium between God and man, but were also free to interpret and institute the will of God as they saw fit in their respective societies. These religious leaders were not only the most respected, but also the most powerful members in society, as the information they propagated ruled and determined the way others lived.

Neutrality has been suppressed since the beginning of history. Totalitarian dictatorships present a very good example; when the leaders of such regimes censor the information that their citizens receive, the general public becomes entirely dependent on the dictator for information; such is the case, for instance, in North Korea. Without freedom of information, there can be no freedom of thought, because citizens are forced to think within the boundaries established by their ruler.

In a somewhat similar manner, only a few telecommunication companies, particularly in the United States, own virtually all sources of information. It's actually remarkable how similar very capitalist nations look in relation to extreme examples of communism: whereas in communist nations, virtually all sources of information are owned and managed by the state, in capitalist nations, virtually all sources of information are owned by a small amount of companies who work with and cater to the government, as revealed by Snowden's leaks.

Net neutrality isn't just desirable; it's actually necessary. How can we convince ourselves, particularly those of us who are primarily based in one nation, that we're okay with only a few determining what we learn and see?

I think it's substantially important, when choosing where to stand on the net neutrality issue, to consider places with varying degrees thereof; how do the governments of different countries regulate the free internet? In China, the Great Firewall blocks some of the world's most used internet services: Facebook, Google and Youtube, for instance, are excluded from the Chinese intranet. Under the assumption that America wishes to remain a democratic nation, they must fight to preserve their most used and unregulated source of information; nationalising the internet is relinquishing your unfiltered voice online.

Net neutrality, however, has one major shortcoming: it prevents internet service providers from rejecting their services to people with negative ideologies, intentions or agendas. Because not everything that needs to be said needs to be heard, there should be cordiality laws on top of net neutrality laws, governing the way that companies are allowed to ethically respond to a client's defamatory remark, action or act of discrimination.

I am for net neutrality laws because it genuinely terrifies me how much telecommunication giants are allowed to own, since those who control the information can present it in the way they want. I have my reservations, however, with regards to the way they force ISP's to provide their services to everyone, including groups that may be ill-intentioned. For instance, I have seen outrageous examples of textbook sexism on Fox News, where female anchors are told by their male counterparts that "they would be happier staying at home with kids [instead of pursuing a career]," and I would hate to be forced to remain their internet service provider because net neutrality laws prevent me from treating them any differently.

I also support neutrality in general since it sincerely bothers me how much some profit to expense of others. The producer must never harm the consumer, as the consumer is its most important stakeholder. When people don't like a service, they should have alternatives; however, when all the alternatives are owned by the same provider, it's virtually impossible to overcome your dependence thereon. There's nothing that says "I'm being capitalized on" more than having to succumb to these giants for what could potentially be unreliable and will definitely be an overpriced service. After all, who do you complain to about the provider on which you depend?

Reading 08

Corporate personhood is the notion that corporations may, on certain grounds, be considered human entities before the eyes of the law. In various occasions, Supreme Court rulings have given corporations, for instance, the right to spend money in candidate elections, thereby allowing companies to either publicly or privately financially endorse a political candidate. Additionally, they have, on religious grounds, given them permission to refuse to comply with federal mandates. This means that a corporation's religious or ideological convictions can legally supersede their federal obligations.

In theory, this may be seen as a noble thing: when a group of people share the same values and set of beliefs, insofar as they are not intruding on other people's rights, they should be allowed to hold certain practices and act based on their collective convictions. However, this is not always the case; oftentimes, the owners of a company, solely based on their ownership, can suppress the voice of the many subordinate employees that the company harbours and act based on their own beliefs.

This was the case for Hobby Lobby, a company employing about 16,000 employees. The Supreme Court ruled in their favour to remove their employees' access to certain kinds of contraceptives, which were seen as abortifacients by the owners of the company. The problem with this is that many of America's largest companies, producing everything from food products to home appliances, are closely held companies. The major risk with this type of ruling is that it subjects a huge percentage of America's unsuspecting employees to the ethical discretion of the top 1%.

This isn't necessarily troublesome by virtue of the notion that all corporation overlords are evil, but it certainly is a threat to the essence of democracy. By having the power to in some way influence their employees' lives outside of work, these company owners are legally allowed to impose their beliefs on people who have their own set of beliefs. It seems ironic that one would give a corporation personhood, just for that corporation to intrude on the personhood of its own employees. If corporations are allowed to refuse to mandates from the government (the entity that supposedly governs their legal undertakings), then shouldn't individuals also be entitled to the same sort of protection from their employers?

The concept of personhood is in itself very complex, because even human beings have conflicting thoughts and desires. Is the personhood of a company defined by the shared values among employees and employers, or is it determined solely by the owner's set of beliefs? In the eyes of the law, a corporation's ethical decisions are up to the owner's discretion; however, I believe that real personhood should only be acknowledged when there is an overwhelming majority of people in the company who feel a certain way.

A person, for instance, doesn't act solely based upon his or her baser needs; he or she also considers his or her intellect, religious beliefs and social values. In the same way, a corporation should not act simply based on its owner's conviction; it should also consider its employees' values and their needs. Simply put, because a holistic approach goes into every decision a person makes, the same must apply for a corporation that wishes to be acknowledged with personhood.

That's why I view the decision by many tech companies to refuse to build a Muslim registry as a true demonstration of personhood. Although they've had their scandals, Google, Apple and Uber, for instance, listening to their employee's concerns, took a harsh stance against Donald Trump's wishes to build this registry. By acknowledging their concerns, these corporations acted very democratically, thereby embodying the essence of the Constitution, which is what assures individuals their rights and personhood in the first place.

Acting without regard for the very people that help your company thrive and forcing them to abide by your set of beliefs is corporate totalitarianship. Since totalitarianship and democracy are completely incompatible, democratic nations should also allow the employees of a company to decide what is wrong and what is right.

Reading 07

American marketing was forever changed when Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, started working for American Tobacco Company. He was given the task of increasing Lucky Strike sales among women, among whom smoking was considered unfeminine.

Bernays's first strategy was to pick on women's insecurities. He began by promoting the importance of being thin and thereby presented smoking as an alternative for snacking or eating. Naturally, back in the day, this required forms of advertisement like newspapers and magazines. The campaign succeeded, and women started smoking more cigarettes.

While we may not necessarily feel like this, online marketing targets us much in the same way that Bernays targeted American women. Nowadays, there are million more ways for information to reach us, but more importantly, for our information to reach others. Huge companies, like Apple, Google or Facebook, collect massive amounts of data about its users and their online activity, and therefrom derive their interests, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. That means that if people at Facebook look at which pages you post to or what kind of posts you share, they can easily deduce from its content what kind of marketing strategy you will best respond to.

The reading Facebook Knew I Was Gay Before My Family Did conveys this sentiment powerfully. The narrator talks about how by tracking his behaviour, Facebook ad buyers could "make an inference about [his] sexual orientation," and thereby present him with coming-out counselling.

One of my main problems with marketing is how people can guess your innermost desires based on information collected from yourself and others. The ethical predicament is that, if online marketing can target things so deeply personal, such as sexual orientation, then online marketing has clearly begun to work with information that targets people psychologically. By investigating your personal information through behavioural tracking and data mining, ad buyers can prey on your inner insecurities and desires.

The concept that one can make statistical predictions based on what behavioural trends people follow shows that computing has begun trying to calculate and mathematize human psychology. To me, this is just as fascinating as it is terrifying. For this reason, companies that handle this kind of sensitive information must be responsible with the way they present an ad to a user, ensuring it isn't too intrusive.

I use AdBlock because, while I have no control of the fact that I'm being monitored, I'd rather not be influenced by inferences based on my online activity.

Reading 06

I reiterate that I am of the opinion that people who document and divulge instances of abuse of authority should not, under any circumstance, be prosecuted by an organization claiming to adhere to ethical principles. Moreover, when an authority's unethical activities involve the violation of millions of people's privacy, there is absolutely no reason as to why every citizen should not know of the daily intrusion of such an authority in their lives.

Such is the case concerning Edward Snowden and the secret information he leaked from the NSA and the CIA without authorization. Documents revealing gross invasions of privacy and security of other countries' governments were among the millions released, exemplifying the extent to which the United States' intelligence agency abused their authority to spy on unsuspecting people and world leaders. The leak revealed, for instance, that the intelligence agency's operations targeted foreign companies and spied on Brazil, France, Mexico, Britain, China, Germany, and Spain, as well as 35 world leaders, most notably German chancellor Angela Merkel. Some NSA officials went so far as to even spy on their own "love interests" as well as on users of worldwide online services like XBOX Live and World of Warcraft.

The way he exposed the information was clearly thoughtful and strategic. After leaving his NSA facility in Hawaii with the leaked documents, he flew to Hong Kong to meet journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill, with whom he had been in contact through encrypted means. The documents he divulged revealed astonishing global surveillance problems being carried about by the US government with the cooperation of telecommunication companies, so it makes sense that he would look for journalists: people who could publish the leaked information and know how to stir the public. His main contribution was in my opinion sparking the debate between national security and information privacy.

Very few things in life are good and bad, and unwarranted violations of privacy are always bad. While I have previously argued that factual information belongs to no one, I would agree that everyone has the right to the contents of one mind and the physical manifestations thereof (i.e. writing, music, art). My dad always says: "there are things you say but do nothing about, there are things you think but don't say, and there are things you shouldn't even think." I believe that insofar as your thoughts aren't publicized or shared with others, you reserve the right to privacy. The moment that you publically vocalize or act upon your ideas is the moment you lose the right to complain about this privacy being given away. Therefore, if an governmental agency is abusing its authority to extort and unethically obtain information, it has no right to prosecute anyone who points this out to the public.

Project 02 - Reflection

One of the most important parts of our guide was the passage concerning extracurricular activities. While many students believe that their side projects should revolve around software or web application development, I think it's important to develop other skills that can complement your technical knowledge in computer science. Oftentimes, part of finding one's true passion in technology lies in discovering where it overlaps with one's extracurricular interests. I thus believe that in order to find the most fulfilling job, you should consider not only what you are technically capable of doing, but also where your passion lies.

Therefore, colleges not only have the responsibility to academically prepare their students, but to also introduce them to the art and science of interviewing and the human psychology behind it. Without it, students can't employ the skills they acquired at college in the first place. Because mundane tasks and processes are being automated by computers more and more every day, it's important that professionals of all degrees become more geared toward human psychology and interpersonal relations, as they constitute the subjects that will always be out of the scope of a computer's processing powers.

I would therefore recommend to the CSE department that they incorporate such subjects into their curriculum. For instance, it seems absurd to me that there is a language requirement for all majors except engineering. Engineers must be efficient communicators, and if they can do so in more than one language, they possess the ability to be cross-culturally. Moreover, psychology and sociology classes can help future engineers thrive interpersonally at the office. I believe a curriculum too heavily based on technology can harm and narrow the career path of a student seeking to excel in more areas than one.

Reading 05

It’s impossible to characterize one of the most unique cases in U.S. history concerning national security as black or white. Chelsea Manning, a gender-questioning soldier, became the subject of controversy as she disclosed classified information pertinent to the U.S. Department of Defense. Given the nature of the information she released, among it footage of the deadly 2007 U.S. helicopter air strike in Baghdad which killed several innocent people, she was discharged from the army and arrested by the American army.

Quite truthfully, information belongs to no one. Factual information, in particular, should never be kept from the public; why would we hide reality from anyone? Should a government be allowed to suppress its mistakes for the sake of its image? Moreover, why would a democratic government hide from its people the atrocities it has committed in the name of freedom?

It should follow, that where there is freedom of speech and expression there should also be freedom of access to raw information. By raw information, I simply mean material that has in no way been edited for any intent or purpose. After all, what better way to share information – and to question its morality – than to provide an unedited source and let people judge its nature?

Naturally, if the footage was fake and defamatory to the United States and its government, the army should go to the ends of the earth to find the perpetrator. In this case, however, it was real footage of innocent people getting killed.

If one wishes to be a conscientious objector, one must first justify why one has the right to know about the government's deficiencies. If we can justify that we have the right to know of the atrocities that our government commits, then releasing this information shouldn’t be seen as a criminal offense, but as an act ultimately depicting the truth.

The first way to tell whether we have the right to know about the faults of our government is by examining the principles to which our country claims to adhere. For instance, if liberty and freedom of speech are two of the main tenets of our society, then why should a soldier be arrested for simply sharing the unedited fatal actions of other soldiers who we, through our taxes, indirectly sponsored? If we as citizens want freedom, and freedom is what the government promises us, then it shouldn't be unethical for a soldier, both a citizen and an indirect constituent of the government through the army, to act freely based on his/her own sense of justice.

One citizen, albeit a soldier, should not be allowed to know more than other citizens concerning the government’s immoral actions. Every tax-paying individual should be made aware of the fact that their government’s army has committed actions against the sanctity of human life, and citizens of other countries should be aware of the perpetrator's international fiascos. Thus, because we have the right to know, she should have the right to let us know.

However, I do believe that, in certain circumstances, there should be limitations placed on freedom of speech simply to account for a greater degree of conviviality among people of different ideologies. That is because material that is clearly based on opinion – and not fact – can be incompatible or inconsistent with the opinions of others. Thus, opinions can only be publicized insofar as they are tentative and not derogatory. Facts, however, should be common property, as they do not belong to any other entity other than truth itself.

The problem with privatizing the truth is that we allow the privatizing entity to become the arbiter and filter of the information that reaches us. Since this information is subject to the bias of the privatizing body, our views towards the latter will always remain generally positive. That means that if the American Government is usually determining what fatal mistakes to keep away from the public eye, we will never be able to fully discern the moral and ethical standpoint of the actions of our government. And it isn’t fair for such an entity to withhold the truth in order to make itself look more favorable.

Because the footage released by Manning revealed “gross mismanagement” and “an abuse of authority” on behalf of the U.S. Arby, as stated in the Whistleblower protection laws, I believe that she should have been under protection. While I wouldn’t necessarily denote this woman as a hero, I believe that she’s a true champion of freedom of speech and someone who understands its true function.

Reading 04

Diversity, in essence, is the pinnacle of human capital. People oftentimes concentrate exclusively on ethnic diversity, especially with respect to the workplace. However, diversity is a concept underlying a much more fundamental part of what constitutes society, and it is the most prominent force driving globalization in the 21st century.

The problem of diversity is faced by peoples of all races and nations, regardless of how homogeneous these may be. The reason why is because one can't differentiate oneself from others without recognising what it is that makes other people different.

You discover yourself in life by distinguishing yourself from that which you are not. That is, you meet many people in life with different goals, strengths and weaknesses as you, which helps you reinforce your own perception of who you are and what you want to do. This is why I believe diversity is inherently good.

For this reason, the lack of diversity is a topic that should most certainly be addressed in the technology industry and beyond.

I think there's something inherently funky in the term "minority". I think that a lot of people have, maybe even involuntarily, begun attributing a slightly negative connotation to the term. While it is true that in the predominantly white United States, people who are not white are a minority because they constitute a minor proportion of the nation, I feel like one should be very careful not to use this word beyond its sociological context: a minority is just the least represented, and therefore generally most discriminated against, part of the population. This word, just like many others in the english language, should NOT be used outside their context.

This brings me to my first point: one of the first things the technology industry could do to remove these barriers and encourage more participation from women and minorities is to ensure that cyberbullying and acts of hate speech are not taking place on their websites or on the services they provide.

The reason why diversity is an increasingly important subject is because the world is becoming smaller and people from cultures who hadn't interacted for thousands of years are all of a sudden living next door to each other, especially in very diverse nations, such as the United States.

Moreover, the diversity controversy at Google, of which I was very aware of, has actually completely turned me away from the idea of even applying to the company. In particular, it's terrifying that their percentage of Black and Hispanic workers in the US are 2 and 4 percent, respectively. How is it possible that, even in the most diverse nation on earth, blacks and hispanics are completely unfairly represented by one of the largest (not to mention most international) companies in the world? Furthermore, what is it about the company's policies or goals that don't require diversity in order to succeed? Is diversity in ideas not what pervades the entire internet.

In my opinion this generates a lot of outrage, because people feel entitled to what they have oftentimes based on what others don't. It's always important to remember that just because you feel like you deserve something, it doesn't mean you deserve it more than somebody else who may be being discriminated against.

Reading 03

In competitive capitalist states, people have the freedom to undertake any project with the intention of growing personally, academically, financially or professionally.

For this reason, there is always a hankering for more. When people aren't set boundaries wherein to contain their ambitions, they can never be entirely satisfied. It is thus important to seek out one's vocation, as it will lead to the most fulfilling career.

However, careers require determination because the path to fulfilment can be frustrating at times.

There are two things that always change: people and plans. People are shaped and influenced by the decisions they make and the inevitable circumstances and events surrounding their lives. I don't want the same thing today that I wanted 10 years ago, nor will I want the same thing I want now in 10 years. So if human desire drives human appetite, and human desire is constantly changing, then human appetite will always have something different to lust after. That's how life plans and goals continually change. And if goals always change, then no one can truly attain everything. Therefore, I do not think we can ever have it all.

Now, we can also choose to define "having it all" as having everything that one requires to be satisfied. Naturally, what it means to have it all depends on whom you ask, but in my opinion, it involves loving others, being loved by others, and doing something meaningful with your life. Other than that, I believe that the individual is free to enjoy his leisure time the way he sees fit.

Because I genuinely believe that my free time is sacred and that I should be allowed to do what I want insofar as I'm not intruding on other people's freedom or well-being, I have always, almost to a doctrinal extent, practiced enjoying my leisure time in the most efficient and valuable way possible. Even though I do homework, look at job postings, check my e-mails and tutor German, I don't sacrifice my leisure time because I've learned to always set some aside. For this reason, I would say that I have not necessarily experienced any guilt for missing a portion of my life due to overbearing stress. However, I do sometimes wonder how much easier my life would have been had I attended college in Panama and stayed there, in a less rigorous and competitive environment, instead. Sometimes I ask myself if I'm doing something because I want to prove to myself that I have the capability of doing it, or simply because I genuinely believe that it is the best thing for me to be doing.

But I digress. What can companies do to make the employee feel like they value their time and respect their time off? I sincerely believe, for instance, that an employer should not reach out to an employee over the weekend; any assumption that one is entitled to demand that a subordinate produce over the weekend is completely out of line. While one may decide to put time aside over the weekend to work on a project, it should not be an obligation, nor should the work be so overbearing that the employee isn't entitled to relaxation, leisure and extracurriculars during his well-earned weekend.

I also believe US companies should offer their employees a minimum of 20 paid vacation days a year. I think it's a true stereotype that the average white-collar American's life almost entirely revolves around his/her work. I don't think it's necessarily something negative, but it can certainly impede on an individual's ability to learn different things and pursue other life goals.

In the United States, there is no statutory minimum paid vacation or paid public holidays. On the other hand, in Germany, there is a guaranteed minimum (regardless of line of work) of 20 paid vacation days, and the government enforces 9 paid public holidays. Regardless of profession or skill, everyone there is offered an entire month of paid holidays. To me, that promotes quality of life and worker satisfaction more than anything else. That's why, in terms of mental well-being, I would prefer to work in Germany than in the United States.

Project 01 - Reflection

One of the primary components of our new Code of Ethics is the idea of learning to learn, not learning to produce, nor learning to compete. We renounce institutions that have perpetuated a grading system over a learning system. We believe that this competition can foster later unethical behaviors, whereas learning for the sake of learning inspires those with the knowledge to change the world to actually do.

Secondly, working on yourself is very important as well. If you're not a good person, then it doesn't matter how professional and talented you may be: if you have trouble making the right decisions in the small things, you will struggle making right decisions in the bigger things. That's why in order to ensure that you can change people's lives with your service, you must ensure that you're the best version of yourself you can be.

I'd also like to elaborate on our Code of Ethics' general moral imperative on avoiding harm to others. When you make decisions, you must focus on harming the least amount of people possible. That's why it's sometimes hard to determine what the moral decision is; sometimes you'll have to weigh your options and go with the one that causes the least amount of harm. For instance, if you have a job offer but you're extended another offer, say your dream job, do you take it? Is it fair for you to string a company along? Is it fair for you to not remain true to yourself, with respect to what you want to do? This is when it's most important to consider what the least harmful thing for everyone to do is.

I think writing our own Code of Ethics was very helpful since it allowed me to enumerate the primary tenets for ethical behavior that I've subconsciously followed throughout my career, and actually helped me understand the process I go through to check if something is ethically sound. Of course, human beings are multidimensional beings and see much more complex situations than those that could simply be delineated on paper. That's why one must be very true to the code of ethics one has now, and do everything to keep it from changing.

Reading 02

1.) This summer I completed a 10-week internship in London, England, wherein I worked at Yupana, a technology consulting firm based in San Francisco. I was part of a small start-up team of software engineers that develop software for accounting firms in France and England, among other clients.

Since we were a very small team comprising only 6 people (including interns), each of us had a responsibility to contribute a lot, not only in terms of code but also in terms of promoting friendliness and cohesiveness among colleagues. This may sound simple, but we were all from different backgrounds: France, Portugal, Ukraine, Hungary and Panama were all countries that were represented in our office. So how does one measure how successful an individual can be in this kind of environment? How does one go about interviewing an individual with the goal of gathering a sense of whether he or she could thrive in this kind of environment?

I prepared for my interview by reviewing the most commonly asked questions in software engineering internships. I also looked at what questions interviewers tend to ask in general.

I was on my way to German class when I got the call from Mr. Taltas, the co-founder of the small, yet growing company. Naturally the first thing he asked me about was my coursework and what my experience with web app development was. The first questions are always technical; it's the way interviewers stay true to the meritocratic ideology that computer science emphasizes. These questions are posed to understand your theoretical and practical knowledge in the field. I believe that companies do this to measure the technical worth of the applicant. I'm sometimes frustrated by the fact that this is the sole component of an interview.

"So what do you plan on doing after you graduate and how will this internship help you achieve that?"

huh. I didn't think that my interviewer, let alone the co-founder, would be interested in knowing what was happening in my life post-graduation when he hadn't even hired me. I think that when one is being interviewed and is asked an ambiguous question about one's personal life, it's important to consider what the interviewer is trying to apprehend.

Oftentimes, the interviewer might just be interested in knowing about your future plans for the sake of making the best long-term investment for his company; it's beneficial to hire someone who shares the company's vision. It makes sense to hire someone whose interests and future plans align with the company or the industry in which it specializes.

"What do you like to do when you're not programming?"

It really surprised me that the part that many computer scientists don't generally experience/expect in an interview is the part that seeks to understand the applicant's other passions and how they relate to his or her later goals in life. I believe that this is done to understand if the applicant is multidimensional and has other passions that may benefit the company in other ways or if he or she prefers to do one thing well and one thing only. I feel that, while meritocracy is a fair process, it may not be the most humane, since it fails to take into account that not everyone has the same dexterity nor the same access to resources. For this reason, while it is efficient, it is still somewhat biased. I believe that for this reason, it is still not 100% ethical.

"So you're well-traveled, yes?"

Mr. Taltas was French, and the company's development team for the region was in England. He wanted to make sure that I had the multicultural sensitivity to approach and interact with my colleagues. He wanted to rest easy knowing I could comfortably traverse the massive city of London on my own.

Mr. Taltas liked all my answers and revealed to me in London that, while he looks for someone who is knowledgeable in the field, he also measures people by their character and the willingness to learn.

2.) I negotiated my contract a little bit, mostly for financial and logistical reasons. Given that the internship was in London, I felt that it wouldn't be too out of place to ask the company to pay for my transcontinental flight. They agreed. I also needed to cover expensive Visa costs, with which they helped me as well. I think that, when requesting some sort of bonus, it's important to be reasonable, while remembering that your labor is still the object of interest in the deal being made between you and the company. A company operates just like one does: based on its own interest. I believe that, for this reason, they will never initially offer you the most they' d be willing to give you.

I therefore agree with the article, Ten Rules for Negotiating a Job Offer, which tells people who think of companies who hire them as "gatekeepers" allowing them into the labor market to "dispel [themselves] of the mindset" that one should not negotiate aggressively. While one can be humble during many parts of the application/hiring process, one should not be humble during the negotiation, as it will largely determine your degree of investment into your company and therefore your career.

I wrote two algorithms and helped developed a web application during my time there, and was asked to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which prevented me from ever showing anyone else code pertinent to the company's framework.

3.) The developers with whom I worked this summer had different levels of experience in different things. Pedro, my Portuguese colleague, was an excellent networks programmer. Alex, from Ukraine, specialized in cyber security. Loïc, my boss, was a general software engineer who had his own consulting firm before working at Yupana.

Pedro had been working there for a little more than over a year, and Alex was hired even after I was. Someone was even fired halfway through my internship and promptly replaced. I've thus been under the impression that computer scientists move fast in the labor market. I was surprised to see the graph for the average length of time that software developers stay at a given company in the article Getting a raise comes down to one thing: Leverage.

As computer scientists, we have a lot of job security relative to majors of other fields, so I don't believe we should feel tied to a particular job if it makes us unhappy. I concur that we should be "financially and psychologically" prepared to leave a job in search of a better opportunity, since no one should be a slave to their most valuable asset: their labor. I've always asked myself whether people work to live or live to work. The thought that I may one day wake up as an old man and still be completely dependent on my company terrifies me.

A couple of my colleagues told me that one of the most important things a successful young professional can do to maximize their career is avoid getting committed to someone too early in life. Being married and having kids, they said, can impede your career, not in the sense of achievement, but rather in terms of mobility and overall time you can dedicate to it. They also told me to be open to exploring different jobs while I was still young because one does not have the same vivacity, flexibility or time once one is older.

The stack ranking system follows the concept of meritocracy, and that those at the bottom must be trained or cut loose. While it is technically fair, I don't believe it is %100 ethical, due to the fact that not everyone is born with the same capabilities. While merit should be celebrated, it should not discredit those at the bottom, nor help only those at the top. While I would not want to base my career off getting to the top of the stack ranking system, I would enjoy for a short part of my career just to foster fast-moving high-pressure skills.

4.) Where do you see your career headed? Do you plan on staying with one company or do you envision moving from job to job?

It's hard to say exactly where I see my career headed. The first thing I'm trying to do is get a job where I can fulfill a role beyond that of a simple software engineer. I want to be in some way involved with the company's marketing strategy team, as I intend to pursue further education in marketing later in life. Also, given the fact that I'm fluent in English, Spanish and German, I can take a job in any country where this is the primary spoken language. I would also be very interested in taking an job abroad.

My parents have had multiple international assignments, and it's allowed me to experience the benefit of moving around. In professional terms, the fact that he has been an expatriate for BMW in China and currently works with them in Thailand has truly boosted his resumé and it has attracted the attention of potential employers.

I believe that while I'm young and under thirty, I'll be moving from job to job quite frequently, until I find the most ideal working situation for me. I don't plan on conforming to a job if it doesn't make me feel like it allows me to make a genuine difference.

Reading 01

1.) In my experience, Hackers are generally people who disagree with the way sensitive information is handled online, and are essentially opposed to any privatization of the internet. A particular hack that affected my daily routine quite significantly was when the PlayStation store was taken down by the hacker collective that goes by the name of Anonymous. In these eyes of such organizations, hackers are individuals who operate based on their own ideals, as opposed to directives.

The Conscience of a Hacker was a very insightful reading into the mind and brain of a hacker. This reading summarizes the transformation of a bright child into a hacker through his resistance to incompetent authority. The narrator describes himself as someone who likes taking matter into his own hands, as opposed to depending on others. In today's society, he says, hackers should not learn at the pace of poor instructors, and cannot limit their curiosity to what they learn at school. Essentially, a hacker is someone who, out of a sheer thirst for knowledge, pursues the truth, and seeks to provide others with the same.

2.) The ethos of the computing industry seems to be one of innovation, and by definition, one that does not seek what already exists. The concept of success, in computing, is tied to real-world results. That's why there is a huge idea of meritocracy. Because of this, there are many open-source development projects see communities as meritocratic. This is interesting to me, because it builds a market based on ability and determination.

Determination is also a huge part of the ethos of the computing industry. One must invest countless of hours into learning how to properly code and solve problems before one can consider oneself experienced in the field. While I somewhat disagree that meritocracy is a myth, I feel that determination and other sub-skills are what can help you distinguish yourself from others in the field.

3.) Of the prominent tech figures discussed, I would most likely identify Mark Zuckerberg as the most ethical figure in terms of his mission and the most moral in terms of his demeanor. Whenever you see him he is modestly dressed and whenever he does an interview he is more than just technically prepared. Below, for instance, I have posted a video of him speaking fluent Mandarin at a speech he gave in China. In my opinion, being a moral person doesn't simply mean acting a certain way, but also empathizing with a different culture, and being able to engage in a human way with others. He has also signed The Giving Pledge, giving at least half of his wealth to philanthropy.

Steve Jobs is most likely the figure with whom I associate bad character and little moral fiber. During his years as CEO of Apple, Jobs had a reputation for being a terrible colleague and a rude boss. While one can't attribute negative characteristics to a person simply based on their character at work, one can certainly morally question the way someone is using their wealth. In 1997, for instance, after rejoining Apple, he closed the latter's philanthropic programs. Moreover, based on the Record Thin on Steve Jobs's Philanthropy reading from The Washington Post, his name is absent from the gifts of $1 million or more maintained by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy. In short, I believe companies have a responsibility to apply their knowledge and innovation into helping society and those at the bottom of it.

4.) Like every other industry, the computing industry has a responsibility to address social issues, such as income inequality. These kind of issues require the most prominent figures in business and technology to stand up for those who have gone unheard, for those who are underrepresented. I think Paul Graham's critique is very appropriate, since he makes assumptions that poor people need to pursue capitalist ventures like he did. He doesn't mention, however, how arbitrary it is for a startup to obtain funding, to catch someone's interest, etc.

It's very easy to sit from a vantage point and judge those that one considers to have inferior positions in society. It's clear from his description in this article, that he seeks to be thought of as a leader. However, leaders must not only lead, but also empathize and try to understand the fellow worker. One cannot presume or expect others to do as one did, given that discrimination can occur due to a series of things not even closely related to work quality, such as socioeconomic status, race, gender, etc. That's why I believe the computing and tech industry should address and act upon these social issues.