Alexandra Jimenez
There was a case in Arkansas regarding a crime scene that involved James Bates murdering his friend at his home. Bates had people over to watch football, and the following morning one of his friends was found murdered in his hot tub. The local police obtained a search warrant for the Amazon Echo Bates own to try and collect more evidence on the case. The police were able to obtain the Echo, but also requested from Amazon that they give them previous voice recordings in hope that on the night of the murder, someone in the house had asked Echo to search or do something that could give them a glimpse of what exactly happened that night.
Amazon decided not to hand over the recordings to the police, the history of that night has not been released, but all that was known was that the Echo was used to play music that night. But they wanted to see if the device could have potentially recorded any clues, however, the device can only be activated when someone says the key word “Alexa,” it is not always recording its surroundings. But there has been situations where the devices turns on without anyone saying the key word, and it is believe that the device misinterprets situations and think it has heard a person say “Alexa.” Which is why the police though there could potentially find something. This was a request that would have justified a murder being put behind bars, would have eased the family by knowing the murder was behind bars. They could have found evidence to further incriminate this man who is clearly guilty as they had found evidence that he used 140 gallons of water at one in the morning, which is suspicious, and the police came to the conclusion that it was to wash away his patio to get rid of all the blood. The writer brings up the question as to how far situations like this will go, in the future. Will our own devices be used against us? Will they hold up in court? Because this was recorded without consent, will it be able to be used in court? I personally think that amazon should have given the police the history. I know it is an invasion of privacy, but if by law, citizens have to hand over their phones, and finger prints to open the phones, then why could they not have handed over the information? 5/20/2017 0 Comments Blog 7: Playtest Black mirror I am a huge fan of series on Netflix Black Mirror, the episodes have mind blowing technology that is more than likely going to be available in the next coming years. The story starts off with the main character Cooper, who has been traveling around the world while trying to deal with the recent death of his father. He finds himself with no money in his account, and looks up quick cash jobs. He then finds an ad from Saito Game Team, to be a playtester for a new Artificial Reality game they are working on.
The Saito Game Team is known for their horror ways and was rumored to be developing a new system. What they were actually working on is an implant that “layers lifelike images and sounds” into the main character’s perception without using any wires or glasses. The first game he plays in a whack a mole game to test him, but he is then approved to move onto the horror house game that generates in real time horrible characters based on Cooper’s fears and thoughts he has while playing. They start of the game by walking him into this old horror house. This game is basically a haunted house that you created on your own. Being a horror enthusiast, and being the person at movie that always figures out what cliché the movie will throw at you, I would die playing this game. At the end of the game, he tells the person “helping and recording” that he is done and want to end the game. So they tell him to go upstairs into the room and that it will end, but he starts to doubt the situation and says no I know there is something bad in there, and then the lady asks “like what” and he said “some personal fucked-up shit.. I can feel it digging around my head.” which if I was in his position I would think the exact same thing. Little does he know that his worse fear was about to be manipulated. He walks into the room and when he turns around the door is gone and the person talking in his tells him that there is no way out, that they wanted to see if they broke him down enough to get him to follow instructions. She then continues to ask a lot of personal questions, which he cannot answer and he yells out “its taking my memories!” and she corrects him by saying “overwriting them, technically.” But it was all in his head, the game has taken over his mind and over the program, not even the developer could stop it or remove the technology from his neck. What shocked me the most is him saying “ I can feel it digging around my head, it is going to be something with my mom, … dead. It knows!” He can feel this game going through his memories and picking the worst. How scary would it be to have this type of technology that can pick and choose through your memories? This is all just for a game, but as to how far could this technology be used? Will we live in a world where fake memorize can also be implanted into our brain? What will this type of technology lead too? As much as I am excited for all the new technology, I am at the same time scared for what is to come, for technology to consume us. 5/20/2017 0 Comments BLOG 6: Cheating the app storeWhile looking for articles to write about, I came across one about a Public Relations company called Reverb Communications. The firm represents many Apple game developers and publishers. This firm is believed to have huge success among its clients in the App Store, but there is one detail that is crucial to this success. They hire a team of 10 interns to pretend to be real accounts and write 5-star rating on iTunes apps. This is not the first company to use these unethical tactics to gain success and to buy in developers. Reverb Communication claims to have a personal relationship with Apple, while they have been representing App developers like Pangea Software, Harmonix, and many other iPhone App developers.
One of their clients leaked a document from Reverb Communications that the company sends to clients stating how they will gain a following and high ratings on apps. The companies interns are the ones writing reviews and giving 5 star reviews. There is a whole process as to how the “Internal User Reviews” are done. The reviews are prewritten by writers at the company, the reviews are made to be “positive but not over the top, while still endorsing the game as a good product, … within age ranges.” according to the writer. The writer of the article did more research to see if their source was right, and they found that the users that reviewed a game and the user has also reviewed 6 others developers that were clients of Reverb Communications. There was a lot of 5 star reviews on games of clients of the company which only further confirmed what their sources said. I agree one hundred percent that this is an act of fraud. This company is faking reviews to boost sales while lying to users about the apps they are about to buy. The worst part is how openly they are to their clients about how they are not even building real followers, they are gaining them by false advertisement. The company later contacted the writer saying that “they were sure [he] was speaking with one of [their] former employees.” They claimed to not know what “unethical practices” he was speaking about. The fact that companies have to go as low as creating fake reviews just to make money, shows how many issues there are with the tech world. The real issues is after this article being posted, why Apple did not do anything about it? If the marketing company is so close in relation to Apple, why did they not do something in response? Apple needs to keep a closer look into reviews to stop companies from doing this. For a company who’s main purpose are for the benefit on the user, I would have thought that they would be doing something to prevent this sort of situation from repeatedly happening. 3/17/2017 0 Comments Blog 5: Yahoo betrayed my husband Yu Ling and her husband Wang Xiaoning were sold to the Chinese government by Yahoo China. One Sunday morning, Wand was having issues with his Yahoo service an thought it was a technical issue. He receives a phone call asking if he is home, and moments after saying yes, the over 10 Chinese Internet police swarm into his home and take him and his computer away, and shove an “official notice” to Yu and leave.
Wang writes anonymous political e-journals, according to the article in Wang’s written court ruling it said “Wang had edited, published and contributed articles to 42 issues of two political e-journals, advocating for open elections, a multi-party system and separation of powers in the government… Wang called socialism a "totalitarian and despotic political system," and wrote that the Chinese government was "outwardly democratic but inwardly despotic." Five years later, Yu is sitting in her living room with tears in her eyes claiming that "Yahoo betrayed my husband and deprived him of freedom, [and] Yahoo must learn its lesson." Wang is serving a 10-year sentence for “inciting subversion with his pro-democracy internet writings.” Wang was convicted because of evidence provided to the Chinses government by Yahoo. After a year of preparing with the help of a non-profit group, Yu went to Washington DC to find a lawyer and fight Yahoo in court. She went to Wired News at the China Information Center, an advocacy group, to tell her story of Wang. Yu said, “"I think Yahoo should follow the world human rights standards, I want my husband released from prison…. Money cannot pay back my husband's freedom, his life." Chris Smith said during the hearing “"Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials." There has been three other claims against yahoo that put 3 other men in prison by Yahoo. Yahoo’s spokeman, Jim Cullian, said “We are required to follow the laws of those countries and that's what we've done, "Law enforcement agencies in China and elsewhere don't explain to us or telecom companies or anyone the reason why they're demanding specific information. We can't tell the difference between a legitimate national security issue and something else." A professor at Standford University said “The normal rule is that when you're doing business in a foreign country, you're obligated to comply with the law, we may not like the law. But Yahoo is in a difficult position.” I understand where both side are coming from. It is an extremely difficult position that Yahoo is in because of Chinas strict rules. As a business, they are required to comply with the country’s rules, just like they would in any other country. Whilst they claim they do not agree with the laws, they still have to abide by them if they want to keep their business in China. I feel as it’s a hard situation for Yahoo because they have to choose between business and money, and morals and the face that Yahoo has to put. Are they going to fight this country that doesn’t allow freedom of speech or are they going to swipe it under the rug and keep making money through the country. I sympathize with Yu and her family because it is a completely unfair situation. Her husband was taken away from her and their children because Wang was speaking the truth and his opinion about how the government is ran. Without warning, in a blink of an eye their family was torn apart by a huge corporation that is invested solemnly for the money. I think there is a cycle for everything in life, and right now the newest cycle involves robots. It’s a scary thought to have, that one day robots will take over. Before we were thinking small, vending machines, ATM’s, smartphones, now it’s Echos telling you what you should wear, face recognition programs so you can enter your work, to now robots preparing food for you.
I was reading the article by Daniel Kline, “Are Robots Taking Over Fast Food Restaurants?” and how is now testing ordering kiosks, how dominoes has many ways we can order food without having to be at the shop, which at first does not seem like anything bad. There are numerous places like Panera that already have ordering kiosks I honestly prefer, it gives you hundreds of options to customize and still add comments of how you specifically want things made. I personally love kiosks because I do not have to wait in line, and I don’t feel the pressure when I do ordering. I can take my times, flip through endless options and get everything I want. I know that if I were to order at the register would not customize my sandwiches at all because I would not want to be that annoying person that makes their order super complicated. I think that when it comes to ordering food it is not something bad to move to in our technological lives. Yes it would be less jobs, but it can also add jobs, more orders will come in, meaning more money for companies, and also with more orders, requires more people to be taking these orders so instead of being at the register, people will be in the kitchen. We are moving towards a world where everything is going to be handled by robots, and the thought makes me feel uneasy. It always takes me back to the robot movie were they robots take over the world, and I do believe this will be party of our story on earth. Robots doing what we cannot do, being “taught” morals and how to think for themselves will lead to them thinking they are better than us. I think we need to limit what robots are being thrown at us, we are already super dependent of technology and it is only going to get worse. We all want our [future] kid to grow up perfectly healthy and not have to live in a hospital, but life happens. Sometimes it’s our fault as parents, but sometimes it is just our genes and there is nothing we can do about it because most of the times it is a one in four chances of passing down a genetic marker. Of course, if we could prevent these disease to be passes down, we would do anything for it, but how far is it ethically okay?
This article begged the question, "Do we need an international body to regulate Genetic Engineering?" There are two places in the world, currently, where it is legal to do testing in genetic modification. Canada has created “lab-made” mosquitos to stop the spread of mosquito borne illnesses. They deemed it ethically legal and safe for humans and the environment. But months after they were released, they ended up crossing the border into US land causing issues to be brought up and it is not legal in the United States to do genetic testing and modifying. “If modern science can defy the boundaries of borders, who exactly should be charged with deciding what science to unleash upon the world?” Something similar just happened in the United Kingdom, the government gave scientists the okay to genetically modify embryos. Brown argues that it risks “opening up Pandora’s box of designer babies and genetically engineered super-humans.” In 2015, it was approved to use gene editing tech to stop mitochondrial disease genes from being passed on from mother to children. Last February, the United Kingdom passed the first, in the world, license to research and modify healthy embryos. The National Intelligence Council argued in a report that “How people think about the very nature of life and how people love and hate is likely to be challenged by major technological advances in understanding and efforts to manipulate human anatomy, which will spark strong divisions between people, country and regions.” Should we or should we not be able to modify our DNA? I understand why the idea of being able to take away diseases and cancer genes from our future generations but how far will it actually go? Will it bring up the question of whether we should be able to pick what we want our children to look like? What abilities they have? What abilities they shouldn’t have? Will we be able to build the perfect children? Who has a say in this? I choose to believe that everything happens for a reason and that we all play a role is the development of our future and the next generations future. But I do not agree with messing with mother nature and making people from test labs. That is what our future is looking like, a bunch of robots, we as robots with genetically modified tech in our bodies. We will lose what makes us human. There is already enough harm with plastic surgery, and now people want to modify our core DNA. There needs to be an agency to regulates these types of experiments before they get out of hand. Walt Bettiger, the CEO of Charles Schwab, a financial and retirement advise company, takes an interesting twist on interviewing potential employees. He told the New York Times that he is concerned most about candidate’s character and the kind of person they are. He said, “What I am looking for is whether their view of the world really revolves around others or whether it revolves around them. And I will ask them about their greatest failures in their life and see whether they own them or whether they were somebody else's fault."
He invites the candidate for breakfast, arrives early to the restaurant and tells the manager to mess up the order for the candidate. He says, “"I do that because I want to see how the person responds, that will help me understand how they deal with adversity. Are they upset, are they frustrated, or are they understanding? Life is like that, and business is like that. It is just another way to get a look inside their heart rather than their head." The interviewer points out that “another response to a messed-up breakfast order that can be very telling is not saying anything at all… If you receive the wrong food and do not acknowledge it, this may tell the interviewer you are timid, pay little attention to detail, or are not willing to right a wrong — all messages that you do not want to send a potential employer.” I find this to be extremely interesting. He makes a point to seek out how these candidates will respond because their main focus is answering correctly during the interview. All that is in their heads is mentioning their experiences, what they can bring to the table and how they will be an asset to the company. Everyone bring their ‘A game’ to interviews and are in their best behaviors because you have to fake it till you make it honestly. As Bettiger says, it is another way to look inside their heart and not their head. To see if they are good people, and if they will be a great team member. It is not an ethical process but it is also not unethical because I believe it weeds out people who could just not be right for the company and could hurt the company’s image. I always believe there is more to people than their resume or their transcript. There is a whole life and story to everything and everyone and this is a simple way to truly see someone because you are catching them of guard. I love one on one interviews even if I am super nervous, which is always, I think that the employer gets to see me as me. I am a people person, and I can start a conversation with anyone about anything, and it is a skill that not everyone has and one that is hard to teach. For any company to function, there needs to be communication and people need to be able to respond accordingly, specially in a crisis. I agree with how he handles candidate interviews and I think more companies should do something similar. Bill Sourour started working for an interactive marketing firm in Toronto, Canada when he was 21 as a programmer. He addressed how in Canada, pharmaceutical companies are limited to advertising prescription drugs to consumers online. So companies created informative websites with listed symptoms these drugs aided. One of his projects was directed towards teenage girls. The website would need to have the girls take a quiz and would then recommend them a prescription drug based on what their answers were. Before submitting his project to the client, the project manager tested the site and saw that no matter what answers they put on the quiz it would always lead to what drug the company was trying to sell. Sourour told her that that was what he was told to do with the answers. He was not doing anything illegal, a job was a job. He was later sent an email with a link to an article about a young girl who took the drug and committed suicide. The drug was linked to depression and suicidal thoughts. He knew about the site, what its marketing strategy was and decided to ignore it. I do not think it was ethical of him to create a website that essentially tricked all these young teenagers to take a drug that they probably did not need, which resulted with one of them committing suicide. He should have said not to the job offer. Why was it that someone had to die for him to realize it was wrong? When he had the power to not be part of this scheme in the beginning? The only people that benefited from his actions was the pharmaceutical company because they were making money from all these teens buying this new drug because they all believe that this was there only hope of getting better. Instead, they gained severe depression and suicidal thoughts. If I was in his position I would have looked for a new job, it is not worth the money to put people at risk. While he was working on the website, his nineteen year old sister had been prescribed the drug the site was selling and he told her to get off the medicine and luckily for him she did. He managed to save one person, while contributing to the pain of so many others. No, he did not kill anyone, no he did no prescribed or sell the medication to these girls, but he did contribute to the cause. Instead of helping the cause, he helps the company creating the problem. Technology is taking over our lives. In his situation is was with a drug prescription recommendation, which at the time seemed harmless, but as the years go on and technology gets smarter, technology will start making decisions for us and at one point we have to take a moment to think about what is more important: lives or money. As technologists, we have to learn where to draw the line and remove ourselves from these kinds of situations. We have to see the bigger picture and not get held up with how much money is on the line. |
AuthorHello! I'm 19 years old. i'm a 3rd year Communication Design major with an emphasis is visual design and a minor in Business Marketing. Archives
May 2017
Categories |