3/31/2017 2 Comments Net neutrality againSo as a computer science student, things like net neutrality and internet privacy come up very often, and are often debated between peers. In fact, just a few years ago, a friend of mine wrote a paper on net neutrality. Well congress recently passed a piece of legislation that would undo the Obama regulations on Internet Service Providers that prevent them from selling user's internet browsing data.
For a lot of people, this is pretty scary. Knowing that anyone can legally buy your browsing data usually comes at a shock. There is some good to it though, whoever buys it will only be able to see the domains that you visit, not necessarily what you do on them. This is is contrast to people who think their entire browser history will be up for grabs by anyone. Secondly, it will most likely be treated like debt collectors buying debt from banks. Buyers will most likely not be able to buy data by user's identity, but rather they will probably have to buy data in large chunks, not knowing who's data they got. Furthermore, companies such as Google and Facebook are not under these FCC rules to not sell your data, and use it as their business model. So it does in fact suck that our data is now able to be sold by our internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon, but we have to remember that it has been going on all along. I personally think that our internet providers should not be allowed to sell our data, since they make enough money with their expensive rates, but at least it is not as bad as it seems. SOURCE
2 Comments
3/24/2017 1 Comment More than circumstantial evidenceSo recently there has been a lot of controversy regarding the Trump administration and their supposed contacts with Russia during the campaign in order to help sway the votes in their favor. Many people, mostly on the democratic side of things have been calling for an independent investigation, one that is not run by the GOP themselves. Although in new light, and in recent times the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigations have held recent hearings that allude to them having substantial evidence regarding the collusions with Russians during the campaign cycle.In fact, Adam Schiff, member of the House Intelligence Committee has spoken out and said that there is 'substantial evidence' regarding the Trump administration and their contacts with Russia during the campaign. He refuses to go into more detail regarding what he means by substantial evidence other than saying that it is more than circumstantial.
I think that this is both exciting and terrifying when it comes to U.S. politics. I am proud that the intelligence agencies are doing their jobs as a separate entity of the main White House, but I am also saddened by the fact that this kind of investigation is underway in the first place. If anything does come of this investigation, then things will surely go sour for the current administration, and we would be given Mike Pence as our new President. But on the other hand, why would we give the seat of the Presidency to the Vice President if he was also brought into the White House under the same false pretenses that the President was? Should the entire administration be taken out and we have a re vote? Again, if nothing comes of this investigation, then I bet that we would never hear the end of it from President Trump, he would be on Twitter the day of calling out the CIA or the FBI fake news. So I recently read an article on a popular forum online regarding a new bill that was proposed to the House and Legislature in North Carolina. Now, usually I would not be interested in some bill that was only just proposed, but this bill would require that employees submit a genetic test form as part of their application process for the companies health plans. In the article, they even make mention to the film Gattaca, where genetic discrimination is the norm, and people need to also submit gene tests to their employers, albeit for more than just the ability to use the companies health plan. Proponents of this bill say that it is easier to keep a healthy workforce, rather than pay excessive amounts for a constantly unhealthy workforce. Thus, they want to know of any genetic issues that an employee may have, and offer health incentives such as monetary bonus, or paying for the cost of gym memberships for those who maintain a healthy lifestyle. While this may seem like a step in the right direction regarding the health of their employees, those who are genetically prone to being ill or contracting a certain disease just due to their genes would only be offered a higher premium for their healthcare that is given by their employer, or else find a separate health insurance provider on their own.
I for one think that this is a horrible idea. It not only forces all employees to submit a gene test, giving away much more personal information than what most people feel comfortable giving, but it also literally discriminates against those who have conditions that they have no control over. These gene tests are also not 100% proven, and only give their best estimate. For most things that are tested for, the results only return a percentage of how likely it is for that person to contract or develop that specific disease. How will employers determine the threshold? If an employee just so happens to be just 1% above the threshold they are forced into these company regulations, while another employee may fall just 1% below and face no repercussions at all. Yet employee 1 is only 2% more likely to contract some illness than employee 2. A better way to handle this, in my opinion, would be to not allow any sort of mandatory gene testing to occur by the employee, but possibly the employee can volunteer some sort of regular physical in order to get discounts on their medical insurance. Such that it encourages employees to maintain a healthy lifestyle and save some money, while those who do not wish to maintain a healthy lifestyle don't lose, or gain anything other than what they would have already had to pay. ARTICLE 3/11/2017 1 Comment Social Stigmas Behind Gene Testing As mentioned in my previous blog post, gene testing has its many uses and also can lead to many different social stigmas and some outlash from certain civil rights activists and groups.
There will always be a social ethical stigma when dealing with genetic testing for the workforce. In fact, employers get a good amount of flack for pretesting their applicants and filtering out those who do not pass. Employers argue that through genetic testing they can maintain a much healthier and productive workforce. For occupations that do not genetically screen their employees an estimated 390,000 workers contract disabling occupational diseases each year, and one study done by the Bureau of labor statistics reports that over 850,000 total workdays were lost due to illnesses associated with the work site. Some people also feel a false, yet real sense of ethnic segregation when it comes to genetic testing. This is not in the sense that employers are purposefully screening for specific races, but rather that certain races and ethnicities tend to carry certain genetic defects that others do not. For example, a commonly screened for genetic disorder, sickle cell trait, is found in roughly 1 out of every 12 blacks, yet only found in 1 out of every 1000 whites. This can lead to certain minorities speaking out about feeling segregated against in these employment opportunities. Others also argue that employers could be over exaggerating the risks of the workplace, as the tests are not full proof, and the connections between the hazardous work environment and these genetic traits are still not 100% verified and well known. Gattaca style genetic testing is based on the 1997 film Gattaca, where prenatal genetic testing is done on nearly everybody to determine their genetic traits, future health conditions, heart strength and numerous other factors that follow the child throughout their life and directly affect their employment options.
Today, although that level of detail is not yet achieved, there are still plenty of prenatal, before birth, and other forms of genetic testing that can identify future health disorders, birth defects and other health related characteristics. One of which is Carrier Screening. This is a gene test that is done on couples who are planning on having children and can help to identify health conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, Canavan, and sickle cell anemia that could be passed from the parents to their children. Although these tests are not foolproof, the test results can give a false sense of security, or a false positive that could lead to problems for the child in the future such as employment and insurance options. Furthermore, there is a large controversy on whether children who are given a high risk of contracting some of these diseases should be aborted or kept, and this has lead to issues between couples, civil rights activists and families alike. Finding out that your child could have a 70% risk of a life threatening or a lifespan of medical issues can be a very difficult ethical decision to make for the parents who would have to care for the child. Another form of genetic screening that is much more prevalent in testing for specific disorders is Job specific screening. One of the entrepreneurs of this form of screening is NASA when testing possible astronaut candidates for their viability in space travel. More specifically, NASA noticed that certain astronauts were more affected with two enzyme deficiencies lead to vision issues that only manifest themselves during low gravity space travel, and now deny those affected by these entry to space. A more general, yet still common reason to be tested is for jobs that could possibly lead to medical issues for their employees who are exposed to chemicals and toxins that the average Joe would not otherwise ever come into contact with. These tests not only span genetic testing, but also can include psychological tests and urine samples that help employers to filter out applicants that would otherwise be a perfect fit for the position. Understandably, employers use these tests to reduce the risks of an employee’s susceptibility to many of the toxic and carcinogenic effects of the workplace. These currently are found in more than fifty different genetic disorders that can only be found through expensive and thorough gene testing prior to the applicants hire. An example of these hazards would be people with the sickle cell trait that are at increased risk of sickle cell anemia if exposed to excess carbon monoxide or cyanide, or those with the thalassemia gene are extremely prone to health issues if exposed to lead or benzine. SOURCE SOURCE |
Author
|