Reading 07

Online advertising can be controversial for different reasons to different people.  Entrepreneurs and small companies with less money and resources than larger competitors must be able to generate some type of revenue from their business, and online advertising can be not only nice to have, but necessary for the survival of the business (especially for smaller tech companies that specialize in providing services online).  However, pop-ups can be very annoying, and imagine unwanted pop-ups relating to all sorts of random things, popping up on every page you visited.  Such advertisements are not only annoying and time-consuming—they can also sometimes make your computer or other electronic device vulnerable to hackers, phishing attacks, etc.

There is some truth to the Internet meme that “if you’re not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.” When we visit a website, we’re not going there for the advertisements—and in a way, the company allowing such advertisements to be put up on its site is “selling” us, its users, to advertisers (advertisers, by paying the owner of the site to put up advertisements, are “buying” users).  However, when we visit a website, we are going there for whatever that site provides—and it is not free for the site to provide that information.  The site has to have money to pay to have all that stuff on its site, so maybe it is implied that by going to the site, we are also accepting pop-up ads. 

I do think it is okay for companies to collect information and data-mine it to better sell us products and services, but with some limits.  For example, I think it is fair that Facebook collects our personal information as we continue to use the site, so Facebook can provide us personalized experiences (i.e. friendship anniversary videos).  However, I do not believe that companies that collect our data and use it because we use their services should be able to sell that information to other people without our permission.  My personal information should stay my own—I’m not a product to be bought and sold freely on an open market.  However, I would expect a site that I’m using to collect and use my information to see what kind of user I am. If the site provides a service, them always trying to improve my experience based on data I generate would be a good thing.

I do think that privacy becomes an unrealistic expectation to some degree.  Especially with the Snowden NSA leaks, I think many Americans may feel a little hopeless when it comes to privacy (i.e. some people even cover their laptop cameras now). 

I think that online advertising is fine the way it is.  I always have Adblocker on, which blocks unwanted pop-ups.  However, there are plenty of ads that aren’t “popup” and that can’t be blocked, so companies complaining about Adblocker killing their revenue should maybe explore advertising options that stay scripted to the site’s screen, regardless of Adblocker. 

Reading 06

No – I do not think a company such as Apple should be required to give the government (or anybody else) access to information that belongs to the company.  Apple is a company – it does not work for the government.  Apple should do everything in its power to provide the most hack-proof and cyber-secure encryption systems and programs for its customers.  If Apple were to make its products less secure just because of the government, Apple’s systems would become vulnerable to non-government hackers and criminals.  If the government really needed access to Apple’s software or customer personal information stuck in iPhones, the government should have to go get it by itself.

As I said earlier, Apple’s primary responsibility is to itself and its customers.  The public outcry over the FBI’s demand (after the San Bernardino shooting) that Apple provide a back-door into its home-lock screen shows how uncomfortable most people feel about the thought of the government having access to their personal information stored on their phones.  Plus, in the case of the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, the FBI was eventually able to unlock the shooter’s iPhone without Apple’s help.  The fact that the FBI demanded that Apple hand over the key to someone’s personal life without even trying to unlock the phone on its own is a scary thought.

I understand that there are national security emergencies, and of course human life is more important than a company’s software or access to an iPhone.  However, where do we draw the line if we force companies to give the government access to all the very private and personal details about a person’s life?  Power can be addicting, and as we see through political and governmental scandals, powerful people sometimes abuse their power.  What if someone who the government thinks is a terrorist really isn’t, but the government still continues to monitor him?  Why should that person have to be forced to be put under constant government surveillance?  If that person found out they were being unfairly targeted, they might hate the US government.

Plus, government is made up of individual people, and government employees can still do illegal things. What if a government employee hates his neighbor, goes to his government job, and can access all the texts, calls, and personal information on his neighbor’s phone?  One story like that and people all over the US would go nuts.

The duty to protect US citizens belongs to the US government, not companies.  Since it is their job to protect us, they should do everything they can to make sure we are safe.  Like in the case of the San Bernardino shooter, the FBI should have known before-hand that they might, in the future, need to find a way to get inside someone’s locked phone.  The computer engineers and developers working for the government should be able to get inside that kind of software.  If they can’t, the FBI should find someone who can (and they did).

If most Americans feel okay with the government having access to any of their personal information on any of their devices if the government thinks it okay, then people should talk to their politicians to get law passed.

Reading 04

As members of companies, organizations and communities we are expected to participate together to provide a friendly and motivating community. Therefore, it is important that we honor a code of conduct. Each community member makes a big impact on the experiences shared by all. To be part of a community is a big commitment. You are not only affecting yourself but also the people around you. One of the codes stated in the Open Code of Conducts made me feel like I would be respected as a member of the community. A community that explicitly strives to support people of all backgrounds is important to me because I was once an immigrant, and I went through the process of becoming a US citizen. Restricting my right to be a part of a community because of my ethnicity would negatively impact myself and other minorities.

We all come from different places and share different experiences, but share the same purpose in being part of a community. There are times when we are encouraged to use our personal experiences when contributing to a team project. As we all know, disagreements may be inevitable, but disagreements are no reason to turn frustration into something that could harm others. Harming others can come in various forms and isn’t really limited. The Open Code of Conducts lists over a dozen different cases in which someone is being harassed. Code of Conducts is more than a general list it also provides members with comfort and hospitality. The code of conducts do serve a valid purpose because they value your experience and perspective.

Many issues occur when people feel offended. Someone may feel very strongly about an issue if it is personal to them. For example, someone may have gone through (or had a family member or friend go through) an unpleasant experience that someone else joked about. This shows that opinions are subjective and to penalize people for simply disagree with others about something is not right. Code of Conducts should only control people’s freedom of speech within certain boundaries and not limiting members by not allowing them to participate in their own way. There are extreme situations but in many cases people choose to feel offended even when it doesn’t seem to be a major issue. People who feel offended many times have trouble understanding the intent of the comment they perceive as offending. People also tend to speak in different matters so how do we know when someone is joking or not? So it is important to also understand the intent of these situations and not just the outcome of someone feeling offended. Both sides have merit, and sometimes we do not know all the facts in any given situation. We should always remember that our perspectives can be limited, and we have to be open to considering all possible viewpoints and approaches. Respect is what we must always remember to give to each other.

Reading 03

 

The first thing that comes to mind when someone asks if men and women can “have it all” is what does it really mean to have it all? Does it mean all the money in the world? In that case, we know money can’t buy us time, so do men and women still have it all? In my opinion it is nearly impossible to have it all but then again I would say that that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. As human beings we are expected to sometimes sacrifice one thing for another, and in a sense whatever the situation may be it is bound to result in something good but also a possibility that the result can be such as unpleasant.

I believe parents should have a successful and fulfilling career while they raise their family and meet other network related goals because it is only right. Because most full time working mothers and fathers divide their attention between work and family they tend to lead to feelings of guilt and disconnection. Most people may have a better standard of living but miss out on family life and can’t be there for their family and spouse. Some families have the stability to have one parent stay at home and the other work but other families don’t and have both parents working full time. According to husband of international lawyer Anne-Marie Slaughter:

Confronted with such realities, most two-career families sooner or later find that one person falls into the role of lead parent. … Lead parenting is being on the front lines of everyday life. In my years as lead parent, I have gotten the kids out of the house in the morning; enforced bedtimes at night; monitored computer and TV use; attempted to ensure that homework got done right; encouraged involvement in sports and music; attended the baseball games, piano lessons, plays, and concerts that resulted; and kept tabs on social lives.

Because of this I believe people should focus on a plan to find the right balance between their profession and parenthood, but in reality it isn’t that easy depending on circumstances. It is important that a child learns life lessons from their parents and the only way such a thing can happen is if children spend quality time with their parents. Most fathers can’t live the dream of being a lead father and taking a practical and disciplined approach to parenting their children, predominantly boys.

There are many ways companies can help support their workers but first it is important to recognize the organizations that do offer support in various ways because they are working at creating a more loyal and happy workforce. Companies who choose to not support their workers are promoting bad moral and reducing satisfaction for their staff which affects both the employer and employees. So it is important that companies support their workers and find a balance because they also can benefit from it. A simple way to start is allow flexibility. Every working parents should be allowed flexibility in order to meet requirements such as bringing their children to the doctor, attending school events/conferences when necessary and more. Another option would be providing grants for child care assistance or if possible providing day care at the office. Any kind of child care benefits would benefit the employees. This balance is very important to me as my hope for the future is that I work for a company where both sides will treat each other with the loyalty and respect deserved. Having benefits to manage between your career and life at home is a crucial part of loyalty between the employer and employees and it should not be stepped on.

Reading 02

I envision my career heading in the direction of working with companies that I can apply the skills that I’ve learned in classroom that to of the real world. In that sense, I want to work in an environment that challenges my ethical commitment as a computer engineer.  For example, everyday I want to be faced with obstacles that I am able to learn and develop skills necessary to complete my task at hand. While some tasks may be simple, other tasks may borderline the ethical standards of a computer engineer. As a computer engineer I have skills that in some cases allow me to take a shortcut path to completing my task but do not follow the ethical standards. If I choose to take the shortcut when completing my tasks, I feel like I am violating my ethical duty as an honest computer engineer.

My plan for the future will depend on the circumstances of different events. For example, if I work for a company that does not invest its full commitment to me as its employee, then I see no future in staying with that company. I hope that I receive the same amount of commitment and loyalty as I put into the company. On the other hand, if I work for a company that does provide me with the same amount of loyalty and respect for employees of my caliber, I will stay loyal to this company. In this aspect, I will elect to choose the company that assures a standard of respect to its employees and understands the amount of work computer engineers put into their projects.

However in the greater picture, I do not believe that the concept of company loyalty is viable in the practical sense. Theoretically, company loyalty seems so simple and understandable that people tend to overlook its importance. The reason I believe this is because companies are mainly focused on their profit. Subsequently, it all comes down to calculations and whether the decisions that companies make are worth it for them financially. For example, the article Apple, Google will pay 64,000 engineers to avoid trial on “no-poach” deal shows how top companies recruited employees in a non ethical manner purely to improve their own purposes. Jon Soberg says:

There is an opportunity cost to keeping someone when you could do better. At a startup, that opportunity cost may be the difference between success and failure. Do you give less than full effort to make your enterprise a success? As an entrepreneur, you sweat blood to succeed. Shouldn’t you have a team that performs like you do? Every person you hire who is not a top player is like having a leak in the hull. Eventually you will sink.

Thus, company loyalty largely depends on the amount of value the corporation or company places on its employees and can fluctuate vastly depending on such factors as the economy, ideals, and motives of the executives in charge.

Non-competes and trade secret laws seem to be solving problems that apple and google are facing such as the “no poach deal”. However, from the employee’s perspective their conditions are not improved. For example, “By agreeing to not compete for each others’ employees, the companies had formed a kind of anticompetitive cabal that kept engineers’ wages down”. These contracts seem to be fair and ethical from the employer’s side but don’t match up from the employee’s side. Essentially, you are being required to turn down all future employment opportunities at the expense of protecting the company. We can see that an employee’s power of freedom to work is severely limited from non-compete clause. Moreover, employees will no longer will have the power to bargain for a raise because they no longer have the choice to quit and start working for another company.