The incident described in this article is a situation of who takes responsibility for an algorithm’s actions. The algorithm in question is named the Random Darknet Shopper. The Darknet Shoppers purpose was to purchase an item from the darknet with 100 dollars that it was given every Wednesday and ship them to the designers of the robot. The robot purchased a couple of items and eventually ended up buying ecstasy pills this is where the question who takes responsibility for this algorithm comes in.

I think that doing something illegal for experimental purposes is absolutely an ethical decision. I think that Switzerland in this article is very open with how it describes artistic practices and leaves much grey area for confusion (am I allowed to make a painting from the blood of a child??). I think that the people that gave the algorithm the money to purchase things were doing an illegal act. If I tell an impressionable child to go into a dark alley with 100 dollars and pick me out something from the local drug dealers and criminals and bring it back, then I am responsible for what the child purchases. I had every intention of eventually purchasing something illegal even if the kid comes back with a bag of chips. I think in the US the purchasers of the drugs (the ones who gave the algorithm money) would have immediately been arrested and held liable for all actions of the system they used.

When I read that “a robot was arrested” I laughed and said out loud “they got the wrong guy” the algorithm was incapable of thinking and had no “Mens Rea” in purchasing the drugs, it could not be charged or prosecuted as it has no intention of committing wrongdoing as it has no judgement of right and wrong. The people who gave the algorithm money on the other hand did have mens rea and are able to be prosecuted on behalf of the algorithm. I think that this would be the appropriate action in this situation.

I think that the analogy drawn between dogs and robots in this article provides us with a very good framework for deciding who is responsible for algorithms that are used. In general, the algorithm or robot is the dog and the owner of the dog is the person who pays for it and takes care of it. The owner also takes responsibility for the dogs’ actions. I think with this framework that more appropriate legal actions would have been taken against those who gave the robot the money to buy the drugs. The analogy comparing owner and manufacturer of the electric drill is also a good analogy because it is almost never the fault of the hardware “guns don’t kill people, people kill people with guns” but if a gun misfires and kills the user then it is the responsibility of the manufacturer. In the situation of the darknet shopper I think that the manufacturer of the program did not do anything wrong I think it is the person who gives the money to operate the algorithm that is fully responsible for what the algorithm purchases.  

1 Software Developer

• Did not commit any wrong act only wrote a program
• Would you prosecute the inventor of the Breadth first search for creating a quick way to search even if this search could be used for bad?

I think the software developer in this situation is not at fault if instead the software specified the purchase of only drugs then they would be at fault.

2 Hardware Developer

• The algorithm can be run on a computer
• Do we prosecute Alan Turing for creating a machine that can do bad things?
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people with guns

I think that the hardware developer is not at all at fault and could never be in this situation for the reasons noted.

3 System Designer

• I don’t think that a robot being able to purchase things from the darknet is inherently negative this is an interesting idea

I think the system designer is also not at fault in this situation I think the functionality of the robot is inherently neutral the ability to robotically purchase something is not bad but when that something is purposefully bad then the system designer would be at fault like the software developer.

4 The Seller

• Walmart sells rope that can be used to tie up hostages does this mean that Walmart is at fault for what is done with their products.
• Prosecute the dog breeder for breeding a dog that bites someone

I think that the seller also is at no fault I think the system is inherently risky to use but the seller is not using it so where is the wrongdoing? They also do not fund the purchases of the robot. I think the seller of this product is not responsible for the decisions the algorithm makes.

5 The Client/Owner

The client/ Owner I think takes most responsibility they are single handedly responsible for the operation of the robot and are responsible for what the robot purchases with their money. They are also responsible for what the robot sends to their address (in their possession). I think the algorithm is an extension of the individuals purchasing ability as the algorithm would not purchase anything without the instruction of the Client/Owner.

Orwin’s article is a brief opinion piece that was released to the globe and mail in 2012.  Orwin’s main theme in this article is disproving the common myth that the future of education is online. Orwin argues that there is a place for online education for those who simply cannot afford to be able to go to a live classroom. He also says that the online experience for teachers as well as students is not the same and lacks the principle that “you must be there” which Orwin teaches by.

I firstly agree with Orwin in his statement that teaching online is the future is a fallacy.  I think that there is something missing from online courses that I have taken. I feel a lot of this has to do with the amount of interaction that you have with a teacher during an online course. You are less able to ask questions and have the jazz of a classroom as Orwin would say. I also agree with Orwin when he states that something is better than nothing as far as education in context to those who cannot afford to have the in-class experience. I think that there certainly is a place for online education and like Orwin I also think that this is not a substitute for an in-class experience in most cases.

I disagree that the best things in life are often expensive. He says basically suck it up at the end to those who don’t have money for a face to face interaction with a professor. While I agree that the more time you get with a teacher the more expensive it would be but there are apprenticeships and other forms of teaching that go outside of the classroom, have the face to face interaction with a teacher and are often payed to the student or free. I also disagree with his theory of education, the idea that you have to be there. I think that there are teachers who do not draw much from the class and who do not drive discussion in the classroom. For teachers like these there really is not much reason to be there as they don’t exercise the benefits of having a live classroom.

In summary I believe that there are many pros and cons to both current in class education and online education. I feel that I side mostly with Orwin in the thought that online education is not a replacement for in class education. I like how Orwin analogized jazz to teaching this is a spot on analogy because you can feel when a classroom has this capacity and when teachers and students work together in harmony to create an energetic learning environment. I also think that when a class lacks this atmosphere then it greatly reduces learning outcomes of that course. This atmosphere I have never personally felt with an online course and therefore I feel I have reduced my learning outcomes for these courses. This is why I think that online education is not an appropriate replacement for in class education.

The story the “Right to Read” by Richard Stallman is a fictional short story describing the ethical dilemma that is faced by a young student Dan when his peer asks to borrow his laptop to write a midterm. The dilemma comes because in this fictional world there are organizations that enforce heavily the licensing on books. The software protection authority in this story is an agency that has strong authority in finding and apprehending people who read books without the proper license.

I think that patenting and licensing are becoming restrictive to creativity and freedom of information. There are a couple of reasons that I could see patenting and licensing becoming increasingly restrictive in the future. If I randomly generate 1’s and 0’s for an infinite amount of time and put the string I get in a book this book contains all information that will ever exist, every book that has ever been created and every book that ever will be created. What if I decide to copyright this book? do I now have ownership of all knowledge that has ever existed? Inherently there must be a balance in patenting and licensing between what has been invented and what we know exists already. On the another note if I invent a new word that revolutionized English could I say that as the inventor I retain the right to solely use this word if this was the case with a word like “the” then there would be major issues as it would make of the English language basically a tax.

A main argument for the increased use of licensing and patenting is that this is one of few ways to protect your intellectual asset. As an inventor the main asset that you gain from research and development (which can often be very expensive) is this intellectual asset; without a way to protect this asset people would not be inclined to risk the cost of research and development. Another reason for the increased use of licensing and patenting is that these licenses and patents can be used to benefit your resume as an individual if you have a portfolio of patents and licenses in a particular field of science then this may look good to someone hiring. If these inventions are not credited to your name, then there would be no way to provide you with personal benefit of being the inventor.

I do support the current legal system of licensing and patenting. Some measures that I would use to prevent the fictional destiny depicted in the story would be the shortening of the time that it takes for a work to become public information.  I think that this would have the benefit of allowing more information to be distributed freely while also giving the opportunity to still make money and protect your asset. All in all, I have not had enough experience with these systems to comment on how I would change them but I am sure that eventually this will be something that I have to deal with frequently in my life I hope that going forward changes are made to protect freedom of information for the individual rather than always benefiting the corporations.

Currently there are many video game rating systems. The point of video game rating systems is to give parents and consumers an idea of the appropriateness of the content of a game before purchasing. There are rating systems like ESRB The Entertainment Software Rating Board, the Australian classification system and the CERO system which is the computer entertainment rating organization.currently these rating systems rate game content and assign an appropriate age level. ESRB has seven ratings C, E, E10+, T, M, AO and RP. These ratings range from content that is good for children to content that is only appropriate for adults. There is also the RP rating which means that a rating has yet to be assigned. The USK system on the other hand has 6 ratings no age restriction, 6 and older ,12 and older, 16 and older, 18 and older. This system is enforced by law in Germany under the German Youth Protection Act. 

The system that I would like to propose is the Online and In game Rating System. This system would solve the issue of rating online presence in a game. As we know ESRB notes that online interactions cannot be rated by the ESRB. As games like fortnite and other multiplayer games are released we notice that not much can be said for the kind of content that will inevitably be propagated through team speak microphones, or in game chat. Although Fortnite is rated Teen for violence I have definitely been exposed to Mature content through teammates talking, swearing, yelling ect in my online interactions. I would like to use the online and in game rating system to give a chance to see what kind of options their children have when interacting online.

Age Categories

E – This rating includes all ages users can play online with others but cannot communicate with other players online. This includes text,voice,video chats in game, and player to player transactions. The game also lacks violence, nudity,drug references,ect. There will be no content considered mature. 

T – 13 + years of age. This rating will allow for some light non realistic violence. Some suggestive themes. Online interactions are less restricted. In game text chats are allowed but censored for intolerant speech like swearing, racist speech ect. 

M- 18 + years of age. I believe that once you are an adult you are free to make decisions regarding the kind of online interactions you feel comfortable with engaging in. The game may violence, nudity,drug references, blood ect. Online platforms may have you commit violent acts on another online character. In game Microphone is allowed and can be censored or not depending on the developer.

Main Content Descriptors 

• Violence 
• Nudity
• Blood
• Sexual themes 
• Drug References 
• Censored Text Chat
• Uncensored Text Chat 
• No Online Communication 
• Predefined Online Communication(you can only say select terms unlike like “nice,’’cool”,’good job’ect)
• Microphone Chat
• Proximity Microphone Chat (similar to the game rust in which you are given a proximity microphone to talk to anyone near you.)
• Violent or NonViolent online interactions 

Rating the game 

In order to rate the game I would have 3 testers each play through the game taking note of the above content descriptors. This includes online gameplay they must observe whether online interactions can be violent or not and note the different settings for team Chatting that there are. If the raters have each played the game but have conflicting findings then the finding will be reassessed. If tester 1 sees violence but tester 2 does not then tester 1 should show where the violence was encountered. If there is ambiguity in whether or not violence will be encountered through gameplay (some playthrough yes some no) then the game will be given the descriptor violent. The rating will be based off what content descriptors were noted in the game and therefore the rating given will not be contested but instead the specific content descriptor can be contested.

Organizational type

I think that the best organizational type to provide this rating would be private and funded by the developer of the game. Our rating system would be voluntary because I support the right of the independent developer to not think they need or want their game rated. But I also support the ability of that developer to inform their customers or guardians of their customers of the context of the online platform provided by the game.

Values and Enforcement 

My system would not reject rating titles. I feel very strongly that the freedom of expression and free speech should generally be unbounded and therefore we would give the opportunity to all games to be rated. This is not a system to verify compliance, this is a voluntary system to show your customers details of your online systems before they buy the game. I do understand that video game ratings can be seen as subjective and I feel that these ratings should be considered as suggestions for a purchase and not restrictions on a purchase.

The right to be forgotten describes a right in which you have the ability to request deletion of personal data that has been disseminated throughout the internet. Some of the values that are put at tension because of this right are the values of free speech and the values of self preservation on the internet. These values are put to tension because on the hand of those who believe in freedom of speech you can no longer post personal information about someone on the internet without them having the ability to request its deletion. From the other side self preservation on the internet is difficult and the ability to request that information be removed about you may be a reasonable thing to ask, what if someone doxed you, or you posted an inappropriate picture of yourself to the internet by mistake.

The article from stanford review notes a case in which an Argentine pop star had posed for racy pictures when she was young. and later requested that all of this information be removed from yahoo and google search engines. You could see that she obviously regretted ever posting this stuff to the internet and this information may have had future consequences on her. A counter example may be a case in which a murderer wants to have his name removed from all instances about his case on the internet. Do we really want people to have the ability to erase history?

From those on the side for the right to be forgotten they note that it is a lot harder to be forgotten in the age of the internet and that this is missing from current bills of rights. They think that any information about someone belongs to that person and no one else. On the other hand there are those who don’t believe in this right to be forgotten. They note that an individual has the right to freedom of expression with the right to be forgotten. I can no longer make a personal statement about anyone without me being liable to need to remove it. It could be seen as very problematic that no personal information could be on the internet without that user being able to delete it.

Using a defining borders approach we can draw lines to show which scenarios we feel would be considered reasonable to ask to be forgotten or unreasonable to ask to be forgotten. I think that there are scenarios in which it is unreasonable to ask to be forgotten and other scenarios that it is reasonable. If I am a working mom and i accidentally post an unflattering picture to the internet and quickly delete it i might think that it is reasonable to want the right to know that that picture is fully deleted when i have pressed the delete button. Let’s draw a new line. I’m a criminal bank robber but I have changed in jail. I want all the posts about the banks that I robbed in the past to be deleted so that I might be able to get hired on the outside. I think this is less reasonable. Should we give a criminal the right to remove their name from past actions ? What if i am Hitler’s family and I want all posts connecting the Hitler Name to WW2 removed from the internet. This is totally unreasonable and I think this line totally voids the right to be forgotten as a reasonable extension to the rights that a human has. What if i want to forget my past medical record and i am HIV positive. Should doctors not know that I am still HIV positive when next taking blood? There are so many unreasonable extensions of the right to be forgotten that I could absolutely never put my moral backing behind this right.

If I Was to appear before canadian parliament as an expert on technology concerning the right to be forgotten.i would propose the following 3 Policies to the parliament concerning the right to be forgotten.

• As a canadian you have freedom of conscience and thought. If I am free to be conscious, I have the right to my memories as an individual. If i have the right to remember how could we give someone else the right to be forgotten without inherently infringing on someone else’s right to remember. With this being said do not implement such a right as the right to be forgotten.
• The press has the right to disseminate information up to but not including hate speech do we remove this right to make room for the right to be forgotten? Or do we again see the problematic resolution of the right to be forgotten and choose to not implement such a thing.
• Similarly, the last two proposals I wonder do i have the right to forget evidence correlated to my personal information. If i went to canada’s wonderland on friday and murdered someone there do i have the right to remove all proof that i was there? This isn’t really a proposal but a proposal for not going forward with this idea.

I think that the right to be forgotten inherently infringes on multiple existing rights of Canadians. Implementing the right to be forgotten into the Canadian charter would cause many flaws, these flaws directly affect other Canadians preexisting rights and this is why I feel that there is no room for the right to be forgotten in the charter.

The FBI-Apple dispute was probably one of the first instances in which the common person will have heard of the idea of an encryption backdoor. This is the idea of giving government or investigators backdoor access to encrypted data by asking the company to open a back door or give a master key to FBI to decrypt this encrypted data. This is an important dispute because it was found that Apple did not need to open a backdoor or give access to the encrypted data under the laws that the FBI had put forward. They asked that they open this backdoor under the All Writs Act, the act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available which the court found not to be the case(the FBI was able to get into the phone through third party). This serves as a benchmark case as it was very public and a big deal to the public.Those that support the FBI in this situation feel that the government should have some access to encrypted data through the companies that provide the encryption. Those who support Apple’s position feel that the government doesn’t reserve the right to demand decryption of encrypted data. 

I am going to be providing my ethical analysis on some potential solutions to this issue.

1. Before releasing any encryption scheme, it has to be submitted to the government for review. The government will only allow those which are of interest to the public safety (i.e. it can be broken by the government), and deny the release of others. However, the developers are not forced to provide any assistance to government on how to break the scheme 

The thing is an encryption scheme does not have to be hard if I take the word apple write it in reverse 

(elppa) and then shifted every letter up to the next in the alphabet (fmqqb) I have encrypted this information, fmqqb is not easily distinguishable if apple was the source word. The government would have to provide a way to screen and break each encryption before it is released. I think this would cause a major backlog in the development of encryption services and encourage outsourcing of encryption service development. In this case we know that every encryption can be decrypted by our government but who else will be able to decrypt it? if this is the case is the backdoor too big? I think that this approach is inefficient and puts the government’s interest before those of the people.

2. Companies are not allowed to release any software or device unless they have the power to break it. However, they only need to break such a device if they receive a specific court order. Therefore, the government does not have direct access to how to break it, but knows that it is technically possible.  

I think that there is a market for messages and information to be shared between people where no third party can have access whether that be the company or the government. I do like this approach because the government does not have inside eyes into the application instead they wait until it is needed to use their authority in a time of need. In this scenario I still see the issue of government overreach in screening and making sure that companies know how to break their encryption algorithms. Or what if an AI produces an encryption algorithm and only the AI knows the algorithm.

3. Companies are free from any liability of failing to decrypt encrypted scripts. They only provide a service that ensures users’ privacy, and it is the user’s liability to offer the key, not the companies.  

I think that this is a relatively fair approach. It allows companies to protect their users regardless of where they are and the approach falls somewhere within the current legislation. I think that individuals should be allowed to engage in encrypting their data or communications without the need for government access to the information. I think the government simply does not need to know everything and should not inherently be given such backdoor access.

I think that the most reasonable approach to the issue of encryption backdoors is to do as Apple did and say we don’t need to provide you a way to get into our device. The data in my opinion is already seized by the FBI, they have access to the encrypted data. The person being accused has the right to not indict themselves and therefore has no need to give up the password. Under the acts that the FBI were requesting the backdoor from apple, the FBI would surely need to exhaust all attempts at breaking it themselves before asking apple to break it under the all writs act. I think that the FBI would need a stronger act to subpoena this information or act from a company.

In this blog post I will be looking at the issue of anonymous comments. Many websites and institutions have for a long time offered a way to make comments on the content that was provided, whether that be letters to the editor, YouTube comments, a yelp review of a restaurant. Some of these commenting systems allow for anonymous comments to be made and posted and some of them do not. Some news organizations note that their reason for disabling comments is that there are many internet trolls and people that make questionable comments given that they have an anonymous identity and these comments often have power to sway opinions or cause grief on the internet. Other news supports anonymity with policies like comments associated with your Facebook but made anonymously. 

Yelp as I mentioned before allows you to make reviews on hotels or restaurants etc. You must first sign up to make a comment (which can be done anonymously). The yelp guidelines for writing a review include the following, which you are to avoid when using their platform ; Inappropriate content,Conflicts of interest,Promotional content,Relevance,Privacy,Intellectual property,Demanding payment. These are generally good guidelines to follow seeing as yelp wants honest reviews on its platform. You could make an anonymous review but likely it will not have the weight that a non anonymous user review has.

Reddit on the other hand employs a much looser policy on what it considers is acceptable content for a comment. Reddit outlines its unwelcome content as content that “Is illegal,Is involuntary pornography,Is sexual or suggestive content involving minors,Encourages or incites violence,Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so,Is personal and confidential information,Impersonates an individual or entity in a misleading or deceptive manner,Uses Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services,Is spam”

Using the defining borders approach we can ask questions in different contexts to see if we can draw a line where our values fall on this issue.do you think academic journals should be treated different than news portals? For me Personally i think academic journal commenting should be unrestricted in content but non anonymous. My reasoning for this is that comments on academic journals can contian anything if it is a journal of murder cases some comments may contain graphic images for instance that is why content should be unrestricted. I think that anonymity should not be maintained in the commenting of academic journals because these comments should be counter arguments also made with scientific reasoning and therefore be backed by someone with authority or knowledge on the subject matter.  Do you think children websites are different than adult websites? Yes of course. I think that it really depends on the platform administrators what is deemed acceptable in the context of your audience. If you market your website as family friendly you will likely restrict swearing in comments to protect your audience. I think that this restriction of content based on audience is okay but should be proclaimed and maintained by the administrators of the platform.What type of comments do require moderation: junk, obscene, offensive, racist …etc? I don’t think any speech inherently requires moderation,you have the right to your thoughts and you have the ability to share those thoughts, but I also think that a platform has a right to deem what it believes as acceptable content and if that has been violated then they can remove the privilege of giving you access to that platform.

I cannot draft a universal policy for website comment sections. I think that every platform has its place and the ability to maintain what it deems as acceptable content whether that be anonymously posted or non anonymously posted. I think that there is a reason that some platforms disable comments and that is their decision but the consumer has the option to choose another platform. I think there is also good cause for moderation, a platform may want to moderate the content it provides to children and by all means that is their decision. I also feel that complete anonymity is also important to some comment sections. I support the platforms right to maintain operations of the comments on the platform, I also support the consumer’s right to disagree and leave the platform or choose another platform.

In the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas the author paints a picture of a perfect society in which everyone lives happily, there are good harvests, life seems simple and bountiful. Omelas sounds like a place that is perfect to everyone within it. But in order for the wellbeing of omelas to be maintained there is a child in a basement, the happiness and wellbeing of the community relies on the detriment to this child. Everyone in Omelas knows about the child in the basement, once children can understand they are told about the child in the basement. most people in Omelas see this as the way of life, they come to terms with the fact that the community relies on the detriment of this child and live happily and freely. But some people in Omelas come to see the child and don’t see this as right they leave Omelas not knowing what lay beyond the borders of the city.

This is a really well written piece. It captures a lot of ideas, thoughts and metaphors that can be used to draw relation to real life. I would definitely recommend this short story to a friend to trigger a discussion although I would understand that many discussions can be triggered by reading this piece. many people who read this  will be left with questions, why a child? What happens if the child dies? How long has this ritual been taking place? These would all be really interesting questions to consider and manipulate to see where you fall between walking away from omelas and staying in omelas. 

There are a lot of connections to draw between this story and real life. One connection being the global community, not everyone is born equal in this world some people benefit off the hardships of others, how might this affect you personally? Who do I benefit off of ? or Who suffers because of my happiness or luxuries? There could also be a religious connection between the suffering of Christ for the sins of others.

For one that might have chosen to stay in omelas they would have probably held a more utilitarian view in that although one may be suffering many are happy and if one is given the chance to be happy than everyone suffers. How could the child be happy if everyone around him is suffering consequences because of his happiness? Or what benefit is there to me leaving Omelas? One might ask to themselves. On the other side there were those who chose to leave Omelas they may have chose that they didn’t want to be one of the people who benefited off the suffering of the child in the basement. They probably would have considered that they could have also been that child and put themselves into that child’s shoes figuratively. I think that personally I would have stayed in omelas. I think that leaving omelas doesn’t solve the problem, the child still suffers at the hands of those in Omelas. I also think that if the child were to be happy that inevitably its surroundings would be so sad that there would be no happiness in Omelas for any citizen including the child.

In the real world with computing, situations can arise that cause benefit or luxury for the greater society but unbearable suffering to others. One example I can think of is with electronic waste. Often when electronic waste is made it is shipped to third world countries where child labor is legal and children are made to break down old electronics for scrap metal. Generally this causes pollution mistreatment and the mistreatment of children in these countries because the country that produced the waste does not want to deal with it. In this situation leaving omelas would be similar to choosing to not produce electronic waste or choose to sustainably recycle your electronics. Staying in omelas on the other hand is to turn a blind eye and continue to produce electronic waste. In this context I think my opinion on staying in omelas holds based off similar reasoning. I think that leaving omelas in this case has no great effect on the outcome of the practices will still occur just you will not be the beneficiary.

Social media privacy has long been a topic of interest. If you boil down the term you have two important concepts social media and privacy. The words social media imply that there is some media that you want to distribute to friends or within your social group. A social media company aims to offer you a solution to distributing your media. One good way to get usership is to offer a free product as most social media companies do. these companies however are not not for profit companies, as a company, their goal is to make money and inturn will sell advertising spaces on the platform and sell the data that you have entered on the platform to make money. Privacy the other word in the topic of discussion is important because generally people prefer to maintain some aspect of freedom and aloneness in life without the intrusion of unwanted people or entities. Social media privacy is an issue because the two ideas conflict, can you remain social while also being private ? what privacy values do you have that you might wave in order to get a free product? These are some of the ideas central to why social media privacy is an issue. I will look at whether I agree or disagree with some of the myths regarding social media privacy.

I do not think that new technologies threaten your privacy. I would say that in fact the new technologies have been instrumental in protecting privacy. The value of data as an asset is large and growing just like any other asset it is essential that your asset is retained. Just as you would spend money on a safe to keep your cash safe companies spend lots to ensure that their asset is safe, in this case data. This continual development is key in internet security and safety. Another reason technology does not threaten your privacy is that technology is used by people, you wouldn’t blame the camera if someone installed a secret camera in your bedroom and uploaded footage to the internet.

It is thought by some people that you have the right to be forgotten in the context of the internet. I think that this is a myth. I instead prefer to think that you have an ability to abstain from being remembered. If I met someone on the street I couldn’t tell them to erase their memory of me, but if I abstain from meeting that person then they have no reason to remember me in the first place.  you have the individual right to remember as someone cant control your thoughts. to tell people they have the right to be forgotten infringes on someone else’s right to think freely and remember.

I disagree that it is a myth that social media companies threaten your privacy. I think that with the amount of information social media companies have about people is enough to threaten your privacy. if you allow instagram access to your location services they can know where you are at any point. You have also agreed that instagram can own this information and give it to people for their purposes but there is a chance that a social media company can be hacked and have this information unwillingly taken this violates your privacy beyond what you agreed in the instagram terms and conditions. There is an inherent threat to privacy posed on the internet and what you are willing to give to companies is personal choice but know that if it is private information then you are allowing a social media company to violate your privacy.

I think that consumers do care about privacy, otherwise why would I be talking about this. Software privacy would not be a topic of discussion if consumers were not interested in their privacy. Some people choose to opt out of services that may pose a risk to their privacy. Many people delete their social media to distance themselves from privacy threats posed by the platforms or choose to never install social media. This however is a small share compared to those who are willing to forgo some of their privacy in order to be social.

All in all I believe that there will be more conversations about social media privacy in the future. Being social and remaining private are conflicting ideas and therefore there will be arguments from both sides of the spectrum regarding how privacy should be handled in the context of social media.  I think being able to retain your privacy may get harder as we proceed into a more and more internet based society where social media companies continue to provide better services that might be worth losing a bit of privacy for if you weren’t willing to give up that privacy beforehand.

Over the course of the last week I have been attending the first classes in which we have been covering topics related to Ethics,values and conflicts. As a class four activities were conducted in order to cover the topic of conflict ethics and values. The first activity was the peer introduction exercise this was an exercise to get to know the person sitting next to you briefly. We asked a few questions to the person sitting next to us and recorded their answers, then two students(of which I was one) went to the front and told the class the answers to the questions as if they were their peers. Secondly the values exercise was an exercise where given a list of values and life goals we were asked as small groups to come up with 5 values or goals shared by the group. Third the Conflict Types and Intensity Levels Exercise was used to define types of conflicts and the different intensity levels that conflicts can take, we then combined some conflict types and intensity levels and gave examples that relate. The final exercise we did as a class was the Conflict Resolution: 4W Builder exercise in this exercise we were given a task of first coming up with 4 words to teach what a computer is to someone who has never been exposed to such a thing. We first came up with 4 words individually then as a small group and then we tried to do the same as a whole class. 

I thought the activities were fun and interesting and the outcome of the exercises yielded some interesting results among the different group sizes in which we conducted the exercises. The Peer introduction was an interesting exercise for me personally as I am not usually one to volunteer to come to the front of the class but it seemed as this was the first introduction to classmates for a lot of people. The class was a bit out of their comfort zones and I in turn felt okay to get out of my comfort zone a bit more than usual. My favorite exercise was the values exercise because it gave different context to the values in different sized groups. We were able to take originally our own values which may have been more self motivated we then can compare that to the values we had as a small group and even further a whole class. This was also a common theme to the 4 word builder exercise in that we started small and tried to come up with unifying values that the whole class felt could represent the situation.

I think the above exercises were appropriate for the the first activities in a computer ethics class because they allowed everyone to both listen and speak, learn introductory concepts, apply those ideas, and then formulate a baseline of how respectful discourse should occur in our classroom setting. We have to know that in a computer science ethics class not every one values or morals are the exact same and that is why I think listening and speaking was an important task in these activities. It allows for a baseline of respectful discourse to be established while not putting any conflicting values against each other.