Upon reading this article, there were two questions that were mentioned that stuck out to me particularly: "Is there a danger with emotional attachments to robots?" as well as "Is there anything essential in human companionship and relationships that robots cannot replace?" The reason these two questions stood out to me was because I had never really considered the possibility that humans could become very attached to robots, and even potentially be okay with replacing human interaction with robot interaction. Perhaps this may be because I personally have not yet encountered any robots I could become attached to or depend on so heavily. However, remembering the movie Big Hero 6, I can see how emotional attachment to robots may become a possibility in the real world. In Big Hero 6, the main character Hiro is devastated when Tadashi, his older brother dies in a fire accident. The only thing that brings him out of his depression is Baymax, the health care robot invented by Tadashi to take care of Hiro. Throughout the movie, Baymax reminds us several times that he is "just a robot." However, through its interaction with Hiro and his friends, it is impossible to dismiss Baymax as just a piece of coded machinery, especially at the end when it sacrifices itself to save Hiro. Afterwards, Hiro is once again in despair upon losing what he considered to be his best friend. In the end, Hiro builds another body for Baymax in which he inserts the same software from the previous Baymax, and the movie ends on a happy note.
To answer the first question regarding emotional attachment to robots, if robot technology advanced as far as creating robots similar to Baymax, I do think that there is some danger in becoming attached to them to that extent. While nobody is to blame for such emotional attachment, and just as human friends can also get sick, leave, or die as robots can be destroyed, I believe the pain experienced from the loss of a real life Baymax would be equally as devastating as losing a human friend or animal companion. Nonetheless, just as we may choose to adopt an old cat while aware of its inevitable death, I believe that because we would still be choosing to bring such a companion into our lives while knowing the risks and stakes, one could not justify emotional attachment to be a legitimate danger or reason to not produce/sell such robots.
Regarding the second question of any essential qualities in human relationships that cannot be replaced by robots, I believe that no matter how human-like a robot may be in terms of emotional connection, the fact that I would know that all of its phrases, actions, and responses were all coded by someone else and not generated from the robot's innate being, would bother me to some extent. Thus, I do believe that no matter how advanced a robot is, I would not treat it that same as I would treat a human being. But once again, perhaps that is because we have not reached a point where robots possess their own sense of innate self yet.
http://newatlas.com/big-hero-6/36122/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2498688,00.asp
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Thursday, February 16, 2017
The Intersection of Trust and Privacy in the Sharing Economy- Uber
This article was interesting because it brought up a lot of points I was unaware of regarding sharing service platforms I regularly use. One point that I strongly agreed with was that the majority of adults are more inclined to use a sharing service platform once they receive a "positive recommendation or reassuring word-of-mouth" (Jerome and Dambrine). For myself personally, all of the sharing service platforms I use regularly such as Uber and Lyft have been a result of friends' recommendations and positive reviews. Because I trusted my friends, I was inclined to trust the services.
However, after reading this article, I realized how little I had actually known about the companies to which I was allowing access to my private information. For example, I was unaware of the fact that Uber allowed its drivers to also rate their passengers. While I do believe that a two-way rating system is beneficial to the company to prevent its employees from unpleasant encounters with certain clients, the fact that "negative reviews or ratings [can] pile up without clear notice or ability to respond" does not sit well with me due to the lack of transparency.
Another point that the article briefly mentioned was Uber's "God Mode" which I was also unaware of. Upon further research, I was shocked to learn that some drivers were using the trip data to "stalk former partners" or "track the trips of celebrities like Beyoncé" (Roberts and Kokalitcheva). In response to criticism, Uber fired some of its employees who had broken the company's privacy policies, and implemented stricter rules, limiting who has access to what information. I found this to be very ironic because while Uber claimed to value privacy upon the exposure of this particular incident, the CEO threatened to look into the personal lives of journalists who had been critical of the company's practices. Not only did this statement seem highly unprofessional, but it was contradictory of the company's value to earn the trust of its clients and the public. (On a side note, this statement also reminded me of Trump's statement to open up libel laws to make it "easier to sue news organizations for unfavorable coverage" which shows a disregard to the first amendment, possibly threatening the US rule of law (Ember).)
Overall, while I wish that the article had provided more detailed information and concrete examples of such controversies mentioned regarding Uber and Airbrb, it still brought up good points on privacy and company policy, suggesting ways in which sharing service platforms can improve by providing greater transparency.
I think it is also interesting to note that while I am now aware of this information, I will still be using Uber and Lyft because they still provide the services that I need.
http://fortune.com/2016/12/12/uber-privacy-memo/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kris-constable/airbnb-privacy-security-id-jumio_b_4887509.html
However, after reading this article, I realized how little I had actually known about the companies to which I was allowing access to my private information. For example, I was unaware of the fact that Uber allowed its drivers to also rate their passengers. While I do believe that a two-way rating system is beneficial to the company to prevent its employees from unpleasant encounters with certain clients, the fact that "negative reviews or ratings [can] pile up without clear notice or ability to respond" does not sit well with me due to the lack of transparency.
Another point that the article briefly mentioned was Uber's "God Mode" which I was also unaware of. Upon further research, I was shocked to learn that some drivers were using the trip data to "stalk former partners" or "track the trips of celebrities like Beyoncé" (Roberts and Kokalitcheva). In response to criticism, Uber fired some of its employees who had broken the company's privacy policies, and implemented stricter rules, limiting who has access to what information. I found this to be very ironic because while Uber claimed to value privacy upon the exposure of this particular incident, the CEO threatened to look into the personal lives of journalists who had been critical of the company's practices. Not only did this statement seem highly unprofessional, but it was contradictory of the company's value to earn the trust of its clients and the public. (On a side note, this statement also reminded me of Trump's statement to open up libel laws to make it "easier to sue news organizations for unfavorable coverage" which shows a disregard to the first amendment, possibly threatening the US rule of law (Ember).)
Overall, while I wish that the article had provided more detailed information and concrete examples of such controversies mentioned regarding Uber and Airbrb, it still brought up good points on privacy and company policy, suggesting ways in which sharing service platforms can improve by providing greater transparency.
I think it is also interesting to note that while I am now aware of this information, I will still be using Uber and Lyft because they still provide the services that I need.
http://fortune.com/2016/12/12/uber-privacy-memo/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kris-constable/airbnb-privacy-security-id-jumio_b_4887509.html
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Music Streaming and Ethics
When it comes to the topic of streaming music, I do agree that it is unfair that artists do not get paid as much as they would if all of their listeners paid for their record or single on iTunes. In the documentary about Napster called Downloaded released in 2013, various artists comment on the topic of downloading music without paying for it, some expressing their support for it, but most undermining the act. When Apple first launched its music streaming service called Apple Music in 2015, granting a three month free trial to listeners during which the artists would not be paid, pop sensation Taylor Swift spoke out in strong opposition, expressing her disappointment in the company and discouraging fans from using the service.
In other words, it is clear that up until just a few years ago, the majority of musical artists were not fond of music streaming services for its unethical nature.
However, in 2017, streaming music seems to the be the norm for both listeners and artists. In fact, after Apple responded to Taylor Swift's letter and decided to pay artists for those three months, Swift expressed her gratitude and even featured in an advertisement for the service that went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_zwl-lnmc
Although these streaming services still pay artists relatively the same amount as before, nowadays, there does not seem to be any strong opposition from neither artists nor listeners against its unethicality. Instead, artists seem to now be trying to adjust to these changes and doing the best with what they have (i.e. Swift supporting Apple Music). For this reason, though the points expressed in Richmond's article are true, I believe that they are a bit outdated considering the fact that it pushes music listeners to go back to purchasing albums and records which will, speaking realistically, not happen. So, instead of reverting to the past, I believe that we should now seek new ways to support artists through these streaming services such as by promoting artists through the apps or advertising the services so more listeners pay for subscriptions.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/media/taylor-swift-apple/
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-anxious-ease-of-apple-music
In other words, it is clear that up until just a few years ago, the majority of musical artists were not fond of music streaming services for its unethical nature.
However, in 2017, streaming music seems to the be the norm for both listeners and artists. In fact, after Apple responded to Taylor Swift's letter and decided to pay artists for those three months, Swift expressed her gratitude and even featured in an advertisement for the service that went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_zwl-lnmc
Although these streaming services still pay artists relatively the same amount as before, nowadays, there does not seem to be any strong opposition from neither artists nor listeners against its unethicality. Instead, artists seem to now be trying to adjust to these changes and doing the best with what they have (i.e. Swift supporting Apple Music). For this reason, though the points expressed in Richmond's article are true, I believe that they are a bit outdated considering the fact that it pushes music listeners to go back to purchasing albums and records which will, speaking realistically, not happen. So, instead of reverting to the past, I believe that we should now seek new ways to support artists through these streaming services such as by promoting artists through the apps or advertising the services so more listeners pay for subscriptions.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/media/taylor-swift-apple/
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-anxious-ease-of-apple-music
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Privacy Rights and Data Brokers
Prior to reading this article, my knowledge on data brokers was very limited. I had of course experienced the occasional ads popping up on FaceBook of products I had searched for online, but the fact that I knew so little about this industry as a whole reflects, in my opinion, how unexposed the business really is no matter how "transparent" some may claim to be.
While this article made very clear the unethical aspects of the data brokering business, which I completely agree with, I was curious as to whether or not there may be any circumstances in which the violation of the basic human right of having autonomy over one's personal information and being "let alone" is worth the outcome (Fernback).
According to the FTC, "data broker products help to prevent fraud, improve product offerings, and deliver tailored advertisements to consumers" (FTC 2014). While such outcomes may be beneficial, I did not believe they were enough to justify the business as a whole. In fact, there seemed to be more negative outcomes associated with the brokering business as supported by this article. While I knew that the data I leave behind on the internet, especially social media, is collected and sold, I had no idea that other public records such as court filings and marriage and divorce records were sold too. While, though not at all justified, I can see how those public records can get into the hands of such data collecting businesses, I was shocked to learn that private medical information can be obtained and sold as well. An article by the Scientific American exposes IMS Health, one of the top dominating players in "the medical-data-trading industry" (Tanner). By collecting medical information on various patients, this company was able to harvest billions of dollars, and after winning a case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on whether or not their business was partaking in privacy invasion, this practice continues even today (Tanner). While it is clear that such businesses are technically legal, I agree with Fernback's argument that the Fair Information Practices (FIPs) are not enough to regulate these brokering companies, and stricter regulation is needed.
(gif from: http://uproxx.com/tv/treat-yo-self-to-the-10-best-gifs-from-last-nights-parks-and-recreation/)
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-data-brokers-make-money-off-your-medical-records/
While this article made very clear the unethical aspects of the data brokering business, which I completely agree with, I was curious as to whether or not there may be any circumstances in which the violation of the basic human right of having autonomy over one's personal information and being "let alone" is worth the outcome (Fernback).
According to the FTC, "data broker products help to prevent fraud, improve product offerings, and deliver tailored advertisements to consumers" (FTC 2014). While such outcomes may be beneficial, I did not believe they were enough to justify the business as a whole. In fact, there seemed to be more negative outcomes associated with the brokering business as supported by this article. While I knew that the data I leave behind on the internet, especially social media, is collected and sold, I had no idea that other public records such as court filings and marriage and divorce records were sold too. While, though not at all justified, I can see how those public records can get into the hands of such data collecting businesses, I was shocked to learn that private medical information can be obtained and sold as well. An article by the Scientific American exposes IMS Health, one of the top dominating players in "the medical-data-trading industry" (Tanner). By collecting medical information on various patients, this company was able to harvest billions of dollars, and after winning a case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on whether or not their business was partaking in privacy invasion, this practice continues even today (Tanner). While it is clear that such businesses are technically legal, I agree with Fernback's argument that the Fair Information Practices (FIPs) are not enough to regulate these brokering companies, and stricter regulation is needed.
(gif from: http://uproxx.com/tv/treat-yo-self-to-the-10-best-gifs-from-last-nights-parks-and-recreation/)
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-data-brokers-make-money-off-your-medical-records/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)