On Monday, my reading group read an article about Deepfake videos.  In it the two actors of the article, Marie-Helen Maras and Alex Alexandrou discussed the legal implications of an imminent future in which the everyday person can manufacture fake video and even audio of a person.  Much of the Deepfake technology is used in order to transpose the image of famous women into pornographic videos.  These videos, once put online, are very hard to remove considering how rapidly content is spread, consumed, and reproduced across platforms.

This new reality made me wary of all the images I have of myself online and how accessible they are.  It was mentioned in class that photos stored in Google Photos aren’t even private and that they can be accessed by anyone who has the url.  Since I’ve been relying on Google Photos for years now in order to save space on my devices, I realize that there are a heck of a lot of images of me online and that if someone was really diligent they could possibly use Deepfake technology in order to manufacture fake media of me.

All of our conversations have made me think of the concept of our virtual selves, our digital footprints, and how vulnerable these recreations of ourselves are to manipulation.  If you know enough about the virtual identity of a person and their behavior, then you can know enough to sell something to the physical person.  If you have access to enough images of a person online you can place them in them in situations virtually which they would never allow themselves to physically be in.  You can incriminate or bankrupt another person through the use of their banking information and social security numbers.

On some level, the whole idea of regulating the internet seems like the old effort to tame the Wild West, but my instinct is that taming something in a virtual space is a very different challenge than taming a physical space, and I’m somewhat skeptical of our ability to do so.

On Monday we began winding down the semester by discussing what is the most important dilemma surrounding the digital age. Most people agreed that it was anything related to data analytics, privacy rights and ownership of ones own choices online. Most of the articles that we also read for class Monday also highlighted this to some extent and also continued to suggest that this is a problem long overdue for discussion and lengthy parameters to control its effects. This conversation is also closely aligned with the thread I have been following all semester which is: who gets taken advantage of most in the digital age? It is often this question and the dense effects of privacy and data sovereignty that make this issue so complicated every day. It seems, if anything, that these are all things that are going to get worse before they get better especially considering more and more industries are trying to experiment with how they can incorporate machine learning more into their businesses and consumer experiences.

Its my conclusion that things are moving much faster than we may think making the task of regulation even more difficult. Such is the case with the deep fake videos. The same software that can help take these videos down is also the same technology used to make them more sleeker, faster and less detectable as being fake content. Bots on the internet make it harder to track down white supremacists because these same bots instigate and often create more supremacists in their path than they actually stop.

Learning about Deepfake videos on Monday was really a surprise to me. I had never heard of this technology before, although I knew that image and video manipulation software did exist. It seems that by utilizing machine learning and artificial intelligence, the Deepfake videos are really boundless in terms of quality and what they can do. Therein lies the danger in their usage.

I also found the discussion at the end of class where we decided on the most important issue of the Digital Age particularly important and revealing. We determined that data sovereignty and data privacy were the two most important issues. This decision makes sense, as many issues that we had talked about previously in class, such as fake news and social media, have this aspect as a central element. I can’t help but wonder if other people share our same views. I would hope people take these affronts to privacy as serious and do not just disregard them. Otherwise, the issue will continue unhindered. It does seem to me that more attention is being given to this topic as of late, which bodes well for an eventual solution to this problem.

I am surprised that more people weren’t troubled by the Deepfake videos. I would argue this also has grave and foreboding consequences, like the invalidity of all video evidence in the legal system and thus the inability to believe what one sees. This paradigm shift would be a huge problem and would be severely deleterious to the functioning of the legal system.  Having an eyewitness needed to assert the authenticity of a video sounds a bit strange in itself, but it is certainly a possibility for the future.

The labs from the past two weeks have been enjoyable for me because I finally feel as though I’m closer to understanding the inner workings of computers. The impetus for me taking this class, aside from thinking it might be necessary to point to a class on my transcript that would show I have a desire to develop my technical skills, was a deep fascination with the how of computers. I feel like the understanding of binary math developed this, but being able to finally get to the mechanics of computing has been exciting.

Working with the logic gates, I understood that at some level it factored into the functions of computers, but when it was mentioned that circuits are made up of droves of these, it was enlightening; I felt like I finally got a glimpse of the operationalization of binary. I feel as though a lot of the applications, and to some extent what we discuss in class itself, fly over my head in terms of a deeper understanding, but it feels like working with logic gates got me closer to understanding the little details of computers, and it is extremely rewarding.

Today’s lab also took this feeling a step further; I understand how computer’s interface with their own data storage now and perform operations. While I am still sure there are several more layers of complexity that go into the functions of modern computing, it is these simple victories that cultivate my interest and knowledge. Overall, this class has been a rewarding experience for helping me understand computers and the context of both past and emerging technologies; these last two labs, however, have gotten me closer to my overall goal, and I feel even more energized going forward to continue my computational-learning post-graduation.

Deep down, I feel it will be helpful for me to understand how an abstract yet simple concept (such as binary numbers) is then operationalized and developed into all the technologies of today. I don’t know how practical knowing exactly how a monitor on a smart phone or laptop functions is, but at least it will be demystified to me and perhaps help me make it more accessible to others.

Following our discussion on Monday, I have been thinking a lot about one of the comment that Professor Rodrigues mentioned at one point – the best time to be scheduled for sentencing is early in the morning or after lunch. While I had seen lawyers on TV and such trying to get these times, I still was still associating this more with the realm of fiction. It is incredibly alarming that whether or not Judge X has had their pastrami sandwich from Frank’s determines whether or not and to what degree somebody will get probation, fined, or imprisoned. A lunch, or lack thereof, should not be what alters the course of somebody’s life. With regards to decision-making, this is one way where I see how technology such as this could potentially make a difference. To my knowledge, an algorithm can’t get hangry or cranky. However, it is also clear that a biased algorithm with a less than stellar accuracy level cannot be the better option. In my discussion group, we briefly touched on an ethical dilemma that could result from this. What if the algorithm got to a point where it was better and less biased than judges at predicting recidivism rates, yet still not completely accurate? Would it be better to use it or not?

As TJ said in class, it is also crucial that people who are responsible for creating this technology take responsibility and work to make it less biased. I don’t know if this will be possible soon, though; the judicial system, being already extremely racially biased, influences whether or not people can get jobs, which affects the algorithm by tying having a job or not to the risk score created. Thus, the fastest way may not be turning to technology, but instead paying more attention to the people making the decisions.

Our ethical discussion on Monday spanned many ethical issues, with consequences varying from companies being able to better target advertisements to Facebook users to technology potentially redefining the way we conceptualize war. I am consistently realizing that to refer to “ethical issues of technology” could mean almost anything.

Many of the morally dubious developments we have discussed remind me in some way of Caleb Thompson’s reflection. When Amazon markets facial recognition software to state law enforcement without testing it for racial bias, developers were on the other end coding small parts that built up to the final product. Individuals develop algorithms to collect your information from the internet, and others design advertisements specifically targeted at your psychological profile. Engineers build robots with the capacity to kill people autonomously. In these situations, who bears the responsibility to ensure that technology is developed in an ethical manner? Should individual developers, coders, and engineers be responsible or everything they create, or do those with broader views of the projects bear responsibility? Clearly, government regulation would help define some of these questions. However, the government often doesn’t fully conceptualize how technology is developing. Or sometimes, as in cases of weapon development, they are the ones creating the dangerous technology. Finally, what is the role of the formal computing profession? We read the ACM code of ethics, which provided some helpful guidelines for its members. Should groups like these be doing more to establish the norm that individual computing professionals are in some part responsible for what they create?

Talking about the ethics of social media companies controlling our data made me think of an episode of Hasan Minhaj’s “Patriot Act” on Netflix. Minhaj discussed these same topics that were brought up in discussion on Monday, including the seeming cluelessness of lawmakers as to the basics of technology, as well the rich collection of data companies have built up. His main conclusion of the episode is that regulations of these companies need to change to protect our data and treat these companies as what they really are: glorified ad agencies.

The discussion also made me reflect on the difficulties or protecting our information absent necessary legislation. Because so much of the modern life relies on the internet, it is almost impossible to go completely off the grid unless you have already lived as a hermit, or you are Ron Swanson from “Parks and Recreation.” I am extremely troubled by this. Technology is a basic fact of life at this point; it is unsettling that companies are able to have an extremely detailed record of our locations, store every single one of our internet searches, and keep track of what we interact with on social media, all in the service of creating a detailed profile to sell us more. This is made worse by the potentiality that law enforcement could possibly gain access to all of this data in the future in a potentially incriminating way.

As Minhaj suggested in his show, the best possible method forward is changing the way companies interact with our data, and, as mentioned at the end of class, convincing legislators requires organization. I do not have the technical knowledge to propose nuanced solutions to these problems, but in the meantime, I will try to remain extremely conscious of the way I use my devices and these platforms.

Monday’s discussion dealt primarily with ethical situations we had not begun to discuss much in class like the implications of privacy and large tech corporations selling our information. I think I want to take this time to say more about how these problems are also connected to the disparities of women and others not male in the technology sector. The industry is also preying on these groups of people significantly more for location data, buying trends and personal information. I feel like this often never gets enough attention because its happening to those most closely centered on the “margin” of who we consider important or worth saving.

I might also add that the preying on these groups also repudiates many harmful cycles of fake news, propaganda and false reporting that leads to many consequences. The need for these groups to really take over the technology sector is immediate and the digital privacy disaster we are in right now can only be minimized if we bestow agency back to these groups in a commitment that is long overdue.

What  struck me most from the discussion on Monday would be just how widespread and trenchant access large companies, like Facebook and Google, have to our ‘personal’ data. This trend worries me considerably. I feel like privacy rights are almost obsolete in an age where so much information is readily available digitally, often without the user’s knowledge. Luis’ requesting his data from Google really substantiates this point. There really is an exhaustive record of everything we do on the internet.

Now of course, we all see this as troubling and we all don’t desire our personal information to be collected in such a manner. However, we all continue to use Facebook, etc. for a variety of reasons. Whether it be convenience, comfort or habit, we continue to be involved in social media and other digital enterprises that result in data collection. To be truly removed would be living off the grid, something few people are willing to do. This fact led me to the unhappy conclusion that this type of infringement on privacy is an axiomatic result of living in the digital age. I hope this is not the case, but unless people really make a concerted effort to address this issue, I’m doubtful of anything changing soon. That being said, I do believe many people are concerned about this and are actively trying to change things for the better.

In class on Monday, we found many ways to approach ethics and very little consensus. Each of the three main areas of ethical reasoning seem to disagree with each other, and within each area each approach has something different to say. I was struck by the sheer number of ways to be ethical in any given situation. In one small group, we talked about utilitarianism, attempting to apply it to the case study Caleb Thompson shares. The most good for the most people seems straightforward initially, but in practice it presents difficult questions.

Who counts as the ‘people’? Do we factor in that Caleb felt guilty about his work as causing harm? How do we measure good? If Caleb had quit his job, wouldn’t someone else just have taken it and created the same result? Through the singular lens of utilitarianism, we came up with justifications for most of the possible actions he could take. If there is that much divergence within a single ethical framework, imagine how many perspectives there are when opening up to other consequentialist approaches then adding all approaches.

Maybe this multitude of views mirrors how we make ethical decisions. Personally, I can think of a time I used almost every framework to make some decision. Sometimes it seems very likely I can control the impact of my actions, so a consequentialist approach seems appropriate. Other times ambiguity about the consequences leads me to rely on general principles. Other times, especially in new or unfamiliar situations, I feel compelled to look to others who may be more experienced as role models. Each of the theories offers a unique perspective and seems to apply better to certain situations.