CST 373 Threaded Discussions

Discussion 1
Topic: Read Blake Panos' ePaper from a previous semester. Then answer the same question he posed to his
ePaper peer team:
As a game designer, are you ethically responsible to consider the potential for addiction in the game you
create? Should a designer build time limits of play into their games in order to force people to stop playing
for a set amount of time?

Answer:
I agree with Brandan. The game designer should not have to consider the "potential for addiction" when
designing a game. That's the whole point of being a designer - to design something the client/audience
will like. What ever happened to personal responsibility and practicing restraint? It is the user's choice
whether or not they play the game, so it is their responsibility to practice self-control and find the right
balance between their gaming habits and the outside world. I believe gaming addictions are often less a
reflection of the likability a particular game, and more a reflection of that individual user's susceptibility to
addiction or addictive behaviors. If said user does have a problem with addiction, it is ultimately their
responsibility to deal with that addiction. We don't blame companies that sell alcohol for alcohol addiction,
so why should game designers be any different? Regardless of what it is, there will always be someone who
does things to excess. Everything enjoyable in life requires a degree of moderation. I believe it is the sole
responsibility of the individual to police him/herself.
The following article (which comes from an HBO Documentary examining addiction and the ethics of
game design) describes video game addiction as "an artifact of media hysteria" and that video games are
not addictive in the same ways which make gambling and drugs addictive. It points to a distinction
between chemical addiction and obsessive behavior.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/28/5930685/love-child-interview-ethics-game-design
Furthermore, I also agree with Brandan's point that game designers should not have to implement time
limits in their games to force users to stop playing. Forcing users to stop playing after a set amount of time is
ridiculous. There are many people who do not struggle with addiction, and to take away a person's
freedom/ability to decide how they spend their leisure time is wrong. Implementing a time limit, strips the
user of his or her own personal responsibility to make choices and manage their usage.
Whether game addictions are a "real" addiction or not, the afflicted party is responsible for managing and
seeking help for themselves. A game designer should not be ethically or morally responsible for the
addictive behaviors of another person.

Discussion 2
Topic: After reading the online newspaper article Hoax Batters Tech Firm
(http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hoax-Batters-Tech-Firm-Stock-value-drops-2742069.php ) discuss
who you think is responsible for the consequences of the hoax. What should the punishment be? What
should be done to prevent this in the future? What ethical connections can be made to this story and
recent events relating to the Enron corporation? Note that this article is more than ten years old but the
problem has not gone away. Use the Internet to learn more about what happened in this specific case
and/or provide your peers with similar stories and links.

Answer:
I agree with Miranda. Mark Simeon Jakob, the man who started the hoax, makes up only half of the
responsible party in this matter. He was ultimately found guilty of "securities and wire fraud for issuing a fake

press release" and charged, which I believe was justified as he intentionally posted fake information to
benefit from it. However, I think the news agencies who posted the unverified story should be reprimanded
somehow as well. I also believe the day traders should assume some responsibility in their choices to sell
their stock, but I can't exactly say I blame them when prominent news sources feature a bogus story. As a
news source, it's their job to make sure the information they're putting out into the world is correct, or at
least state that the information they've posted has not been verified. I think the news sites who featured the
story should not only share half of the blame for the hoax, but should have to pay some of the fines as well.
It's not okay for a news agency to just run with whatever rumor they've heard without verifying whether or
not the information is correct.
Like the Emulex hoax, the Enron scandal involved individuals looking to gain from deceiving others. There
have been several other similar stock market scandals aside from Emulex, and Enron (The Biggest Stock
Scams of All Time), which is why it's so important to protect yourself as an investor (and to demand that
your news sources check their facts!!).

Discussion 3
Topic: A few years ago a CSUMB student's parents requested copies of their child's emails (both sent and
received) after the student committed suicide. If you were the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the
university how would you respond to their request? State the ethical issues involved and your rationale for
the action(s) you would take. As in every ethical issue relating to IT we're exploring this semester, consider
the differences between how we interact with digital vs. analog information.

Answer:
I agree with Miranda. Mark Simeon Jakob, the man who started the hoax, makes up only half of the
responsible party in this matter. He was ultimately found guilty of "securities and wire fraud for issuing a fake
press release" and charged, which I believe was justified as he intentionally posted fake information to
benefit from it. However, I think the news agencies who posted the unverified story should be reprimanded
somehow as well. I also believe the day traders should assume some responsibility in their choices to sell
their stock, but I can't exactly say I blame them when prominent news sources feature a bogus story. As a
news source, it's their job to make sure the information they're putting out into the world is correct, or at
least state that the information they've posted has not been verified. I think the news sites who featured the
story should not only share half of the blame for the hoax, but should have to pay some of the fines as well.
It's not okay for a news agency to just run with whatever rumor they've heard without verifying whether or
not the information is correct.
Like the Emulex hoax, the Enron scandal involved individuals looking to gain from deceiving others. There
have been several other similar stock market scandals aside from Emulex, and Enron (The Biggest Stock
Scams of All Time), which is why it's so important to protect yourself as an investor (and to demand that
your news sources check their facts!!).

Discussion 4
Topic: A few years ago a CSUMB student's parents requested copies of their child's emails (both sent and
received) after the student committed suicide. If you were the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the
university how would you respond to their request? State the ethical issues involved and your rationale for
the action(s) you would take. As in every ethical issue relating to IT we're exploring this semester, consider
the differences between how we interact with digital vs. analog information.

Answer:
After coming upon the same article as Diana, I now understand that there is no legal issue in regard to
releasing a deceased student's records under the FERPA Act (as the rights do not apply to deceased
students). Rather, each institution acts independently in the decision of whether or not to release a
deceased student's information. The majority usually take a more conservative stance, opting not to
release information at all. According to the aforementioned article, "the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, provides advice to university registrar offices about FERPA,
and presents it under the rubric of 'Protecting Your StudentsAnd Your Reputation'. Universities learn to
take a conservative approach as it is more than likely they won't be sued for failing to release information,
while they can, however, be sued for the information they have released.
Personally, I don't really see a problem with releasing a deceased student's email records to their parents (I
don't necessarily agree with the idea that a deceased person should have the same privacy rights as a
living person). It sounds especially reasonable in this situation, as the parents are trying to understand what
lead to their child taking their own life. Legally, however, I completely see how releasing any information
could be incriminating. I agree with Sal, as CIO I wouldn't release the information for this reason. I believe
that while universities do want to protect students' information, they want even more-so to protect
themselves from any backlash that could come from releasing information.
When it comes to analog versus digital, and ethics of privacy, I do believe digital information is more
"secure" than analog information. However, I believe both should be afforded the same amount of privacy.
I disagree with Diana in regard to analog information being a more "open" form of communication. Analog
information may not have the advantage of encryption and passwords, but that does not mean that it was
meant to be open communication. Things like letters and diaries are often very private matters. They
merely lack the protective measures that are afforded to their digital counterparts. Whether it's an email or
a letter, if it is not addressed to you, it was not intended for your eyes, therefore you should not have access
to it.
My main issue in all of this is whether or not the deceased should be afforded all the same privacy rights as
the living, and I'm not so sure that they should. I believe a person's immediate family, specifically their legal
next of kin (the nearest blood relatives or a person who has died, including the surviving spouse anyone
who would receive a portion of the estate by the laws of descent and distribution if there were no will),
should have access to their records, especially in cases of death where it could lead to information about
their death.

Discussion 5
Topic: You use an ATM machine outside your local bank and it gives you an extra 20 bucks. The receipt
shows it gave you only the amount you requested for withdrawal. What do you do? 2) A human teller
makes a similar mistake as described above. You don't notice the extra $20 until you're in your car. Again,
what do you do?

Answer: (I was the first poster for this thread, therefore, I have not referenced any classmates in this post)
If I'm being honest, I'd probably take the money. Especially if I didn't notice until I was in my car or driving
away. I'm even more likely to do so if it's the result of an error at an ATM machine, since I'm much further
removed from a machine than a person. It's shameless, but although I know 100% that the right thing to do
is to go back into the bank and give back the money, I don't see $20 as a huge loss for them. At the same
time, I can see how this could potentially be a huge problem for the bank if it happened on multiple
occasions, to different people. It could add up to be a pretty costly mistake for them. I feel like if it were a
larger sum of money instead of just $20, and if I had noticed it right away, I would do the right thing and not
take it. I would feel hugely guilty if a machine or a person gave me anything more than $20, so much so
that I would take it back even if I was already home by the time I realized. But $20 itself is a relatively small
amount in my opinion. That's not to say that the amount makes it right or wrong (because it's still definitely
not right!) but in this case I doubt that I would have enough integrity to give back $20, instead of just taking

it and considering it "my lucky day".

The following article discusses an ATM machine that was dispensing more money than it was supposed to
without deducting it from users' accounts. Apparently people were telling others that the machine was
giving out "free money" so more and more people were going to the ATM to take advantage of the
situation. The article also brought up a good point in that "if you happen to be passing and someone tells
you [the ATM is] handing out 200 every time, then it's clearly theft because there's knowledge and intent,
and the intent could be proved."
In this situation, when you know prior to taking out money that the machine is going to overpay you, I
definitely see it as theft, whereas when a teller or the machine accidentally gives you 20 extra dollars, I toss
it up to human/machine error and don't think much of it. Especially if I don't notice it right away. It's still not
right at the end of the day, but my intention wasn't outright theft, so I guess I almost see it as the bank's
mistake and not mine.

Discussion 6
Topic: This is a long and two-part thread requiring you to respond to two questions. Much has been
presented in the press in the last few years about a series of suicides of young gay people across the
country who were victims of bullying. Because it is 2015, some of these incidents include online bullying
and, in the case of Tyler Clementi (a Freshman at Rutgers University), the posting of sexual videos of him
online without his consent. For more information on the Clementi story start here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/dharun-revi-molly-wei-charged_n_743539.html
In response to these suicides Dan Savage, a well known blogger in the gay community, started a
campaign called "It Gets Better." The original It Gets Better video has received hundreds of thousands of
hits, mostly because of postings on Facebook, and has led to others producing their own videos for the
project. For more information on the It Gets Better project start here: http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
Interesting side story: too big for youtube... http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/08/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL#ixzz11vbGHCar
Update on the Clementi trial: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/clementi-trial
Question 0ne: If you were an administrator at Rutgers, how would you discipline the students involved in the
Clementi incident and would you include the campus IT professionals in the investigation?
Question Two: How effective do you believe the It Gets Better project can be in addressing the issue of
bullying young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth?

Answer:
1. I agree with Zachary and Diana, I would take serious action against the students. If I were an
administrator I'd remove the students from the dorms while the investigation when on. I would involve
campus IT because they might be able to aid the police officers in finding or accessing content. After
confirming the alleged students did record Clementi, I would expel them. Their actions in recording
Clementi were a blatant breach of his privacy. There are federal laws that deal with discriminatory
harassment which bullying can sometimes overlap with. Discriminatory harassment is covered under federal
civil rights laws which are enforced by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of
Justice. By law "when bullying and harassment overlap, federally-funded schools (including colleges and
universities) have an obligation to resolve the harassment." (https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/federal/).
Rutgers is a public university, so it would have to comply with the law and take some sort of action against
the students, and I think anything less than expelling them wouldn't be a severe enough punishment.
2. I think the It Gets Better Project is a great resource for LGBT youth. It provides resources for getting help,
and for connecting with others within the community, and it also provides videos of encouragement. I think

that the videos are a really powerful tool, because they can help LGBT youth deal with their struggles and
see that there are people who have made it despite being bullied. The videos offer empathy and
encouragement, which a lot of kids really need during this time to feel understood and like they're not
alone. It's a comforting feeling to know that others have been in your shoes. I also think the website is
effective in addressing bullying, but in a more passive sense. They help address bullying by acknowledging
that it's a real issue, and providing tools and resources to deal with bullying. Many kids get bullied in school
for many reasons, and I think the organization does its best to make sure LGBT youth have all the tools they
need to not let bullying get them down. That being said, after browsing their website I didn't really see
anything that suggested to me that they speak up against bullying at schools, or do anything in a more
active sense to let the community know that bullying is not okay. Overall, I think their website is helpful, but
could benefit from more activism.
These are a few bullying websites which discuss and provide more active ways to get involved/prevent
bullying:
http://www.stompoutbullying.org/
https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/lgbt/

Discussion 7
Topic: In the Case Studies text *(available on reserve in the Library and from the instructor), Spinello
introduces us to the ethical theories of Immanuel Kant. In defining a "moral compass" Kant believes we
cannot exploit other human beings and treat them exclusively as a means to our ends or purposes. The
moral can be reduced to the absolute principle of respect for other human beings who deserve respect
because of their rationality and freedom, the hallmark of personhood for Kant. Some of these same ideas
can be found in the CSUMB vision statement: https://csumb.edu/about/vision-statement
Read the vision statement and then consider the following: Does a public institution have a right and/or a
responsibility to institutionalize its idea of morality? What are the potential positive and negative outcomes
of doing this? Finally, does IT play a neutral role here? And because things posted online never go away...
you may also want to read this post: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7246
Answer: (I was the first poster for this thread, therefore, I have not referenced any classmates in this post)
I believe public institutions definitely have a right to institutionalize their idea of morality. However, I also
believe they need to maintain an open-minded viewpoint despite their idea of morality, and encourage
students to think critically about ALL sides of an issue. I'm okay with institutions using their morals as a
foundation for their teachings, so long as they equally explore and support different viewpoints and
encourage critical thinking in all aspects of any given subject/topic. I think it's counterproductive for any
institution to strictly enforce and teach only what it deems "important" without exposing its students to other
ideas, because I believe that an institution's main responsibility is to teach students how to think critically,
not what to think.
The potential positive outcomes of institutionalizing morals are that students will be instilled with a core set
of values (importance of acting with kindness, equality, giving back to the community, etc.) upon
completing their degree. However, as previously stated, I think the negative outcomes of this would be if
institutions attempted to force students to accept their views without encouraging free thought (critical
thinking). An institution has a responsibility to be a facilitator of education in all aspects, not an oppressive
establishment where students are brainwashed, and force-fed ideas. I think IT's role is passive in all of this. In
fact, I'm not even sure how IT relates to an institution's morality at all. I don't understand how they would be
relevant in this case.
That being said, I don't feel like the disgruntled ex-CSUMB professor necessarily did anything wrong. I
certainly did not find his email to be disrespectful. I feel as though the university did him wrong by taking
sides. The administrative assistant's response to his email was childish. It was snide, nonsensical, and
unbecoming for a person of her position, who I believe should act neutrally and gather facts from both

sides in a situation of this caliber, and work to solve the dispute fairly. Of course, this is all without having
heard the other side of the story (from Oliverez' viewpoint), but I do not think that it is okay for any teacher
to post blatantly militant, anti-American propaganda in an American institution. I'm all for diversity but not
when this professors posters allegedly said things like "because George Washington [isnt] Chicano and
therefore not [our] "father," students should not be required to learn about [him]", and "we are warriors,
training in the schools and on the streets of barrios everywhere. We are the founders of a New Brown
Empire..." Are you kidding me? This goes beyond pride for one's ethnicity. These types of things don't
celebrate ethnicity in a nonviolent way. They seem to be aggressive, combative, call-to-action militant
propaganda. I don't think they are appropriate posters for an American university, and they certainly do
not promote education.
At the end of the day, I believe an institution has one main goal and responsibility, and that is to teach its
students to think critically, for themselves.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7246

Discussion 8
Topic: In a March 19 article from a few years ago, the Monterey Herald wrote about racist activities on the
CSUMB campus. A brief statement refers to surveillance cameras. According to the CIO, there are
approximately 300 cameras on campus but they are not "surveillance" cameras but rather "safety and
security" cameras used exclusively for forensic purposes. We've had numerous discussions in class about
privacy issues and have often referred to England's use of cameras in public areas. What are the positive
AND negative aspects of having cameras on our campus? What are the ethical issues?
Answer:
I agree with Brandan about security cameras helping to prevent crimes. Additionally, having security
cameras on college campuses can help in investigations, prevent vandalism, protect students (CSUMB has
a lot of dark areas/abandoned buildings where security cameras could be a huge benefit), monitor
parking lots to deter theft, and just generally help to maintain the overall security of all buildings on
campus. VideoSurveillance.com expands on these advantages.
Some of the negative aspects of having security cameras on college campuses are that they can be an
invasion of privacy, like Brandan said. Other negative aspects are that they may be too outdated to
provide adequate evidence. In an article by Campus Safety Magazine, "one of the challenges with legacy
surveillance systems is that they are typically analog. Degraded image quality, separate audio and video
cables and a lack of remote access to recorded images are just a few of their shortcomings". Another
challenge/negative aspect is that it can be costly and time consuming to replace old security cameras
with modern cameras. Because technology is constantly improving, colleges would inevitably have to
update their camera systems every so often to make sure the cameras served their purpose.
The obvious ethical issue with the use of security cameras, like Brandan said, is that they invade students'
privacy (and faculty/all other parties being recorded who happen to be on the campus). And, with
cameras constantly improving, we now have HD and 4K technology which are able to capture people in
much greater detail. While this is a positive aspect when it comes to punishing crimes, it is a huge negative
aspect/ethical issue for those who have done nothing wrong, and are being recorded every time they set
foot on campus. It can make people feel uncomfortable and untrusted.

Discussion 9

Topic: Friday's DDOS attacks on the servers of Dyn illustrated how connected we all are and how frustrating
it can be we those connections fail. What are the ethical challenges to keeping DDOS attacks from
happening in the future?

Answer: (I was the first poster for this thread, therefore, I have not referenced any classmates in this post)
The recent DDoS attack on the severs of Dyn was not the traditional DDoS attack. According to The
Guardian, the attack may have been the largest of its kind in history. Using the Mirai botnet (a relatively
"new" attack "weapon"), a group of 100,000 IoT smart devices (webcams, DVRs, home security systems,
thermostats, refrigerators, laundry machines, dishwashers, toasters, etc.) were used to flood the Dyn's server
and force it offline. However, the Mirai botnet is known to have at least 500,000 devices in its arsenal, and
some are saying that hackers behind the attack may have been holding back. "It's possible the hackers
could have launched an even more powerful DDoS attack, said Ofer Gayer, a security researcher with
Imperva, a DDoS mitigation provider. 'Maybe this was just a warning shot,' he said. 'Maybe [the hackers]
knew it was enough and didn't need their full arsenal.'"
One of the ethical implications in this situation is that one singular company (Dyn) controls so much of the
internet's domain name infrastructure. The fact that one company holds so much control is clearly
problematic, as we have seen, because when that company experiences an attack, there is no back-up,
and all of the websites that are mapped to it become inaccessible. According to NetworkWorld.com, the
best way to avoid DDoS attacks is to use a high-performance mitigation device to detect attacks quickly,
and immediately mitigate them before they have a chance to do damage. The site talks about using a
flow sampling approach since virtually all routers support some form of flow technology. "In this process, the
router samples packets and exports a datagram containing information about that packet. This is
commonly available technology, scales well, and is quite adequate to indicate trends in network traffic."
The downfall to this, however, is that the server only gets 1 in 1000 packets. Another possible way to stop
wide-scale DDoS attacks is to limit a website's bandwidth, but the problem with that is that a company is
potentially limiting the amount of legitimate users that can access its site. Conversely, one website I
researched suggested overprovision of bandwidth as a solution to DDoS attacks. Though it will not stop a
DDoS attack, the site suggests as a general rule that it "makes sense to have more bandwidth available to
your Web server than you ever think you are likely to need. That way, you can accommodate sudden and
unexpected surges in traffic that could be a result of an advertising campaign, a special offer or even a
mention of your company in the media." Increasing bandwidth may give companies a few extra minutes
to act against an attack before their resources are overwhelmed. I do not believe this is the best approach
as it does nothing to stop the problem, but it was worth noting.
I think the more important issue has to do with the Internet of Things. Companies are giving internet access
to a host of simple devices without making them secure. Without the advantage of security, many IoT
devices are defenseless to being infected with malware. Though these devices were built to be simple and
easy to use, they will need to be given more aggressive and solid security features if we are to protect
them against being used in DDoS attacks. However, users can't always be relied on to keep their devices
up to date. According to Readwrite.com, "it's hard enough to teach the average user to keep their PC's
operating system up-to-date even when the notification is covering a large portion of their screen.
Reminding them to regularly update their toaster is pretty much a lost cause." Readwrite also brings up,
perhaps, the most vital point of all: "maybe we should think twice before we connect everything to the
internet."

References:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/ddos-attack-dyn-mirai-botnet
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3135434/security/ddos-attack-on-dyn-came-from-100000infected-devices.html
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2905115/network-security/the-best-way-to-stop-ddos-attacks.html
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/5-tips-for-fighting-ddos-attacks.html

http://readwrite.com/2016/10/24/dyn-ddos-attack-sheds-new-light-on-the-growing-iot-problem-dl4/

Discussion 10
Topic: When the personal computer started to become popular it was often marketed as a product that
would reduce our society's need for paper and that we might even become a society. Recently, in a single
year CSUMB used over 10 million sheets of paper in its copiers and printers. Do you think CSUMB should be
doing more to reduce its use of paper? Is paper use an ethical issue for you personally? How do you think
CSUMB is when it comes to other uses of communication technology? What would you recommend, if
anything, CSUMB should do to be more environmentally responsible in its use of communication
technologies?

Answer:
While I agree with Brandan that CSUMB is an environmentally friendly campus, I do believe that paper
usage is still an ethical issue that needs to be addressed. I am very much concerned with sustainability and
I believe that teachers, and students (and society in general) could be doing more to reduce paper
usage, and help our environment. I have been in a handful of classes that have used printed handouts for
things like the syllabus, or homework assignments things that would be much better suited as digital
documents. With the technology we now have available to us, there is really no good reason to waste
paper with extraneous printing, and I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to conserve as much as
possible.
According to the World Wildlife Foundation, "production and pulp wood harvesting threatens some of the
last remaining natural forests and the people and wildlife that depend on them". Human consumption of
natural resources, in general, is devastating to the environment in ways many people fail to realize or even
think about. Because of the rapid rate at which humans consume, there will eventually come a time when
we have exhausted our resources completely. It is important to do absolutely all we can to reduce our
usage, especially because we already have the technology to do so easily. "Printing was necessary when
computers were heavy bricks that sat attached to desks. We now walk around with computers in our
pockets, tablets that can approximate the size of a piece of paper, and cloud services that can back up
and sync all your documents across all your devices." There are many ways to help save paper, some of
which include: printing double-sided, as Brandan suggested, and using small margins/fonts. Paper that has
been printed on only one side can also be re-used for notes, sketches, rough work, etc. It's also important
to take advantage of digital assets (turning in research papers and other assignments digitally on iLearn),
and to print only when absolutely necessary. In addition to these, VisionofEarth.org offers a variety of other
helpful tips for saving paper. While I believe that CSUMB has done a great job in its sustainability efforts, I
believe there are always ways to do more. Even the smallest things can change the world.
References
https://www.visionofearth.org/live-green/31-ways-to-reduce-paper-usage/
http://www.howtogeek.com/163015/go-paperless-stop-printing-everything-and-enjoy-the-digital-life/

Discussion 11
Topic: Over the last few years the University administration and faculty have been studying the University
Learning Requirements and how they serve students. One primary concern is that the ULRs do not align
with other CSU campuses which creates some problems for transfer students and may discourage new
students from applying to CSUMB. As a result of the investigations, a number of proposals were presented
and after significant feedback and revisions, one final proposal called the Otter Model is currently being

implemented. Like all of the proposals, the Otter Model eliminates the Technology proficiency ULR, formerly
satisfied by CST 101/Tech Tools and a few other tech-related courses offered by other departments.
Previously, we discussed the Vision Statement. This week, consider the positive and negative effects,
including the ethical implications, of eliminating technology proficiency from the ULR/General Education
requirements.

Answer:
"In a world permeated by technology, an individual can function more effectively if he or she is familiar
with and has a basic understanding of technology". I think technology is important to include as a core
value, especially for those in SCD majors/those working towards BS degrees. Regardless of what other CSU
campuses are doing, there are many benefits to technological literacy and proficiency such as improved
decision making (technological literacy prepares and teaches individuals to make well-informed choices
and to seek out credible sources of information), increased knowledge and awareness (technological
literacy teaches individuals to think critically, keeps them informed on current news/events, and teaches
them to use fundamental computer programs), and increased resourcefulness (technological literacy
helps individuals learn how to use resources to their advantage. It teaches them to be lifelong learners, and
how to effectively use the internet and other technologies to teach themselves new things). When students
are technologically proficient, they are also way less likely to fall prey to internet and other various scams.
A negative effect in requiring technological proficiency at CSUMB is what Kevin Cahill already stated - that
the courses do not align well with other universities which, in-turn, discourages students from coming to
CSUMB. Another possible negative effect is that because technology changes and improves so rapidly, it
could be a challenge for teachers to keep up enough to effectively teach students. I've personally been in
classes where the teachers don't understand how to utilize the technology (smart boards, updated
software programs, etc.), and it can be extremely confusing trying to learn something that the professor
doesn't even understand him/herself.
Overall, I believe it's hugely important to require technological proficiency. Almost everything is digital, and
it's important to make sure that students graduate knowing how to use current technology effectively.
Eliminating tech courses that teach students these things would not only be a huge disservice to them, but
to the larger world where they will have to compete for jobs, most of which require knowing basic software
(word, excel, PowerPoint, etc.) at the bare minimum. Many jobs require employees to know more complex
technology, or to be able to learn them quickly. If students don't know how to adapt, they won't be able to
be functioning, successful members of society.

References:
https://www.nap.edu/read/10250/chapter/4
http://www.connectingforgood.org/what-is-the-digital-divide/
http://sciencenordic.com/technological-illiteracy-can-hurt-patients-and-schoolchildren

Discussion 12
Topic: Recently, in Paris and then in San Bernardino, we witnessed yet another act of urban terrorism similar
in some ways to the Boston Marathon bombings. The Boston event illustrated the power of digital forensics
and "crowd sourcing" to solve crimes. For this discussion you need to take two perspectives. First, consider
how Amatai Etzioni would assess the events in terms of individual privacy vs. communitarian ideals. Second,
state your views and then recommend policies for how the authorities should deal with individual data
acquired and shared on networks that may be useful in solving crime.

Answer:
I agree with Matt, I think Etzioni would be okay with digital forensics and crowd sourcing to solve crimes. In
his book, The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni wrote in favor of the collective good of a society over individual
privacy. In order to prevent terrorism, he believed some measures of personal privacy had to be sacrificed.
That being said, I believe that he would likely be in support of using digital forensics and crowd sourcing to
help police/the government solve crimes.
Personally, I don't know if I'd be as okay with either. I think that sometimes crowd sourcing can be really
helpful. For instance, in cases of police brutality when bystanders record things on their phones/put them
on social media I think it can be very helpful in bringing the offending parties to justice. However, I feel like
there is a very real danger in posting things to social media because people are often wrong in their
observations. One such instance is described here. Mark Hughes, a soccer coach, was wrongly accused of
killing cops at a Black Lives Matter rally in Texas. He and his brother were helping people amidst the chaos
of the shooting. They both had guns on them (in Texas people who own guns are allowed to openly carry
them), but handed their guns over to the police at the rally once the shooting took place as to not be
falsely mistaken for the shooters. However, earlier that evening someone had taken a picture of Mark and
handed it to the police as a potential suspect. The police posted the photo on social media writing "This is
one of our suspects. Please help us find him!" The picture made its way to CNN and other news sources and
he began to receive death threats. Luckily, he was found not to be involved in the shooting later on,
however this is a really good example of crowd sourcing gone wrong. I believe relying on crowd sourcing
can potentially lead to many more cases like Mark's. It's a huge opportunity for misinformation to be
spread, and can be very dangerous for the falsely accused. In regard to digital forensics, although it's a
huge invasion of personal privacy I think it's almost necessary to use in solving crimes since we live in such a
digital age and so much of life and communication happen digitally. Without using digital forensics and
searching suspects phones/computers, I think solving crimes would be a lot more difficult, and many crimes
could go unsolved altogether. Many cases have benefitted from the use of digital forensics as
evidenced here.
References
http://time.com/4399697/dallas-shooting-mark-hughes-false-suspect/
http://tips4pc.com/computer_tips_and_tricks/6-juicy-criminal-cases-that-used-computer-forensics.htm

Discussion 13
Topic: Recently, in Paris and then in San Bernardino, we witnessed yet another act of urban terrorism similar
in some ways to the Boston Marathon bombings. The Boston event illustrated the power of digital forensics
and "crowd sourcing" to solve crimes. For this discussion you need to take two perspectives. First, consider
how Amatai Etzioni would assess the events in terms of individual privacy vs. communitarian ideals. Second,
state your views and then recommend policies for how the authorities should deal with individual data
acquired and shared on networks that may be useful in solving crime.

Answer: (I was the first poster for this thread, therefore, I have not referenced any classmates in this post)
I think it's unrealistic and extreme to go as far as to say that minors caught sexting should be charged with a
felony. I don't believe that it should even be a crime for them. Adults looking at these pictures is a different
story entirely, but minors are curious about their bodies and sexuality, and I think they have every right to
be.
That being said, they are also impulsive, irresponsible, naive, and (to put it bluntly) dumb. They often lack
the necessary foresight and life experience to make "good" decisions which is another reason I don't think
that sexting between minors should be punishable by law. Additionally, laws are often outdated, and do
not take technology into account. I think these laws that make it "illegal" need to be updated to fit the
times, because it's unrealistic to try and stop minors from engaging in this behavior. Unless it comes to child
pornography, I don't think it's the government's problem to police this issue. I believe that it's

the parents' responsibility, and I think poor parenting is one of the root causes of this issue altogether.
For children, cellphone and internet access are privileges, not rights, and I think that a lot of parents
somehow forget that. If your child is sharing suggestive or nude photos of him/herself, perhaps they should
have their phone/social media/internet privileges revoked. It's not hard. I also think it's extremely important
for parents to be involved in their children's lives, and to have open, honest communication with them on a
regular basis. Parents need to teach their children about privacy concerns, and they need to voice their
expectations. We live in a world where anything you say, do, or capture can be shared, which is why I think
it's super important for parents to talk to their children about these things before they happen.
This article talks about how parents need to stay current with technology to be able to stay one step
ahead of their children, and discusses ways to talk to children about the things they post on social media. I
think both points are equally important. Not only do parents need to be knowledgeable about the
technology that their children are using, they need to know how to talk to their children about these things
and establish standards of use. "When the dialogue about use of devices starts at a young age, and when
parents are models and practice what they preach, kids realize that rules mean more than just rules. Kids
see that phones are put away at dinner, screen time is limited, and internet use is monitored by adults".
These are all things that I think are fundamentally important in helping with this issue. It's unfortunate that
many of the girls involved in the "sexting ring" had their photos shared without their knowledge, but perhaps
it's a valuable life lesson. For the girls who shared their pictures willingly to an account with "hoes/thots" in its
name, I think there are much larger issues that need to be addressed. Fortunately, there are countless
websites devoted to helping parents be better parents when it comes to social media and sexting, and it's
generally agreed that it's best for parents to start dialogues with their children before issues arise.
References
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-busman-psyd/caught-your-kid-sexting-n_b_4654367.html
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/news-features-and-safety-tips/Pages/Talkingto-Kids-and-Teens-About-Social-Media-and-Sexting.aspx
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/talking-about-sexting#

Discussion 14
Topic: Recently, in Paris and then in San Bernardino, we witnessed yet another act of urban terrorism similar
in some ways to the Boston Marathon bombings. The Boston event illustrated the power of digital forensics
and "crowd sourcing" to solve crimes. For this discussion, you need to take two perspectives. First, consider
how Amatai Etzioni would assess the events in terms of individual privacy vs. communitarian ideals. Second,
state your views and then recommend policies for how the authorities should deal with individual data
acquired and shared on networks that may be useful in solving crime.

Answer:
The scrapbook entry I believe has the most relevance to this course is the scrapbook I did on week 11
about Adobe's "Voco" ("photoshop for audio"). What was cool was that I actually got to witness the
discussion first-hand at Adobe Max when they premiered this program in their "sneak peeks"! While I think
the technological advancements to make this program even possible are awe-inspiring, I think it's
ultimately very dangerous. When the developers were talking about the program at Adobe Max, they said
it may never actually go public/be released, but if it ever does I think there will be a high potential for
misuse. It's scary to think that with only a 20 minute audio clip of someone talking, a program could almost
flawlessly imitate their voice. Anyone could input any text they wanted and have the program generate
that text in that person's voice. The technology is incredible, and incredibly dangerous. I think that's what
makes this ethics course so important. When I was sitting in the audience watching the Voco developer
generating text in Keegan-Michael Key's voice (things that he never said), and everyone around me was
clapping, I almost felt like I was in the twilight zone. There is so much potential for misuse, and I don't think

the benefits of this program (using it to potentially do Hollywood movie voiceovers, or to correct mistakes in
audiobooks/podcasts) outweigh that potential (could be used to release false statements or imitate
services requiring voice authorization, etc.) Additionally, the program was designed so that anyone could
use it (simple interface, easy to understand, etc.). There is no skill or mastery necessary, so unlike photoshop
(which requires a certain level of skill to use effectively), Voco could be used by anyone to achieve the
same seamless results. The developer showcasing the program did, however, say that they were working
on a way of implementing digital watermarks to protect people, but I still think releasing a program like this
would have negative results. It's certainly a cool use of technology, but ethically, I don't think this program
should ever see the light of day.
Reference
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37899902