ARCHIVE

Chelsea Pyne - CST 373 Ethics in Communication & Technology - Fall 2013

THREADED DISCUSSION

Discussion #1B: Should there be external intervention to curb technology addiction? 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? Be sure to expand the discussion beyond the responses of his ePaper peer team. First off, Nelly does a great job on in bringing the discussion in present 2013 contexts. I was fascinated by her description and analysis of Social Games. More and more companies are creating these types of games that seem to be specifically targeting and exploiting addiction to the internet and games. This to me is the more current and critical ethical question. Is it ethical for companies to create this type of social and personal manipulation? Nelly references Jonathan Blows argument about this issue: Jonathan Blow argued that designers should start thinking responsibly, avoid psychological manipulation as much as possible, and design games that respect the player. Respecting means recognizing that players are intelligent human beings and not just resources to mine. It also means not waisting players' time and degrading the quality if their life. When analyzing the situation through this term, manipulation, game designers are ethically responsible to consider addiction and the audience at hand. However, I do agree with Leigh Ann that it is still on the consumer to make an informed decision. They also have to take the responsibility for their life and how they allocate their time. This relates to Blakes reflection point about taking games to an extreme. Game designers should not have to alter a game based on an individuals choice to take games to the extreme. Parents and gamers should all know the consequences of excessive online time. It is their responsibility to limit time on the computer. One NPR article I found a compelling was Boys With Autism or ADHD More Prone To Overuse video Games. It states that boys with autism spectrum disorders spend two times as much time playing video games compared to typical boys; this is two hours a day instead of one. And boys with ADHD play an average of 1.7 hours a day. After reading through this article, I feel more inclined to recommend education on these video game usage issues. Parents, no matter if their child is Autistic, has ADHD, or no disorder at all, must be aware of the issues surrounding too much screen time. When parents are more educated, they will be able to raise healthy well developed children. Because of this, I feel that game designers and companies are ethically responsible to consider addiction, mainly in children. However, my recommendation would be education rather than built in limits to the game. They should implement educational program, resources, and lessons. This could be done through online websites and resources. In addition, it could be done through educational booklets with packaged games.

Discussion #2B: Tech firm hoax After reading the online newspaper article "Hoax Batters Tech Firm" (http:// www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hoax-Batters-Tech-Firm-Stock-valuedrops-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. Postings due by 9pm, Sunday of this week. In the case of Emulex, like Donald said, the sole responsibility falls on the individual who created and released false information. The press should not be held responsible because it unknowingly released false information. To an extent, they are accountable for checking the creditability of the source. However, in the Emulex case, they found no reason to doubt this source who claimed to be a publicist for the company. When researching the case, I found a Securities and Exchange Commission press release about their case against Jakob. The SEC convicted Jakob of two counts of securities fraud and one count of wire fraud. To make it a little more clear I had to find the definitions of both charges: Securities fraud: ..also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information... (usleagal.com) Wire Fraud: Financial fraud involving the use of telecommunications or information technology (Google) Simply put Jakob released false information, through the medium of technology, for personal profit on the stock market. He was sentenced to 44 months in prison, ordered to turn over all profits he made in the trade ($353,000), and pay civil charges of $102,642 (Securities and Exchange Commission). I feel that this is the correct punishment for the crime. Paying back the profits and paying civil fees are what I think is the most important aspect. I would even say that Jakob should pay even more to the stockholders (civil fees). Elaborating on Donalds comments on the relation of Emulex and Enron, I feel that it goes beyond in company fraud. According to an article by The Economist, there was corruption across many agencies and organization related Enron. Ethical codes and standards were not being implemented or followed by auditors, accounting firms, and corporations. In the Enron case, we question ethical standards, or lack there of, in the system. This differs from the Emulex case where the ethics in question were of one individual. As time goes on, we still have cases of company fraud. One reason could be the lack of high ethical standards and regulations. Another could also be the lack of severe punishment. However, we are seeing an increase in the consequences of fraudulent actions. In a recent case, Raj Rajaratnam, founder of Galleon Group, was sentenced to 11 years in prison. This is an unprecedented sentencing length for an insider-trading case (Wall Street Journal).

Discussion #3B: eMail after death 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. Postings due by 9pm, Sunday of this week. ! Note: Chip Lenno, CSUMB's CIO, will come to class next Monday to discuss the University's decision on how to respond to the request. Leigh Ann does a great job outlining the legal documentation the school provides and abides by for control of digital property. The only situation where the CIO, Chip Leno, would have been responsible for supplying the information and email records would be if the student had given written consent (signed a document) before his/hers passing. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Parents of University students do not have the right to have access to these records and are treated as any other member of the public unless the student has given written consent for the release of such records to them In strict legal standards, there would be no circumstance in which the data should be released. However, I do believe, like Leigh Ann, that there is a compelling argument based on the situation. If the parents, were to have access to the account, they would be able to investigate and find reasons behind the suicide. Because of FERPA, the family would have to seek police help and police investigation to obtain these records. A PBS Newshour report, Law Lags Behind in Defining Posthumous Protocol for Online Accounts, profiles many cases similar to the CSUMB situation (only difference being in a non-school setting). Ricky Rash, father of a 15 year old boy who committed suicide, tried to request access to his sons Facebook profile. However, he was denied because of the binding contract that all users must sign; the contract states that the password protected accounts cannot be accessed by anyone but the user, even a user who is a minor. The CSUMB case does bring up the general issue of what many people call the Digital Afterlife. Many current U.S. laws have not changed or adapted to fit current times. One such law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; part of the 1986 federal law prohibits companies from sharing dead individuals information. With so much of our lives continually growing online, is this really a reasonable solution? Especially when this means we are denying immediate family access to our online lives. This is unprecedented territory that needs to be address. Our digital lives and assets now need to be considered into legal documents like wills and trusts. There are now more and more people start the conversation around our Digital Afterlife. A few of the major players are the authors of Your Digital Afterlife, Evan Carroll and John Romano. Their book address what your digital life and assets are, as well as, how to help you secure and create plans for assets like: email, social sites, finances, and devices in general. Awareness and knowledge is what can help us continue to revise and create laws that will benefit the digital age.

Discussion #4B: 12-year-olds and the Internet Under the heading of "what would you do if..." imagine the following scenarios and provide a response for each. You walk into your 12-year old child's room and on his/her computer screen you see: a) pornography b) instructions on how to build a bomb c) a guide to safer sex d) online gambling Pornography In this growing digital age, it continues to get harder to regulate a childs computer and internet activity. Porn seems to be accessed by younger children more than it should be. This infograph states that: The average age at which a child first sees porn online is 11. It would not be surprising to me if my child did look at porn, no matter which gender. As a parent, I would hope to have an open and honest conversation with them though. I think that this scenario would be the ideal situation to have The Talk with my child. Discussing safe sex, resources to help educate (like Planned Parenthood or other health related websites), and determining when the child would be ready, are all areas I would hope to cover. After this, I would debate whether there would be any consequences. Right now, I think I wouldnt punish my child. However, I could see having to have the computer in the family room for a few weeks as a reasonable consequence. Building A Bomb This situation I would approach with caution. First, I would talk to them to see if they had implemented or planned implementing the bomb. Then I would ask if there were any issues or events that sparked their interest in this subject. If I felt that they had any harmful thoughts or were suffering psychologically, I would seek counseling for my child and for myself (to seek advise). Safer Sex I would immediately talk with them about if and why they were considering having sex. If they were, I would explore the site and other health related sites with them. I would go over the information found with them to verify that they were finding credible sites and sources. If there were seriously considering having sex, I would also make a doctors appointment. Talking with their physician, a third party, would hopefully make more of an impact than my words and help. I would also help my child get birth control if needed. Online Gambling I would immediately take away computer rights. Especially if they had been using my money or stealing from anyone else.

Response to Leigh Anne Warner Leigh Anne, I completely agree with all of your points made in each scenario.! Like we've both stated, it all about an open and honest conversation with the child. In the porn and safe sex situations, it's better to have a 12 year old who will have the information to choose to have safe sex than to be naive and risk getting pregnant or any type of STD.

Dialogue with Jan Clark Chelsea: Jan, I just want to clarify why you would treat a male or female child differently in the porn situation? Why would you stress education more to a girl rather than both genders? Shouldn't both genders know what teen pregnancy is like? Jan: Agree Chelsea - It's important for both. However, often it's the girl that is stuck with the burden instead of the guy. The consequences for a girl getting pregnant are just much more significant. Chelsea: Thanks for clarifying!

Discussion #5B: Human/ATM interaction 1) 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? ATM Machine My very first thought was: Would I even realize that the ATM gave me extra cash? But I guess that is besides the point for this discussion... To answer with blatant honesty, I would not return the money. I understand that my decision isnt the correct moral one. However, in my opinion, it seems like an insignificant situation and small moral lapse on my part, when considered in a greater sense and scale. I do not feel the need to take responsibility for the mistakes of the ATM machine. Human Teller If I were given extra money at an actual teller this would be a different situation. I feel that in this case I am responsible, and even obligated, to return the money. To my knowledge, real tellers are accountable for the money in the drawer, unlike an ATM machines. I would not be able to live with the guilt of ruining the teller reputation. Again, there is a sense of responsibility and accountability when face to face with another person, rather than a mechanical ATM machine. Dialogue With Ricardo Castaneda Chelsea: I agree with you Ricardo. I wouldn't return the money if it came from an ATM machine. But I would if it were a human teller. I was wondering everyone else's opinion of us: do you think we are morally wrong for having this opinion about the ATM machine scenario? Is it really that bad when put in proportion on a larger scale of things? Ricardo: Hi Chelsea,! It's great to see that somebody would do the same as I would, I was starting to worry. And I don't think we are making a morally wrong decision, just like you said in your post is the sense of responsibility and perception of who's making the mistake. If is a human being, many things could have been going on that day for that person and we all make mistakes, on the other side machines can't really be excused like a human would.

Discussion #6B: It Gets Better (except for Tyler C.) 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 2012, 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/cgi-bin/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? Question One If I were the administrator at Rutgers, I would expel the students immediately. I believe strongly that the two students, Revi and Wei, need to face the consequences of their horrible actions, both in school and legal contexts. The Rutgers Policy Against Verbal Assault, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, and Defamation, states: Intolerance, bigotry, and bullying are antithetical to the values of the university, and unacceptable within the Rutgers community. One of the ways the university seeks to effect this value is through a policy of nondiscrimination, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, atypical heredity or cellular blood trait, military service or veteran status in university programs (Statement of Principles). I dont feel that the campus IT professionals would necessarily be needed in the case of Dharun Ravi, and Molly Wei. This seems like a very blatant case of bullying, whether it was cyber bullying or not. Both Ravi and Wei violated the Rutgers College Student Code of Conduct. They would face the clear punishment outlined by the Rutgers Policy in the Prohibited Conduct section: While any of the four categories of acts listed above is a separation offense, that, if proven, could lead to a sanction of expulsion or suspension from the university under the provisions of the University Code of Student Conduct...

On a related note, I could not find any online evidence of Policy Against Bullying for CSUMB. However, I was able to find that CSU, Chico has policy outlining similar concerns, responsibilities, and punishments. You can find the CSU, Chico Policy on Campus Behavior & Violence Prevention link below in the sources. Sources Policy Against Verbal Assault, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying, and Defamation: http:// compliance.rutgers.edu/images/uploads/file/ Policy_Against_Bullying_Harassment_Assault_Intimidation_Defamation.pdf Policy on Campus Behavior & Violence Prevention (CSU Chico): http://www.csuchico.edu/ prs/EMs/2012/12-025.shtml Question Two I believe that the It Gets Better project is a great outlet and huge step in addressing the issues surrounding bullying in the gay community. It is the start of an open conversation across the country, and even the world. The It Gets Better Project currently has 319,485 Likes on Facebook, with 8,979 people talking about it on the same platform. They also have 91,318 Twitter followers and 51,055 subscribers to their YouTube Channel. (*Find the links to their social media pages below!*) They are a breakthrough organization that has just hit the tip of the iceberg of the stigma and issues surrounding LGBT youth. The are now currently focusing on expanding their website and outreach past the It Gets Better videos, which now total over 50,000 videos! These videos have now been viewed tens of millions of times! One of the ways they are expanding to reach larger audiences is by being able to feature celebrities, musicians, professional athletes, and political leaders (It Gets Better Brochure). Having their hand in so many media outlets also allows them to reach many young teens. These media outlets/programs include: social media, television, radio, and print journalism. These platforms allow for It Get Better to facilitate open discussions in communities. Going beyond the videos and social networks, It Gets Better is working with communities to participate and take action empowering young LGBT teens. They participate in pride events, LGBT conferences, and other activities to interact with LGBT youth. Providing resources is also a way they get involved in the community. They work to provide existing resources and collaborate with partners to create new resources that address the needs of the LGBT community. Two specific programs that they offer are BETTERResources and BETTERLegal. Sources Inspire. Hope. Change. It Gets Better Project Brochure: http://getsbetter.3cdn.net/ 256906e2f982c6f150_skm6bqefe.pdf It Gets Better Project Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/itgetsbetterproject Twitter: https://twitter.com/itgetsbetter YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/itgetsbetterproject Response to Amy Ardito I just wanted to applaud your comments on the It Get Better Project. You put it simply and beautifully how they help both the LGBT individuals and the societal changes and views.

Discussion #7B: That Vision Statement Thing 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 "law" 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: http://ideals.csumb.edu/vision 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 1) Does a public institution have a right and/or a responsibility to "institutionalize" its idea of morality? I do believe that any public school or institution has the right to create and implement vision and mission statements (idea of morality). Each California State University, and University of California, has their own unique visions, missions, and values. Each is specified to their locations and school emphasis. For example, the following are snippets from five California Universities: California State University, Monterey Bay: The curriculum of CSUMB will be student and society centered and of sufficient breadth and depth to meet statewide and regional needs, specifically those involving both inner-city and isolated rural populations, and needs relevant to communities in the immediate Tri-County region (Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito). California State University, Long Beach: CSULB is committed to being an outstanding teaching-intensive, research-driven university that emphasizes student engagement, scholarly and creative achievement, civic participation, and global perspectives. California State University, Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles has one of the most diverse student populations of any college or university in the nation. Building on the strengths of this rich diversity, our University prepares students for success in advanced studies, in their careers, and throughout their live. California State University, Los Angeles graduates constitute a major leadership force in Greater Los Angeles, a microcosm of the global society.

San Francisco State University: San Francisco State University aspires to be the nation's preeminent public urban university. Building on a century-long history of offering broad access to undergraduate and graduate education, the University will provide a learning community in which students can equip themselves to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace and world. We will become an institution of choice for many by offering comprehensive, rigorous, and integrated academic programs that require students to engage in open-minded inquiry and reflection in multiple real-world contexts. We will implement this vision in one of the world's great cities and its surrounding metropolitan area, making the San Francisco Bay region our classroom, as we prepare our students to become active, ethical citizens of a pluralistic democracy, possessing a global perspective. UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles): UCLAs core mission can be expressed in just three words: Education, Research, Service...UCLA's primary purpose as a public research university is the creation, dissemination, preservation and application of knowledge for the betterment of our global society. To fulfill this mission, UCLA is committed to academic freedom in its fullest terms: We value open access to information, free and lively debate conducted with mutual respect for individuals, and freedom from intolerance. In all of our pursuits, we strive at once for excellence and diversity, recognizing that openness and inclusion produce true quality. These values underlie our three institutional responsibilities. The idea of vision statements, to me and the education community, are to create greater goals for both students and faculty. They serve as reminders about the greater good and success that students can achieve, as well as the great impact, influence, and inspiration faculty have on growing students. Mission Statements have become somewhat of an expectation for many public schools, even becoming regional accreditation requirements in Alabama elementary school requirements (School Mission Statements: Where Is Your School Going?). There is no law that prohibits public schools from creating and instilling these values on their students. However, they do have to respect everyones right to free speech; this was established with the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969 (What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?). Many of these vision and mission statements are very broad and vague definitions of what universities have to offer. UCLAs first brief mission statement, Education, Research, Service, can be interpreted many ways. However, it still is a common goal for all at the university to strive to incorporate in their academic lives. What makes CSUMBs vision statement even more unique, are the in depth and specific statements on curriculum and regional partners and influences. This could be why Philip Laverty was so vocal about his opposition to a Indoctrination U. However, like Leigh Anne states, he

has the right to protest these points in the vision statement; faculty too are protected under the First Amendment. 2) What are the potential positive and negative outcomes of doing this? Positives: 1. Common goals 2. Guided curriculum 3. Clear objectives 4. Creating better citizens 5. Creating civil & diverse university communities 6. Fosters open-minds 7. Fosters innovation and success Negatives: 1. Narrow, or one, viewpoint(s) 2. Not excepting of other views 3) Finally, does IT play a neutral role here? ITs only role in creating and implementing the vision statement is the fact they are the ones to post it on the Universitys web page. They most likely do not have any role in creating the text itself and enforcing it throughout the Universitys students and faculty. So, yes, IT does play a neutral role in the vision statement and assenting views of the statement.

Discussion #8B: Not In My Back Yard, Literally

On Tuesday, November 5th, Monterey County voters will decide a strongly contested battle over the use of former Fort Ord lands in Measures K and M. The purpose of this threaded discussion is NOT to discuss your individual stance on this issue but rather to critically explore each side's websites to determine which side is most effective in persuading voters. Are both sides being ethical in the ways they're communicating? If not, give specific examples from the websites that you feel are unethical. http://fortordaccess.org http://securethepromise.org My main concern with these measure is the use of false information. Secure The Promise presents their arguments as Yes on K: Keep the promise for veterans cemetery and No on M: Mistake for Fort Ord - Dishonors Veterans/Blocks Access. On the main page for Secure the Promise the present very over simplified and false information about the measures. With these statements the political organization is misleading voters to think that Measure M takes away the land for a veterans cemetery: When Fort Ord closed nearly 20 years ago, state and local officials promised our Veterans a California Central Coast Veterans Cemetery to honor their service. Measure M on the November 5th ballot would break that promise (Secure the Promise). However, after finding outside resources I found that this statement is false. Jimmy Panetta, son of Leon Panetta, states Our focus is on the land in cemetery. The measures as you just stated focus on the land outside the cemetery. So right now in regards to phase one no matter what happens with the measures, that cemetery, as long as we have the community support that cemetery will get started and will get built (Veterans Meet Deadline). The land is already allocated for the veterans cemetery mean Measures M does not break the promise to veterans like Secure the Promise blatantly states. Secure the Promise is not alone in over simplifying and presenting false information. Fort Ord Accesss selling point is that Measure K will create a horse track and casino. Again, after further research, I found that this measure does not approve a race track. What it allows is ...[a] change [in] zoning from community park to a more specific mixed used village district, making it easier to break ground if the horse track gets a green light in the future (Dueling Fort Ord Measures M, K Biggest Nov. 5 Election Battle). This does mean that it would be easier for a track to be built, however, the do present false information saying that Measure K approve the track to be built. Fort Ord Access does a better job of persuading the voter. They present clear facts about each aspect of the measures. They answer questions like: If the initiative passes, what will happen to the Veterans Cemetery that has been proposed on Fort Ord and Is the Fort Ord Access Alliance anti-development. Another convincing point Fort Ord Access presents are the supportive maps and images.

Fort Ord Access: http://fortordaccess.org/faqs/ Secure the Promise: http://securethepromise.org/ Veterans Meet Deadline: http://kazu.org/post/veterans-meet-deadline Dueling Fort Ord Measures M, K Biggest Nov. 5 Election Battle: http://www.ksbw.com/news/ central-california/monterey/dueling-fort-ord-measures-m-k-biggest-nov-5-election-battle/-/ 5738820/22595576/-/110pcqf/-/index.html

Discussion #9B: Surveillance on campus In a March 19 article from last year, the Monterey Herald wrote about racist activities on the CSUMB campus. A brief statement refers to surveillance cameras. 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 surveillance cameras on our campus? What are the ethical issues? Positive Aspects When surveillance cameras are implemented in a correct and reasonable way they can be effective. A case reported by Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center, showed that putting in a surveillance camera to find the culprit of vandalism decreased that crime rate by 95 percent in a midwestern school district (Privacy vs. Security, Scholastic Administrator). Another positive aspect is the open conversation that the topic can bring. When administrations explore the idea of security cameras, parents, teachers, and students should all be involved in the discussion. When these parties are well informed and vocal about the issue, the administration can work with them to create the best possible security measures (Privacy vs. Security, Scholastic Administrator). Negative Aspects One of the first noticeable negative impacts in the cost. Many security systems can cost $500,000 or more (Privacy vs. Security, Scholastic Administrator). Public schools, in this current state, do not have spare money to invest in these security measures. In my opinion, the money is better spent on improving classroom lessons and providing quality education to the students. By implementing these cameras without consent of the student body, distrust can arise between students and administration. With the overbearing administration, students could see it as Big Brother watching over their every move. These security camera measures are definitely a slippery slope. This idea of Big Brother isnt far off either. Currently, a public school in Novi, Michigan provides the police access to the footage of the schools security cameras (Privacy vs. Security, Scholastic Administrator). There is also no concrete evidence to support that surveillance cameras, and other methods, are effective. The National Association of School Psychologists Research on School Security states affects violence, students perceptions, and school climate. Their research shows that, Surveillance cameras in schools may have the effect of simply moving misbehavior to places in schools or outside of schools that lack surveillance. Even more troubling, its possible that cameras may function as enticement to largescale violence, such as in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter who mailed video images of himself to news outlets (Research on School Security). Ethical Issues Privacy of the students and teachers is the main concern. Dorm rooms, bathrooms, and lockers rooms are the key locations that would be the most important. However, after a 2003 court case, Brannum v. Overton County School Board, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that schools cannot install surveillance cameras inside locker rooms (Privacy vs. Security, Scholastic Administrator). Providing quality education can also be seen as an ethical issue. Schools have an ethical responsibility to provide the best possible education. However, security measures can

hinder that, both financially and socially. Like I mentioned above, camera systems can be costly. That money could have been used else where to provide better in class instruction and new and improved curriculum. Some studies have also shown that surveillance also impacts the students learning, suggesting ...that restrictive school security measures have the potential to harm school learning environments (Research on School Security).

Discussion #10B: eMail, excuse me...Gmail A few years ago, CSUMB migrated from a proprietary and closed email system (FirstClass) to Gmail, Google's Internet delivered system which offers many "cloudcomputing" features at a significantly reduced price (free*) to the University. The Gmail version implemented is a university-oriented service with unique features and storage capabilities not available in their standard package available to the public. From an IT user's perspective, what do you think are the pros and cons of this decision to change email systems? From an IT management perspective, what do you think are the pros and cons of this decision to change email systems? What are the potential ethical issues for the university and how would you recommend the administration address them? Finally, do you trust Google? *CSUMB does pay for additional elective services, primarily archiving for eDiscover services in the case of lawsuits. USER Pros Google Drive access Cloud based: connection from anywhere Android, iPhone, Blackberry, Tablets Fast collaboration with other university students Easy access to all university email address No cost, no ads 30GB storage per user Group work collaboration easier Increase productivity with apps Remotely work with peers Instant Messaging Video Conference Data automatically backed up Cons Data automatically backed up (to Google servers) Google claims: Increased security & reliability Strong encryption & authentication Your privacy is respected Disabilities: claims to be accessible, however, usability not there (From information shared of Traviss user experience) MANAGEMENT Pros Google takes care of infrastructure Access to Googles newest features and security updates Dont have to buy servers Dont have to maintain servers Cost: Free Easy to add new students, staff, and faculty to the list Google Apps update automatically No special hardware or software Cons Now have no control over servers

 Solely relying on Google Contracts? Has to abide by Google Privacy Policy: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ ETHICAL ISSUES Google has sole control over all aspects of the services, most importantly servers and privacy policy. The school, students, faculty, and staff must have total trust in Googles individually determined moral and ethical code. If Google were to start following unethical practices, for example sharing information with other companies, they would have to face consequences of breaching their policies and moral codes. Some ethical issues could come up within the Privacy Policy itself. Google states that there is information that the collect including, Location information: When you use a locationenabled Google service, we may collect and process information about your actual location, like GPS signals sent by a mobile device. We may also use various technologies to determine location, such as sensor data from your device that may, for example, provide information on nearby Wi-Fi access points and cell towers (Googles Privacy Policy). TRUST I have never been given a reason to not trust Google and their services. I have chosen to use Googles services, Gmail, since I was in junior high (about 9/10 years). I have grown up with their services in all aspects of my eduction, high school and college. I have found all products to be extremely helpful and extremely well designed. However, with recent issues regarding information being watched on the internet, I am a little more informed, and maybe even a bit wary. Although, I do still feel as though I trust Google with my information. Gmail & Google Apps for Universities information found on: Education Products http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/products.html Apps For Education http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/ Apps For Education: Benefits http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/education/benefits.html

Discussion #11B: Technology as a core CSUMB Value 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. POSITIVE Focus more on higher achieving academic classes Students in majors not requiring technology are free focus more on their academic course work Cohesive university system NEGATIVE Less proficient 21st century students and workforce School and student do not evolve with the changing times Less innovation ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS In my opinion, universities are responsible for creating and inspiring the future of innovation and technology. If the base tech requirement were to be taken away, I believe that the university would be, in a way, failing to meet their ethical responsibility to provide an innovative environment. Since the 1970s, the university systems have been linked with industrial innovation in America (Universities in National Innovation Systems). It would, in my opinion, be the downfall of the university system if they were not technologically oriented.

UNIVERSITIES IN NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS http://innovate.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Mowery-Sampat-Univ-NationalInnovation-Systems.pdf

Discussion #12B: You, technology and CSUMB Remember: Discussion, not monologue. PART ONE: How has technology enhanced your EDUCATION at CSUMB? Has CSUMB's use of technology ever had a negative effect on your learning? If so, how-and what would you recommend to correct the problem? PART TWO: How has technology enhanced your SOCIAL LIFE during your time at CSUMB? Do you Twitter? Do you Facebook? Has CSUMB's use of technology ever had a positive or negative effect on the way you interact with friends, family, faculty, and/or the administration? If negative, how--and what would you recommend to correct the problem? PART ONE I completely agree with Jacob in his first points. Being in a technology related field makes the integration into the education system very helpful on the pathway to our degrees. In a sense, learning additional tech tools like iLearn and Google Docs adds to our employability in the tech industry. Another point Jacob makes is doing on the spot research. I have heard many people say that in this day in age education is more about learning the skills to find knowledge rather than learning the knowledge directly. This seems key in the moving 21st century. There is more information out there than we could possible imagine and modern people cannot possibly be required to store it all in their brains. Learning these related technological research tools is key to any future job position, whether it is in the tech industry or not. As for the negatives, I do not see any negative effects on my learning. However, this site, Technology and Education, argues that the constant use of technology can add to the short attention span of children and students (Technology and Education). (I do note that this site is not a scholarly site, it is research and opinion of a student, Gaurav Hardikar). I can see how the general use of technology has affected my attention span over the years, but it is not solely related to adding it in an academic setting. PART TWO Social media has affected my social life, however, I dont know if I would say enhanced. I do not have a Facebook; almost 2 years Facebook free! But I do have a Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. These sites, even though they are social, do not add much to my social life. I can see a way it could detract from my friends and social experiences. I find that I am too attached to my phone; even when having fun with friends I check Instagram multiples times... As for CSUMBs use of technology, I agree with Jacob again. The Google services, especially email, make it way easier to communicate with students, faculty, and administration. I dont think it increases my interaction, however, it does make it easier to communicate with professors in particular.

Discussion #13B: Etzioni and the Boston Marathon bombings Last April's Boston Marathon bombings illustrate 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. Etzioni As we all know, Etzioni stresses the importance of a balance between individuals privacy and the great good of society. His contemporary conception of privacy is outlined as: ...the assumption that good societies carefully balance individual rights and social responsibilities, autonomy and the common good, privacy and concerns for public safety and public health, rather than allow one value or principle to dominate (Etzioni). The Boston Marathon bombings killed four individuals and injured 170 (The Boston Victims). In this situation, Etzioni would call for procedures, and maybe even legislation, that supports the protection of the common good (protecting the lives). But this would be done in the proper manner; he uses four criterion to evaluate these situations and what can be done: After determining that the common good (or privacy) needs shoring up, the second criterion examines whether that goal can be achieved without recalibrating privacy (Etzioni). The third criterion points to the merit of minimally intrusive interventions (Etzioni). The fourth criterion asks whether the suggested changes in law and public policy should include treatments of undesirable side effects of the needed interventions (Etzioni). Criterion 1: In this case, the common good needs to be protected. Criterion 2: However, it cannot be done without taking away some individual privacy using social media and other digital information. Criterion 3: This can be done with minimal intrusive interventions. The employment of individual participation is key as well. The community may volunteer their own information for the benefit of the investigation. Criterion 4: With volunteerism of the citizen, legislation would not be a necessary process. Account that the collection of personal data was all volunteerism: FBI officials have set up a hot line at 1-800-Call-FBI to let investigators know of images taken in the area. The FBI has

posted a statement saying "no piece of information or detail is too small" to report. FBI Special Agent Rich DesLauriers said "assistance from the public remains critical" to the investigation. He added that the FBI had received "voluminous tips" in the first 18 hours after the bombings that killed three and injured 173 others (Massive Citizen Smartphone Photo and Video Probe). Amitai Etzioni. The Limits Of Privacy (Kindle Locations 2206-2207). Kindle Edition. Personal & Policies I do not want to just reiterate what Etzioni says and his perspectives, although, I do believe that this seems to be the best possible course of action. Having and open discussion and form between the government and its citizens is, in my opinion, key to running a balanced society. Volunteerism of personal information and data allows for the individuals in the society to feel as though that they are a part of something. However, if the government demanded, or took files without asking, many (if not all) would feel violated and not part of a cooperative society. As for legislation, I feel that the government should create it based on the idea citizen volunteerism. This allows for the benefit of the process of data and crowd sourcing but keeping the open discussion on limiting privacy. Response to Jacob Salinas I agree with your statement and opinion that "...there should be policies on how the footage is obtained from the owners of the cameras; this can obviously be done through warrants or other means." In the Boston bombing cases, the government did comply with the "proper" way to obtain the footage. For personal individual data, they relied solely on volunteerism for this photo and video footage. You also considered the storage of the footage, which I failed to acknowledge. I think that your suggestion of "...restriction on how long they are able to store the footage after completing their investigation" is something that should be greatly considered for legislation.