“The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and the other begins?”—Edgar Allan Poe, “The Premature Burial”
The lifespan of a human being is short and fragile. Many if not at the beginning, middle, or end of their life began to think, what can I do to be remembered? Not so long ago, having a place to rest the dead was the only thing that would matter. A place for the family to visit that was destined to be the resting place for the family when the time comes. Yet, currently that is not an option, with so much technology taking over, DeadSocial is the option. Jenny Kleeman from The Guardian mentioned that plans for the afterlife are beginning to involve social media. People spend so much time in their social media that this has led to a different way to be remembered. For example, Facebook has a memorial, when one of its users dies and the family decides to cancel the deceased’s account, what Facebook does is convert the user’s page into a memorial page. Assuming their terms and conditions do not allow the family to make any kind of changes to the user’s account, they are only creating a memorial with proof (death certificate). Likewise, twitter has its own term of services. Tweeter, “will keep [the user’s] Twitter feed alive by analyzing… old tweets.” Is it ethical to have a social media memorial (grave) instead of an actual funeral? Some people think that this is not the case anymore. “[T]he internet is not going anywhere. All…digital content and archived information will be [available]” This is still something new in social media. There is no guarantee that the information provided to DeadSocial, Facebook or any other media won’t be removed. Also, what if the data gets corrupted, accounts get hacked and the privacy of a dead person is now in the hands of media companies. What kind of rules need to be followed? Keeman also mentioned that there are two ways people are defined, first some people say their “goodbyes in their own way”, this means that their funeral is the classical version, they only need people to remember who they were and their grave stone. The second type, is the type that likes to live on virtually, with never ending friendships. Ethically, each human being has their own ways to face death and their own that way they want to be remembered, even when the family doesn’t like the idea.
3 Comments
The reality of today is as clear as water, many companies pursue the next big investment of their lives, and many gamers pursue the next augmented reality game. Games that can be played not in a virtual world and using a computer, but a game in which they can interact with actual players and places in the real world. As Katherine Cross mentioned in her article “Augmented Reality Games like Pokémon Go Need Code of Ethics – Now” because it’s becoming a game in which players don’t follow the law. Many players have trespassed on private property and have been arrested for putting others in danger. Cross mentioned also that the game had many flaws and Niantic’s developers have fixed them. Augmented reality lets the user interact with real objects while virtual reality does not. This is one of the few games that use augmented reality, and the one that has raised real-world concerns. First, the harassment that young women have been exposed to, as well as stalking. The Pokémon Go application lets other users know the location of players around them; it also provides places where players can get items to level up. This brings the ethical questions of the harm that a simple and interactive game can do to players of all ages.
The pursuit of an augmented reality has consequences and developers need to act, because if their game causes a player to die “[w]ould Niantic stand up” and take responsibility?” The life of a player is precious, therefore, the game of life and death should be taken seriously. In a virtual reality, it doesn’t matter how many times the user’s avatar dies, it will always come back to life. Harassment and stalking are not the only issues, sex offenders are the big problem this game can have. New York has solved part of this problem already by denying “sex offenders on parole… able to sign up for Pokémon Go and other Internet-enabled games as conditions of their sentence.” The question here is: are other states doing the same? Twenty-two percent of the players who play Pokémon Go are minors and as minors they are easy targets for sex offenders or anyone who has ill intentions. It is the developer's right to decide and make changes as they see fit. When it comes to this kind of game, developers should take it as a serious matter. They are the ones who make the rules and who create the environment in which the player must feel safe. As the New York senators mentioned on NPR, the city has an agreement with at least “40 social media and related technology companies” that have an updated record of registered sex offenders, but there is no agreement with social media platform. In fact, it is said that Niantic’s developer was contacted and was offered an agreement to protect children and others from sex offenders. Snopes.com mentioned that the developer actually came up with a good idea to let players know when a sex offender is a mile away from them. The Pokémon will “let out a full-throat howl through [the] phone’s speakers, letting [the player know] to stay alert.” Nevertheless, the developer should consider augmented reality as an important part of life that needs to be taken seriously. The importance to be able to make decisions has made many wonder if it is okay to be under surveillance and give up their freedom. The protection that is being offered is not always the best solution, but it’s the best that can be provided by the government. In the “controversial snooping technology ‘used by at least seven police forces’” by David Peg and Rob Evans, it is mentioned that under certain circumstances the use of IMSI catcher is necessary to track and hunt down criminals. The issue here is that many don’t have an idea of what IMSI is and why the police are using it. IMSI catcher is an “international mobile subscriber identity technology” leading officers to rely on and buy this type of software to arrest criminals. However, this kind of software is an “intrusion into the private lives of many innocent individuals” who do not have a criminal history, but are also targeted. If these devices track individuals and gather information, of course it will bother citizens and this is the reason the police denied using them.
Moreover, it’s not just the police, but the government, and its citizens and everyone is and was being heard and recorded. How did the people find out they were not trusted by their own government? This happens when police begin to illegally wiretap others. It is very controversial, having the police acting like criminals. Yet, when looking at it from a different perspective, the police are trying to keep up with new technology and doing what they can to catch the bad guys out in the streets. Many people don’t care and don’t really know what is going on around them, they prefer to be protected, no matter at what price. Another, issue is the way police handle IMSI and wiretapping. As it is mentioned by Brad Heath and Brett Kelman in their article “Police used apparently illegal wiretaps to make hundreds of arrests” in Riverside California. They violated federal law in their unauthorized use of wiretapping, maybe many knew their phone was being wiretapped and others didn’t care because they think they have nothing to hide. Everyone has something to hide and everyone has secrets that nobody wants others to know about. It is the same with every single human being around the world. In Riverside California, the justice department of that county decided the authorization requirement of wiretapping. So, if the justice department decides it, wouldn’t they know that police’s massive operation can “jeopardize prosecutors’ ability to use the surveillance in court”? It is well described by both authors that this kind of surveillance damages the police’s reputation and trust that its people have put into them. At the same time, it protects them from danger and criminals, the police should let the truth about the use of IMSI become known. Given that they have a better chance that the public will take it for their own sake. There should be rules on how surveillance should be used and how much of the information recorded by it should be kept or destroyed. Who doesn’t love to play video games and online games? Everyone does. In a game, everything is possible to accomplish if there is effort and time. There are things that, in the real world are not possible, simple things such as public speaking, collaborating with others and expressing oneself. Of all the possible technological advances that are coming out, virtual reality has taken the top choice of many gamers. Virtual reality (VR) lets its users create their own world, worlds in which only they have the authority to do whatever they want. Yet, without authority there is nothing that someone can do if they begin to confuse reality with virtual reality. The integration of VR into real life has many users happy. Now, it’s easier than ever before to meet people around the world without being ashamed of oneself, or to speak up and say what’s on our minds. “[V]irtual reality… will greatly enhance education, science, industry, art, and entertainment.”
Moreover, it’s not just the change and the advantage of having VR to enhance society, but the issue is that, this brings “physical and mental problems” too. VR doesn’t just happen, it must be programmed, and with the new devices hitting the market comes changes in the brain. The human brain is an extraordinary organ that has millions if not billions of circuits (neurons) to make the body functional. Another issue is that VR can “alter the way people perceive the real world”, users’ (players) can confuse both worlds. Their conscious can make them think that the world their living is the virtual world and not the real one. This is because users who are getting affected are the ones who are living the game online and not living their real life outside the game. In the article “Which World? The Future of Virtual Reality”, some of the ethical issues that are encounter by VR and its communities are explained in greater depth. Not only that, but it mentions that people who play in this kind of game are not always the asocial groups that cannot express themselves to others openly. This means that VR can be dangerous but it can also help those who are not capable of building relationships with others. Then again, it is an issue that anyone playing or living in a virtual word cannot fully interact with a human being. In a virtual world, users also have the option of creating their avatar. An avatar is a character that is created in the likeness of whoever created them. This raises the ethical dilemma of whether it is right or not “to see others, as beautiful or fantastic” implying that in the real world human beings are placed in categories of being ugly, beautiful, smart, dumb, losers and others. It creates prejudice against those who are not looking for perfection but to bring meaning to their lives. VR can not only create prejudice but also isolate its users from what’s really going on in the real world. The article also mentioned that gamers have gone as far as to kill themselves rather than giving up their activity. This has gone far from a simple game and simple technological advancement to a phycological trauma. Developers and engineers should be implementing laws and rules that are applicable to the user. If users want to keep living a long healthy life they should put their health first above all. “Every betrayal contains a perfect moment, a coin stamped heads or tails with salvation on the other side.” – Barbara Kingsolver
The trust that is placed in corporations is being used against the users. Corporations might help you get a home or a loan, and are a daily use to human beings. Every person has something to do with such corporations, but most of all, with social media and email providers. Considering how many people now have access to the internet, it was obvious that they were only looking to get its users’ private information. There are things that we don’t get informed about for example we don’t want to go through the struggle of reading their privacy policy. That’s our first mistake, we either trust the company or we just don’t care and leave it to them to decide the fate of our accounts. Yet, it’s not just big corporations that are going after personal information; the government has taken its part in all this too. The United States is a country that protects freedom of speech, but if the higher ups of the Government hear something they don’t like they most likely will not think twice to send someone to jail. That’s exactly what happened to Yu Ling’s husband, Yahoo Betrayed [her] husband by selling his information to the Chinese government. Ling’s husband Wang Xiaoning was a journalist who wrote e-mails and sent them through Yahoo’s email service provider to another group of journalists. Xiaoning’s email was compromised because he wrote about political issues. The Chinese government has a different government system than the United States; their government is communist. This means that China is ruled by a Chinese Communist Party, one of the biggest political parties in the world. This is one of the reasons Ling’s husband was sent to jail after writing about his own country’s political issues. The second reason is because Yahoo must follow China’s law to be able to expand in other countries. The term “survival of the fittest” is well applied in this case. Yahoo doesn’t want to lose benefits and relationships with such countries. One thing is true, “Yahoo betrayed [Ling’s husband] and deprived him of freedom.” Yahoo cooperated deliberately with the Chinese government to apprehend anyone who writes or says anything related to the government. The fight to get her husband out of prison began by flying to the U.S. to sue and hold Yahoo accountable for what was done to her and her husband. “[H]er presence in the United States puts an inescapable human face on the pain caused by the uneasy alliances American technology companies have forged [with China and other countries].” On the other hand, Yahoo has the right to comply with the demands made by the country it resides and promote its services with. Just as anyone who travels to a different country must follow that country’s law to make their staying pleasant. Yahoo’s spokesman says, “[they] don’t explain to us or telecom companies or anyone the reason why they’re demanding specific information.” If they want to make their business expand they must follow the law even when they don’t like it. They had two choices: to defend their clients or to give them up. Yahoo decided to give them up. Who is going to trust a company who just sold its users like a piece of paper? They value the law above all and not the “human rights standards.” Imagine how fascinating it would be to give our soldiers their limbs back. The feeling of finally getting their life and stability to work and being able to function in an independent way. As they transition from a regular prosthetic to a robotic prosthetic that can be controlled by their brain. Now and in this century, things that were not available before to soldiers or people who have lost part of their body are now improving thanks to technology and AI. Soldiers are given a second chance to get back on their feet, as they have lost part of their body in war and suffered through the process of not being able to help their country and family as they have wished to.
Some people criticize the president of the United States for not doing anything for the soldiers, it is rare to see him getting involved in an event that presents for the first time a robotic arm that gives its user back the feeling of touch and control over the prosthetic. “Obama Geeks Out Over a Brain-Controlled Robotic Arm that ‘Feels’” by Davey Alba, provides a photograph where president Obama is holding Nathan Copeland’s prosthetic hand. Copeland who was in a car accident and was unable to walk and move because “he suffered a spinal cord injury” is the first one to use the system and able to control the arm with his brain by sending it commands. This shows that technology does not only hurt people but help them in a way that can change their lives and feel alive again. The robotic arm was designed and created by DARPA and the National Science Foundation, however, would this arm be available at a lower price or will it be an expensive arm to get a hold of. There are low income people who wouldn’t be able to buy or get surgery due to the lack of money. So, if there is a change for people with fewer resources getting an arm like this one, it will benefit not only the user but the country because that person would be able to get back to work and be productive to society. Families wouldn’t get destroyed and soldiers would benefit by this new creation. Something very interesting is the thought of the government having its own toys too. In the article, it was mentioned that the SpaceX representative’s goal is to one day visit Mars. SpaceX is a project that NASA is working on, a capsule that one day will take us to Mars giving us the ability to stay and adventure on a Mars. Therefore, the thought that it was mentioned that the government has better toys means that they are hiding something, something that can be beneficial or that can destroy the country’s stability. The point here after all is the benefit that having a robotic arm controlled by the brain brings to the people who need part of their body. There is a price to pay for that to happen. It’s not just a regular arm but something that the brain can control, and it can be hacked if the opportunity arises. |
AuthorI transferred to CSUMB in the Spring 2016 from Hartnell Community College. I'm currently working towards my bachelor's in Network and Security and minor in Business Administration. ![]() Archives
December 2016
Categories |