Monthly Archives: February 2013

Reaping the Benefits of Technology in Cybernetics

Technology tends to revolutionize the culture that embraces it, but not necessarily for the better.  Social media for example accounts for much of our social interaction, and the internet is slowly eliminating our need for traditional outlets for goods and information. Every once in a while, we hear of technological advancements that don’t just change the shape our lives take, but truly revolutionize what individuals are capable of. A school in Switzerland just announced an advancement they made by connecting a hand prosthetic to the human nervous system, allowing recipients of the prosthetic to feel again. This is an excellent example of perhaps the greatest purposes of technology. Technology is at it’s best when it is used as a tool to help people lead meaningful and fulfilling lives, as illustrated here, not when lives become slaves to technology.

Electronic Borders

Laws, defined in terms of lines, are the foundation of justice in society.  When a line is crossed, a punishment is incurred. For a law to be effective, the line must be defined well enough for all individuals to recognize when it is crossed. In cyberspace, these law defining lines have not been well explored, and, as a result, are not clear. If someone locates sensitive information online, but doesn’t make a digital copy, does it still constitute theft? What if the information wasn’t protected? Common crimes do have digital equivalents; however, the nuances are different due to the nature of digital information. An example: do you become a thief if by glancing in a neighbors open window you see something of value? Hardly, law is not capable of regulating where individuals look. On the other hand, individuals have been taken to court for exactly this kind of digital window shopping. Before we can obey the law, we must understand the law, and before we can understand the law, it must be defined clearly and comprehensibly. In order to enforce justice in cyberspace, specific laws regarding digital conduct must be defined.

Federal Funding for the Foolish?

Title IX. That should stir in your mind thoughts about a policy relating to collegiate athletics and something about funding. Title IX was passed in 1972, requiring equity for men and women in any educational program receiving federal financial assistance. Though not limited to, it is commonly associated with athletics, as collegiate athletic programs have often disbanded certain men’s sports in order to fund additional women’s programs. Equal opportunities for men and women in collegiate athletics is a wonderful thing, but does it really need to be financed and legislated be the federal government? If students want a program for a sport, let them work for it. Let them fund-raise, let them petition the university for money, let them volunteer to do some of the paid jobs themselves, but don’t let them put themselves at the mercy of the government and risk being shut down because the feds can’t (and shouldn’t) finance and legislate another aspect of our lives.

Power of Information

On February 1st, 2013 Google stock hit an all time high, closing at $775.60. They also recently finished up two antitrust lawsuits, in the U.S. and in Europe, escaping unscathed. Depending on the region, Google owns between sixty-five and ninety percent of the market; not to mention all of the public and personal data they own between Gmail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Drive, Picasa, and the rest of their online services. This Goliath of Silicon Valley doesn’t seem to be slowing down, and the masses aren’t showing any opposition. But why should we? So much of our daily lives is powered by Google at no cost. They’re on the cutting edge, setting unmatched precedents with self-driving cars and augmented reality. Everything they do seems to better the world, and we often don’t even think twice about how much power they have. Perhaps there is no reason to worry, but the potential consequences of misuse of that power are enormous.