Jessica's blog

Some interesting videos/articles from today:

Study Smarter Not Harder

For Gulati’s Econ:

1. Life: Your closest friends can be your greatest disappointments
2. Life: Never trust anyone who makes promises too easily
3. Life: You get more when you put in more of your time and effort (clubs, classes, friendships)
4. Life: Have empathy for others
5. Life: Find ways to motivate yourself and improve yourself other than from those around you
6. Data Structures: Maps and topological sorts can be used to determine prerequisites

Privacy Debate: Government on Encryption for Social Media and Personal Technology to Prevent Terrorism, Gang Violence, and Crime

We currently live in an age where technology and social media has grown exponentially in the past decades and continues to become more and more prevalent in our daily lives. Although this has allowed for people and communities to collaborate and stay well-connected with each other over a multitude of platforms, it has also provided a convenient facet for militant groups and terrorist organizations to recruit members, communicate orders, and execute their malicious attacks. With so much personal data stored in the web, social media platforms, and our daily technology such as cell phones, tablets, and laptops, companies have put substantial effort in making sure all user information is safe–well encrypted and private. This is beneficial for the average citizen, but not when encryption also protects the malicious plans and information of terrorist and militant groups. Tensions rise between the government and private corporations; this touches upon an important debate between user privacy and encryption and government warrant. There are certain ethical questions we must ask ourselves regarding encryption and privacy: Should the government receive the warrant to have tech companies give them information on personal accounts and passwords in order to investigate crime and militant or terrorist groups? Regarding social media and electronic mail platforms, such as instagram, facebook, Gmail, and Twitter, should the government be able to see content posted in private accounts or private messages in emails? There is an ongoing debate on this issue, and touches upon the precedent of law enforcement: how far will government go to protect its citizens even if it meant access all personal accounts, technology, and social media and how will this impact the average citizen? Does this essentially mean that there would be complete transparency and no privacy– a 4th amendment right? How does this fall into the engineering code of ethics for private corporations?

The first argument calls into the careful mediation the negative effects of government intervention and warrant into private technology and social media accounts, and whether it is truly beneficial for the common good. According to Bob Lord, Yahoo’s Security Chief on the encryption debate, “there are human rights activists throughout the world who struggle to communicate freely, to organize and to share their thoughts because their governments are looking to control the telecom companies, and the phone companies.” (1). Other than human right activities, Lord states that there is a growing danger, ranging from “Eastern European criminal syndicates to foreign nation-states” that can hurt and steal information from thousands of people (1). The role of encryption holds importance in protecting those people when they try to communicate with their banks, with their doctors, with the government over tax issues without their information being stolen or used for malicious purposes.

Although the privacy and information of the general population should be conserved, there are still terrorists and militant groups that utilize these mediums to recruit and pass information that can potentially perpetrate the death of thousands of people as shown thrown violent attacks throughout history. In fact, Al-Qaeda has been noted as being one of the terror groups that uses social media the most extensively  to spread its global communications (2). A man named Mohammed Yazdani, who was a poor engineer from India, was able to easily join ISIS by logging into Twitter, searching the hashtags #ISIS and #Khilafa, and quickly making contact with an Islamic State recruiter (3). ISIS helped Yazdani recruit conspirators, locate weapon caches prepositioned around India, and attempt to manufacture explosives (3). In this case, would it be more reasonable for government to have media surveillance into private accounts? Wouldn’t it be acceptable to compromise the average citizen’s privacy if it meant saving millions of lives? Past simply social media, should the government have access into any technological device we own? In the infamous FBI-Apple encryption dispute, the FBI ordered Apple to unlock and disable the auto-erase function of an iPhone 5C owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people and critically injured 22 (4).  The two attackers had died four hours after the attack in a shootout with the police, having previously destroyed their personal phones. Despite having recovered Farook’s work phone, the government was at a loss, as it was locked with a four-digit password and programmed to delete all its data after ten failed attempts. In order to investigate the tragedy and identify anyone who was involved with the shooting in order to prevent future occurrences of such event, the police needed access into this phone, yet Apple refused, stating that unlocking the phone would open a backdoor and risk all its customers. Apple does present an important factor to consider, but the question needs to be asked as to what other options are there for law enforcement? The goals have been to build encryption as secure as possible, which means no built-in vulnerabilities and also means at some point, but also to maintain general welfare and prevent terrorist attacks and the spread of harm. These two mediums must be balanced.

According to the EEE Code of Ethics and NSP Code of Ethics of Engineering, one the first Rules of Practice of being an engineer is to “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” (5). In my opinion, a protocol for the government to bypass encryption should be carefully set up with specific guidelines of when it is permitted so it does not prive into the private lives of average citizens. The level of potential harm must exceed a certain threshold for government intervention into private accounts and technology, and this threshold should be quantified and calculated weighing multiple factors to reduce subjectivity and bias. This will prevent law enforcement from getting entangled in citizen communications with their banks, with doctors, family, etc; and make sure that citizen privacy is kept for the most part. Until the threshold of potential harm is met, the government should not be able to access private accounts or technology, and the information would only ever be used to mitigate harm in the general public, and not to be commercialized or publicized in any way, following the 4th  rule of practice in the engineering code of ethics: “Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve” (5). Implications to these practices should be considered–including defining what defines the greater good. For example, in a hypothetical scenarios, if a girl might was going to commit suicide or may be potentially be murdered by a stranger she was talking to online and her mom needs access to her phone–would the government intervene? Or is this a breach in privacy into private conservations? It is important to define strict lines, and follow the engineering code of ethics to benefit the safety, health, and welfare of the public. So in the end, the question is, what is the right thing for the largest number of people under the largest number of circumstances. That’s where the government should be able to access private accounts and personal technology–to provide the largest amount of common good.

Citations:

1. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/28/475883338/yahoos-security-chief-on-encryption-debate-what-is-the-greater-good
2. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/28/475883338/yahoos-security-chief-on-encryption-debate-what-is-the-greater-good
3. https://safelab.socialwork.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Multimodal_Social_Media_Analysis_for_Gang_Violence.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute
5. https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

I thought Steve Job’s last letter was really inspirational, since the stage he’s reached in life is what we all (especially as engineers/tech majors) strive to, but in the end he’s learned that there’s a world outside of what we esteem:

“I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world. In others’ eyes my life is an epitome of success. However, aside from work, I have little joy. In the end, wealth is only a fact of life that I am accustomed to. At this moment, lying on the sick bed and recalling my whole life, I realize that all the recognition and wealth that I took so much pride in, have paled and become meaningless in the face of impending death. You can employ someone to drive the car for you, make money for you but you cannot have someone to bear the sickness for you. Material things lost can be found. But there is one thing that can never be found when it is lost – “Life”. When a person goes into the operating room, he will realize that there is one book that he has yet to finish reading – “Book of Healthy Life”. Whichever stage in life we are at right now, with time, we will face the day when the curtain comes down. Treasure Love for your family, love for your spouse, love for your friends… Treat yourself well. Cherish others. As we grow older, and hence wiser, we slowly realize that wearing a $300 or $30 watch – they both tell the same time… Whether we carry a $300 or $30 wallet/handbag – the amount of money inside is the same; Whether we drive a $150,000 car or a $30,000 car, the road and distance is the same, and we get to the same destination. Whether we drink a bottle of $300 or $10 wine – the hangover is the same; Whether the house we live in is 300 or 3000 sq ft – loneliness is the same. You will realize, your true inner happiness does not come from the material things of this world. Whether you fly first or economy class, if the plane goes down – you go down with it… Therefore.. I hope you realize, when you have mates, buddies and old friends, brothers and sisters, who you chat with, laugh with, talk with, have sing songs with, talk about north-south-east-west or heaven and earth, That is true happiness!!

Five Undeniable Facts of Life :

1. Don’t educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be Happy. So when they grow up they will know the value of things not the price.

2. Best awarded words in London. “Eat your food as your medicine. Otherwise you have to eat medicine as your food.”

3. The One who loves you will never leave you for another because even if there are 100 reasons to give up he or she will find one reason to hold on.

4. There is a big difference between a human being and being human. Only a few really understand it.

5. You are loved when you are born. You will be loved when you die. In between, You have to manage!

NOTE: If you just want to Walk Fast, Walk Alone! But if you want to Walk Far, Walk Together!

Six Best Doctors in the World;

1. Sunlight
2. Rest
3. Exercise
4. Diet
5. Self Confidence and
6. Friends

Maintain them in all stages of Life and enjoy a healthy life.

1. Life: Everyone’s lost in different states–some are better than hiding it than others
2. Life: Your enemy can become your best friend and your best friend can become your enemy
3. Life: Vulnerability can be your best friend
4. Tech: You can download someone’s blog

TIL #3:

1. Life: Money is there you just need to be proactive in obtaining it
2. Life: People make you more awake
3. Life: The past was less complex
4. Academic: You can make prediction models with python

VR Speaker Presentation: Ink Stories

VR Game:

• 1979 Revolutionary Game:

Interactive/Gestural agency

You will be asked questions

To answer them, nod yes/no

You can youse connect (Xbox?) to do animation/motion capture for avatars

Goals for VR Experiences

• Immersive VR perceptually surrounds the user, increasing his/her sense of presence or actually being within it
• Interactive VR gives participants agency within the immersive world–so they can make valuable choices that have an impact on the world and the others within it. Creating a deeper connection between participants and the story.

Fail states without death → received lots of criticism

• 4D multi sensory & location based:
  • Textured floors
  • Vibration platform
  • Foam particle machine
  • Air vortex cannon
  • Heat lamps
  • Sensory scent machine
  • Realtime prop tracking:
  • Balls, fire extinguisher
  • Planks, walls, varied props
  • Live actor performance
  • Perimeter nets
  • 32-channel open-air sound system

• Blindfold
  • 7 stories simultaneously unfolding in real time
  • Controller becomes a virtual phone (text/zoom into apartments/play videos)
  • Story replay-ability
  • (3) 20 min episodes
  • Synopsis: peer into private lives of 8 diverse New Yorkers from fire escape to discover suspicion & deception–all unfolding in real time
• VR as a medium is only 3 years old!
• VR projects: 1979 Revolutionary, BlindFold, Fire Escape
• AR = Augmented Reality becoming the next biggest thing

What if you were told that everything you have ever believed in was fake? The words we give to objects and actions in our materialistic world, the laws of society that have kept humans thriving for thousands of years, and perhaps even our very own purpose in life–what what we classify as “success” and “happiness”–all lies. In Nietzsche’s writing On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, the philosopher delves into what he believes to be the façade behind centuries of truth civilization has built itself upon. Nietzsche’s viewpoint is initially negative towards humans and human intellect; however, halfway through the piece Nietzsche contradicts himself by expressing a positive perspective on human intellect which begs readers with the question of why Nietzsche contradicts himself and which viewpoint he truly presents.  

Nietzsche begins in a dark, nihilistic tone, metaphorizing humans as “clever beasts” that “had to die” in in a fable (79). By dehumanizing humans as beasts, Nietzsche expresses his apparent criticism and downcast of human civilization. Yet, in adding “clever” to his description of humans as beasts, Nietzsche dives into his first claim by showing that the distinction that truly differs humans from other mammals and living creatures is human’s “cleverness” or human intellect. However, in the first section of his writing, Nietzsche scorns down on human intellect, calling it “miserable,” “shadowy,”  “transient,” and “aimless” in nature (79). His repetitively negative diction emphasizes his pessimistic and unfavorable view of human intellect. He furthers his claim that this intellect, or “act of knowing,” deceives men concerning the “value of existence” which essentially argues that we, as humans, tend to heighten the glories of life and living beyond the scope of what it truly is (80). As Nietzsche mentions previously about humans being clever beats that “had to die,” human death is inevitable, yet we use deceptions and lies to paint a beautiful idealistic picture of our lives that isn’t really there. In particular, Nietzsche explores the concept of “dissimulation,” of how physically weak creatures, such as humans, survive through  “deception, deluding,” and “living in borrowed splendor” (80). It appears that Nietzsche paints mankind as a cheating creature who lies to both himself and others in order to rule other forms of life in a manner that he does not deserve since he is not physically strong like the other living creatures around him. This also connects back to the original claim he makes, stating that humans are smart creatures that had to die. Due to our physical incapabilities, we would have died already if it were not for our intellect. Nietzsche argues that human intellect has allowed humans to sit on a false throne of life.

Just as readers are convinced that Nietzsche disapproves of human intellect and demeans the falsehood we surround our lives with, he surprises readers through a second counter viewpoint. In a unique analogy, Nietzsche compares humans to bees by claiming “whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself” followed with Nietzsche’s commentary that “in this [man] is greatly admired” (85). Nietzsche utilizes this unique comparison between bees and their wax and humans and our own conceptual material to emphasize the feat of human intellect–instead of drawing from nature like bees, we are able to actually create for ourselves the beliefs, laws, and foundations we live off of. This direct contradiction from the initial cynicism Nietzsche had against human intellect brings up questions to readers. Perhaps Nietzsche is not trying to demean humans and human intellect. Instead, he claims that humans are unique in this way of thinking, in making things that aren’t “truly” there into material, tangible, lifelong values by creating language, social contracts, and civilizations. Even if these truths stem from lies and deception, it’s a way of establishing and preserving life.

Nietzsche’s perspective on language itself and his use of language to describe human intellect is extremely particular and non convention, and functions as a support for his argument. The reader has probably observed that throughout the work, Nietzsche’s language appears negative in his descriptions of human intellect, calling it “deceiving” and full of “lies” which prompts readers to ask why Nietzsche uses such pessimistic diction to describe intellect when he actually finds it unique and useful to humans. Yet, it becomes clear that the seemingly negative diction Nietzsche uses does not parallel his viewpoint when Nietzsche points out that language itself does not accurately describe things as it is is simply generalizations and abstractions created by humans. Nietzsche even questions readers, asking “is language the adequate expression of all realities?” to prove his point that language cannot represent every truth and expression in the world that surrounds us (81). Nietzsche furthers his argument by stating “by creating language” and “designating the relations of things,” in our world to sound and words, man “lays hold of the boldest metaphors” (81). Everything is based off a metaphor–a comparison at most, but nothing that perfectly and accurately represents one thing or another. Something that is “green” isn’t necessarily green, and someone described as “honest” may not have those actual characteristics (83). Similarly, those metaphors apply to when Nietzsche uses words such as “lies” and “deception” that have negative metaphorical connotations, but he does not see it as the same way humans have generalized what the words to mean. In fact, Nietzsche shows that the act of deceiving itself and the way we have associated negativity to it is flawed in its nature. In reality, we are all deceivers, yet we specifically designate a “liar” as a person who misuses “fixed conventions”  and does this in a “harmful manner” to society (91). But if our fixed conventions or laws are not, according to Nietzsche, fundamentally the “correct” way of doing things or the “truths” we believe them to be, then everyone is technically a liar and deceiver. Nietzsche expresses the inaccuracy of language and how we too narrowly view “liars” and “deceivers” as only those who harm the community that we’ve created, but in reality humans as a whole are actually liars and deceivers, and in Nietzsche’s next point he shows that he sees that this trait of humans and human intellect is not a negative aspect of humans, but rather an essential component of human life.

Compared to the fangs of a tiger or the claws of a bear, the naked skin and weaker joints of humans would rank us at the very bottom of survival in the world. Yet, dissimulation has allowed us to be ignorant or “deceived” of our position in the world, and instead we are able to thrive through our intellectual inventions that outbest the physical strength we lack. In addition, as Nietzsche has pointed out before–in the view of nature, humans are simply clever beasts that will, like all other creatures, succumb to the inevitable fate: we were all born to die. Yet, dissimulation has allowed us to thrive off of our own illusions. If we didn’t have these set of truths and simply lived to die, we would be consumed by Nihilism where life is meaningless, but because of human intellect, we’ve been able to discern meaning through life–whether this meaning is truly there or not does not matter as long as we believe it and apply it to our lives. Dissimulation is shown to be an act of preservation of us, less robust individuals, not deception and the negative connotations associated with that. In addition, dissimulation isn’t simply linked to physical preservation and survival for humans, preserves our believes on intangible aspects of life as well: beliefs, meaning, emotions, societal foundations. Instead of criticizing the consequences of human intellect, Nietzsche’s points actually show that lies, deception, and falsehood are an essential component to human civilization. They give value to our existence.

Initially reading Nietzsche’s thoughts on human intellect in his writing On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, readers are presented with Nietzsche’s seemingly negative and cynical perspective on human intellect and the deception and falsehood it wrongly creates, but by presenting a contradictory viewpoint halfway through his writing, it becomes apparent that Nietzsche does not view deceptions and lies as a negative aspect, and instead enforces that it is necessary component to bring meaning and existence to humans. In the end, although Nietzsche makes a good point, readers are prompted to even question Nietzsche’s own philosophies and arguments in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense since throughout his whole writing he pushes forth the idea that no laws or beliefs created by humans are ubiquitous truths so his own might simply be lies and deceptions as well (which we now know are not necessarily bad and are instead important to creating meaning and a world for ourselves). Although, it is certainly true and mildly concerning that understanding that the meaning of our lives comes from lies, and puts the foundation to centuries of our believes in jeopardy. The complexities Nietzsche presents has, ironically, been explored in fields of sciences in the realm of physical realism and quantum realism. Is the physical world we see real and exists by itself or is the physical world a virtual reality, and what we discern is simply a product of our information processing? We now know that we also cannot completely rely on science either, as Nietzsche argues that what “we actually know about these laws of nature is what we ourselves bring to them” so in the end all we know is that we don’t know anything for sure (89).