Reading 10: Network Neutrality

According to this article, Net Neutrality is the idea that everyone has a right to an “open internet”, where everyone may communicate freely online.  This may seem intuitive, but there are special interests that stand in the way of that.  From the article, Net Neutrality, “means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t be concerned with the content you view or post online.”  Thus, your internet service provider cannot limit what you access or do online based on a pre-purchased set of websites or categories that you agreed to.  Also from the article, without net neutrality, “cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes,” meaning they could slow down or restrict competitors’ content or block it altogether.  This would mean the ISP ultimately has complete control over what an individual can and cannot see or do on the internet.

After reading more about this issue, I support net neutrality and the right for people to communicate and act online how they choose without limitations.  By allowing anyone to control the flow of information through this channel, we give them incredible amounts of power.  For instance, a large company could shut out competition from smaller business by starving their websites or services on the internet.  By not allowing people to see their service, they could shut down that company.  Implementing or enforcing Net Neutrality is simple: don’t allow any restriction the internet at all.  By not playing with what can be seen and what can’t we eliminate the chance for any possible censoring of material or information.  I don’t believe that Net Neutrality burdens companies as much as they would have it believe, and at any rate the infrastructure and technology used by those companies has not improved to follow the current rate of technological advancement. It’s about time they caught up.  Those companies saved money by not improving their infrastructure or technology, and now they want to make sure they don’t have to ever improve at their own expense.  In markets where Google Fiber has invaded, customers are leaving ISPs in droves for the improved service that Google Fiber can provide.  The archaic ways and dealings of ISPs and the companies that want to do away with net neutrality need to change with the times and catch up to today’s competition and technology.  Consumers want the latest and best from those companies, and they have not gotten it in a long while.

The internet today has become a massive wealth of information and provides unrivaled capabilities for communication to any and all who have access to it.  Fair access to that resource should be allowed to everyone, untainted and uncensored.  I do not approve of reclassification or any form of altering the current status of net neutrality for any reason.

Project 3: Security and Encryption

For our project, we wrote a Letter to the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, asking him to please support strong encryption.

I believe that encryption is a fundamental right.  The men and women in this country have a right to own their property and information and protect it with whatever means they see fit.    I don’t believe such a technology is achievable as of yet, but I believe that citizens should be allowed to have technology that can completely lock out the government.  The government, in the name of the rights of the people, should support this is well.  Even with this technology, the government could still compel you to reveal it with a warrant in some cases, and you could invoke your 5th amendment rights to avoid self incrimination if the technology truly prevented anyone from reading it.

Personally, I think encryption should be important to everyone.  It has the potential to make everyone vulnerable to attack and exploitation if the US Government gets the backdoor it so desperately wants.  I support strong, unaltered and uncompromising encryption, and it certainly affects who I support politically and financially when I can choose to do so.  I think everyone should be mindful of what their choices with their money and their vote truly support, especially on issues such as this.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that in the struggle between national security and personal privacy, national security will win out.  Personal privacy, when it does succumb, will likely do so in the wake of some great conflict or tragedy, sacrificed so that something like that catalytic event could never again happen.  It is another method for control, and maintaining the status quo, and will be undoubtably supported by most of the current political powers and parties.   The patriot act after 9/11 granted a ridiculous amount of power to our government in terms of surveillance, and that was just the first domino in the line of “national security” legislative acts to come.  I am not resigned to this fate, and will do whatever I can to support personal privacy and the rights of the people.  I fear that the interests of the few will win out, and eventually silence the voice of the many, but I don’t see any advantage to accepting any fate as of yet.  If this election is proving anything, it is that future of our nation’s political climate is unsure and ever changing.  Hopefully, the people can influence this ever changing political landscape for their own benefit.

Reading 09: Reverse Engineering and DRM

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, “criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works.”  It has also been applied to reverse engineering when it infringes upon copyrighted work in most cases, making the practice illegal except for a few specific exemptions.  Basically, any method or technology designed to bypass DRM and infringe upon copyrighted work or works cannot be used, sold, distributed, or otherwise utilized for those purposes unless it falls under the limited range of exemptions.

Ethically, companies are within their right to use DRM to protect their intellectual property.  If the information is copyrighted, they may not be inclined to allow users to see the inner workings of the product if they so choose.  In the case of CDs or DVDs, companies are also within their rights to restrict how the information or media on those products is to be used.  By purchasing and using those products, you agree to the terms set out by the company and enforced by their DRM.  That being said, I think there are scenarios in which bypassing DRM is acceptable.

When I purchase music on iTunes or pay for CDs, I do it to support the artist.  I feel no obligation to support the company.  I will do my best to avoid violating the DRM and the terms and conditions, but if I want to burn a CD for myself or use the media that I have payed for in some way that the DRM is preventing but is within a reason as far as usage, I will do it.  I will try to find work arounds that do not conflict with the DRM in some way, but if push comes to shove I don’t feel too bad about it.

In regards to reverse engineering or building tools for the circumventive purposes that allow end users to fix, modify, or extend copyrighted work, I do not think there are many instances where those practices are acceptable.  I think that when you purchase something and agree to the terms and conditions of the company that sold it to you, you need to abide by that agreement. If you don’t like the terms, then you don’t need to buy that specific product. I don’t agree with the practice of locked phones or proprietary software on vehicles that the owner cannot alter or use, but that is the nature of the market right now.  Voice your opinion through your purchases, whether you support that practice or do not.  I think that legal protection from copyrights in many scenarios should suffice and that researchers and developers should be allowed to probe and reverse engineer software for bugs and security flaws, but right now that is not the reality we live in.  Companies are within their rights to limit the usage of their products, but you are also within your rights to decide to use other products and spend your money to support better practices.

Reading 08: Patent Trolls

 

First off, what are patents? Patents are a form of intellectual property pertaining to invention, and are designed to protect that invention from being copied such that individuals can benefit or profit off of creating that specific technology.  According to the document here, “A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention – a product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem.”  Patents provide protection to the patent owner for typically about 20 years.  Patents provide protection by guaranteeing that “an invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed or sold without the patent owner’s consent.”  These rights can be upheld or challenged and revoked in court. Effectively, patent owners can decide who can or cannot use their patented invention during the period in which the patent is in effect.  Patents effectively incentivize the individual to invent and create new technologies knowing that they can patent and protect their work from being stolen and used without their permission, enabling them to profit off of the invention if they so choose.  This also applies to inventions and technology developed by larger companies as well.

Morally and ethically, it makes sense that we would promote this sort of protection of personal invention and ideas, but the main reason that patents exist is to promote economic growth and development as a result of these ideas.  If no one could protect their invention or process from being stolen and used by a competitor, then it would be extremely difficult to do so by anyone but large companies, and invention would grind to a halt.  Many people in the world wouldn’t invent if they couldn’t support themselves with the income from those inventions.  So why would they aspire to invent and improve if they couldn’t sustain the process? Odds are, they wouldn’t.

For that reason, I believe patents should be granted.  They promote innovation and invention at the individual level, and allow for that to lead to personal gain.  If there were no such things as patents, individuals could create their invention and then try to keep it secret and sell it to a larger company that could employ it effectively without giving away it’s secret.  With patents in place, the individual does not have to carefully guard their invention as much, they are free to market and utilize it without much fear of it being stolen.  However, there are certain scenarios where the use of patents becomes more of a gray area.

First off, should patents on software be granted at all? Patents can be granted for specific processes used, which means that if someone patented the algorithms for the different sorting methods taught in books to computer scientists, we would either have to invent our own personal sorting methods or pay the inventors whenever we used their sorting method in a piece of software to be sold.  Sure this is kind of an absurd idea, since a sort can be about 10 lines of code and doesn’t specify much aside from that, but what if I patented every software that could write to file and save in memory?  What ideas can we patent, and what can we not?  Historically, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been “reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software.”  This makes sense, as they would prefer to err on the side of safety and keep the pandora’s box of patented software closed, at least for the time being.  Typically, software by itself cannot be patented, such as in the case of Diamond V. Diehr, where the invention was not only the software used, but also a method for curing rubber and the machine with which the software was used.  I agree with this prudent action, and the actions that followed.  Software is so close to being an abstract idea that patenting it could greatly hinder development and invention in the industry as other developers try not to tread on the toes of already patented software.  Sadly, the floodgates have since been opened, and now we have our second issue.

Second, we have patent trolls, which have managed to stay in business and exist purely off the money generated by creating borderline frivolous patents and then suing anyone careless enough to use some of their “patented” software.  Nowadays, companies have so many patents that it makes it “almost impossible to write useful software without accidentally infringing” on some software company’s patent.

I believe the symptoms of patent trolls and this newfound phenomenon of excessive patenting is indicative that the patent system was not designed for software, or excessive patenting at all.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is broken, rather it has its specific applications that it excels at, and that a solution needs to be developed for the unique problem that software patenting poses.  Sadly, there isn’t really an end in sight just yet, and the cost of patent litigation is still on the rise.