Too much code

CS For All?

Learning to code has not made my life easier. Learning to code has not made me some computer whizz, or made using computers become a wonderful experience. While I think studying computer science has given me a better understanding of the basics of coding, I think that I could have continued to live my life just fine without ever understanding how to code. There are plenty of jobs that don’t require coding; in fact, the jobs that do require coding are in the minority. Some very successful people, doctors, lawyers, etc., probably never learn to code and make much more money than someone who can code.

On the other hand, I couldn’t imagine trying to get a job without the ability to read and write. There would be no way I could write a resume, read different job description, etc. Literacy is a skill everyone needs because it is so hard to move up in society without this knowledge. If you can’t read and write, it’s nearly impossible to get any job.

I think that learning the basics of programming and computer science should be similar to any other science course: we learn the basics of physics, chemistry, biology, but it is not expected that absolutely everyone remembers what they learned and can use it later on. People are given some exposure to it, and it’s left at that. I think that would be a good way to learn computer science: people are given some exposure to it, and they leave it at that.

That said, I think that people start learning science, math, reading, writing, etc., long before they learn about computer science. I think that if children started learning basic computer science at a young age, much like they do with any other subject, it would be much easier for them to learn computer science later on. In fact, I could see computer science becoming a much easier major than it is right now. Part of why learning about computer science is hard is because we were never exposed to it at a young age. I think that if people were exposed to computer science at a young age, many more people would major in computer science and the so-called “software developer” shortage would start to disappear. Similar to how young children are taught how to think like a scientist rather than being taught random biology or chemistry facts, basic computer science courses could teach them how to think like a computer scientist rather than try to force them to code on day one.

That said, I agree with the opinion of Jeff Atwood. Atwood says that computers should be designed so that not everyone needs to understand code¹, and I agree with this. While I think that, as a computer user, it is beneficial for me to understand what is going on in my computer, I also shouldn’t have to understand. Much like how a patient shouldn’t have to understand exactly how every procedure their doctor recommends works, I should be able to open up my laptop and get to work, without having to write a piece of software just to do something on my computer. In fact, I think that by saying everyone needs to learn to code, it lets software developers be lazy: if everyone can read and write code, there is less incentive to make a clean user interface and make the experience easier for the user. However, I think that making everyone learn to code could stop some companies from abusing the trust of their users by installing malicious software, stealing personal information, etc., which is a very good thing in my opinion.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/01/25/266162832/computers-are-the-future-but-does-everyone-need-to-code

DMCA and Piracy

The DMCA is a digital rights management law updating copyright to deal with the challenges of regulating digital media. Enacted in 1998, it aims to protect the rights of copyright owners and consumers¹. However, this law has proved to be fairly controversial.

There are two sections that have been particularly controversial: the anti-circumvention provisions and safe-harbor provisions². The anti-circumvention provisions “bar circumvention of access controls and technical protection measures”². They attempt to discourage piracy of copyrighted works and ban “black box” devices intended for piracy. The safe-harbor provisions protect Internet service providers from monetary damages caused by infringement activities by their users or other third parties on the net². These safe-harbor provisions allow online intermediaries to provide services that host and transmit user-generated content. While the anti-circumvention provisions discourage innovation, free-expression, and scientific research, the safe-harbor provisions attempt to rectify this by allowing the Internet to be a host of free-expression and innovation.

The DMCA tries to fight piracy by making it illegal and making the costs of committing piracy great. The law allows that anyone, from the elderly to teenagers, caught for downloading entertainment for free illegally, can be sued³. Recently, however, the media has moved towards competing with piracy rather than just blindly suing anyone who pirates⁴. In the past, getting entertainment was annoyingly expensive and often difficult to acquire, with companies such as Blockbuster, a movie rental store similar to a library, ruling the world of entertainment. People turned to piracy to fight this; they would pirate entertainment to save bank while still getting their needs met. However, in recent times, companies such as Netflix provide a way to cheaply and easily get access to many hours of entertainment. By giving people an easy, cheap way to get their entertainment, and actually making it more difficult to pirate rather than just pay a little money for a service like this, people have become less likely to pirate⁴. This is what smart business people do.

I think that piracy is a problem in the sense that it is stealing, and stealing is wrong. Even if piracy feels harmless, it’s the same as stealing a car or stealing someone else’s personal belonging: it’s just not polite. Arguing that piracy is ethical if it is used to “test” the material is a bit silly as well. There are many previews on Amazon, Youtube, etc. of entertainment. That said, I think that some of the consequences of pirating are too intense. I don’t think that stealing a movie should equate to five years in prison and up to $250,000 fines⁵. This is less than the penalty for DUIs⁶, which can be up to a 90-day sentence in jail. I think that driving while intoxicated is much more dangerous for the driver and for those around the driver than stealing a movie could ever be, and the fact that the consequences for pirating a movie are greater than those of driving while intoxicated exists because of entertainment companies’ greed and lack of foresight. They think that they can stop piracy just by spooking people, rather than trying to find a solution to piracy that makes people actually want to get entertainment legally.

I think that offering cheap services that give people easy access to entertainment, to stray them away from the allures of piracy, is a good solution. Although I have never pirated anything, I can see the allures of pirating. It is easy, quick, and free. However, services such as Spotify make piracy a lot less alluring. Piracy has an associated risk: if you get caught, you could get in a lot of legal trouble. However, services such as Spotify don’t have this risk, and they offer a free product. I think that it’s much less tempting to pirate something when that product isn’t ridiculously overpriced, and it’s easy to get my hands on. I think many people would agree with me, which is why companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Spotify are so popular.

Sources:

Self-Driving Cars

The motivation behind developing and building self-driving cars is to improve transportation safety¹. Since humans are prone to making mistakes, self-driving cars could eradicate some of the mistakes many people make: drinking and driving, texting and driving, being tired while driving, being unsure of what to do to avoid collisions, not following driving laws, etc. However, programming a car to drive safely means making some hard choices: the cars would be programmed to, in the case of an unavoidable collision, save as many people as possible. This means that the cars would be programmed to sacrifice the passengers if it means saving enough lives.²

Proponents argue that robot drivers would make our roads safer and save more lives than a human driver ever could². Even if some of the required algorithms are a bit macabre, these self-driving cars would make the roads safer than ever before. However, opponents argue that developing the algorithms to truly make self-driving cars aware of all possibilities on the road is a hard thing to do³, and, at least for now, it’s better to let humans drive, for now. Moreover, consumers don’t want to buy a car that is programmed to potentially sacrifice themselves and their families⁴, which is fairly understandable.

There are two options to deal with the dilemma of unavoidable accidents: sacrifice the passengers to reduce causalities, or save the passengers at all costs. I feel pretty bad for the programmers who have to code this and who decide how it should be coded. No matter how it’s coded, you’re going to feel responsible when a collision happens and someone dies because of your program. Obviously from a programmer and AI’s perspective, it’s best to save as many lives as possible, even if it means sacrificing the passenger. However, a programmer would never ride in a car, even one they programmed, that could potentially kill their loved ones, even if the sacrifice is for the greater good.

Under the Obama administration, self-driving cars were supported and regulated. Automakers were given 15 benchmarks for making self-driving cars safe⁵. This means, that, in the situation where the passengers could possibly be sacrificed, they would be sacrificed to save lives. If, in the future, self-driving cars became a reality and events like this took place, the passengers would always be sacrificed.

I think that people would refuse to buy self-driving cars if the government mandated they must always save as many lives as possible. I also think that the implications of a government law like this are fairly significant: if the government can decide who lives and dies, they can decide nearly anything about our lives. I think that the implications are especially important in healthcare: if the government has the power to decide who is sacrificed for the greater good on the road, why couldn’t they decide to euthanize patients for the greater good? While that’s probably a little extreme, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what we let the government control.

I would want a self-driving car if it were as close to perfected as possible. I think that, right now, self-driving cars aren’t quite as safe as they could be, but in time, they’ll be very safe and efficient. Overall, I think self-driving cars are a good idea and could eventually make our roads safer. I think that the moral dilemma discussed above is such a rare case that it’s not a deciding factor in whether I would want a self-driving car.

Sources:

Trolling

Trolling is an anonymous way to pick on other people: trolls write derogatory comments on the Internet. It’s a pathetic way to deal with your own insecurities without ruining your real life reputation. It can also be a way to make yourself feel cooler and better than other people than you really are, as you sit behind a wall of anonymity. It can also be somewhat funny, as most trolls are not serious with their insults, but even then it shows that you need to get a life outside of the Internet. While I’ve never personally trolled (okay, nothing more serious than writing “Justin Bieber sux” on Youtube videos, at least) trolling shows how annoying humanity is.

Usually trolling is done in small doses, and it is but a minor annoyance, causing no real harm. However, trolling can go too far, if done by someone with way too much free time and way too little of a life. Some people have reported being stalked online by trolls, with many of their online posts being attacked by insults. These insults are often personal, and can be damaging to the trolled’s self-esteem. One woman, Lindy West, a writer and feminist, is trolled online and is used to getting a plethora of hate mail calling her rude things¹. At one point, the trolling got so bad that she thought about giving up her career. Other women have received rape and death threats through trolling so serious that they were forced to leave their homes². Red-pill bloggers³, are, in my mind, the ultimate example of trolling-gone-wrong, with men actually making money from books called Don’t Bang Denmark.⁴ Gamergate, a controversy that left one woman receiving death threats⁵, shows just how frightening and serious trolling can be.

To try to counteract trolling, technology companies such as Twitter have created better blocking features and methods for reporting potentially abusive comments.² I think that it’s good for technology companies to do this. In real life, people don’t go around stalking each other and saying things like “I’m going to rape you,” unless they want to get a visit from the police. People are more likely to get out these aggressions on the Internet because there are no real consequences to stalking or sexually harassing someone.

While I don’t agree with “real name” policies (which can also be dangerous for the user), I think that there should be consequences to excessive trolling. I think that there’s a definite line drawn between trolling, as in being an idiot for no real reason, and trolling, as in being a psychopath. Trolling, as in being an idiot for no real reason, is some bored person writing something such as “tits” on a blog post. Being a troll as in being a psychopath is repeatedly sending someone death threats online. While I think there should be freedom of expression, I also think there should be ways to report potentially dangerous people. While I’m sure most trolls are just being idiots for no real reason, there’s also a good amount of people who are irl-rapists in-waiting.

Trolling is not a huge problem when it’s all in good fun, at the expense of someone maybe being somewhat insulted. Trolling becomes a problem when people are receiving rape and death threats, being stalked, and actually being scared for their own well-being. Sadly, people being scared for their own well-being because of trolling is not as uncommon as it should be.

Sources:

Also, here is some potentially troll-related stuffz (all for normies only, plz): https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skank_Hunt, https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/save-health-care

Wikileaks

Vault 7 refers to a batch of documents, released by Wikileaks, that outline a list of ways by which the CIA spies on its own citizens. Vault 7 indicates that the CIA spies on its own citizens by compromising the products we use, including Apple products, Samsung, Windows, and more. The Vault 7 revelations show that the government does not trust its own citizens, and that the government will use the excuse of “protection” to impede on its citizens’ rights. While it doesn’t necessarily influence my views on the government because I already believed that the government is untrustworthy, it does make me realize that the government is willing to not only impede on our freedom of speech by monitoring our online activity, but also find vulnerabilities in our devices, leaving us open to be stalked, our identities stolen, and our devices used against us for those who’s intentions go beyond “protection.” It shows to me that the government, really, has no intentions of protecting us, and their motives are ulterior. While I suppose I may be wrong, leave people’s devices vulnerable could leave them vulnerable, something that the government shouldn’t be willing to do if they truly cared about protecting us. I think that Wikileaks should continue informing the public when their rights are being trampled on, like in this instance.

I don’t think Wikileaks is entirely trustworthy, and neither is the US government. Julian Assange is obviously not a hero; with multiple rape allegations against him, I find it hard to believe that his motives behind Wikileaks are entirely selfless. While I believe that Wikileaks most likely releases unaltered documents, I also believe that Assange picks and chooses which documents to release. I believe that he chooses to release documents that will sway elections in the way that he wants. I’m sure at some point he has held back from releasing some documents, because they didn’t reflect well on his chosen political party or candidate.

Furthermore, the US government is frightening because it can so easily lose sight of what is important: protecting the US people. The government is an organization with too much power, and with this power comes temptation. I would have to guess most politicians accept some kind of bribe, and base their votes and laws on this bribe. I think that Assange is capable of the same thing: taking bribes and releasing documents based on these bribes. Theories that the Russian government asked Assange to release certain documents to sway the election might not be too far from the truth. For all we know, these documents could have been fiction, but people believe their validity whether they are real or not. Wikileaks is becoming a powerful organization, and with this power comes temptation. Still, I trust Wikileaks over the US government.

I think that whistleblowing is the right thing to do in the case where the public’s rights are being trampled on. In times of war, I believe it becomes less clear-cut, because the government is hopefully doing what it does to help protect its citizens. I think that perhaps it is best to remain silent when it comes to national defense, but I think that, when the government is obviously trampling on its citizens’ rights and barely protecting them, like the US government does, whistleblowing is morally ethical. There’s a reason the masses tend to sympathize with whistleblowers, and this reason is because whistleblowers sometimes are releasing information that the public should know.

Corporate Personhood and Muslim Registry

Although it is odd to think of a corporation as a person, the US Supreme Court has ruled that, for some purposes, a corporation is a person¹. For example, a corporation may refuse to offer employees birth control on religious grounds, and have the right to spend money on a political candidate’s election, thereby giving corporations the right to free speech. A corporation is defined as a number of people united into one body for a purpose. Corporations give individuals the chance to put their property into a collective ownership; this decreases the risk involved for the individuals, since shareholders cannot be sued and the corporation continues existing if someone dies.

Recently, corporations have been given rights to spend money to influence federal elections¹. This decision reversed a century of legal understanding, and, despite being ethically questionable, has most likely determined more than a few elections. Socially, this decision has further torn America onto two sides: some argue that giving a corporation this right is legal because it gives the individuals associated with the corporation the right as well, but some argue that since a corporation is, in no way, a person, no corporation should have this right.

However, Corporate Personhood goes far beyond determining elections, with one example of its influence being tech companies refusing to help create a Muslim registry², based on its ethical controversy regarding religious freedom. While I don’t agree with the technology companies’ decision, I think that under the current laws they have the right to refuse a government mandate such as this. If a company is given freedom of speech through its ability to donate money to a candidate, and is given freedom of religion through its ability to refuse a government mandate by citing religious reasons, then it should have the ability to refuse a government order by citing freedom of speech and religion.

That said, I don’t think that tech companies are basing this decision on morality and ethics. While individuals working for the companies may refuse to help in the government mandate based on morality and ethics, I think that the tech companies themselves are just doing what they believe will make them the most profits. If their customer-base doesn’t approve of the Muslim registry, then tech companies will avoid developing a Muslim registry based on what their customers want to hear. If tech companies were really concerned about ethics and morals, they would have a problem with collecting identifying information on people and selling it to advertising companies, who then target their advertisements based on age, race, gender, religion, national origin.

Morality and ethics cannot apply to corporations because corporations are not people. While people may run corporations, corporations themselves are not people, and they will not behave morally. Moreover, by giving corporations personhood, we are allowing the few rich to take away the rights from the many. By allowing corporations the right to deny government mandates and influence elections, we are taking away our power in electing the government that we want. While I think that some of the things corporations refuse to do are justified, I think that by giving large corporations more power through their personhood, we are taking away power from the states, and giving more power to a corrupt federal government. I don’t agree with the concept of Corporate Personhood, because a corporation is incapable of making decisions based on ethics and morals; a corporation is only capable of making decisions based on money.

Sources:

Company Surveillance

Based on the readings, the ethical issues surrounding online advertising are whether or not companies should be able to know so much about a person without the person’s consent. Companies keep giant logs about their consumers¹, logs containing all kinds of information. This information contains anything from the person’s ethnic background to personality, all gathered in order to help the company best advertise to that specific consumer. For example, Target built a pregnancy-prediction model based upon these information logs to help predict when a consumer was pregnant and send her advertisements for related items.

While it can be argued that these logs improve the lives of consumers by giving us a cheaper way to buy products we would have bought either way, it has a financial downside: people are discriminated against based on their buying habits². People who make certain purchases, such as buying from fast food chains or splurging on high-price items, are more likely to receive high life insurance rates or get a denial for a loan than those who don’t make those kinds of purchases as often. Some argue that denying some products to certain groups helps extend the line between rich and poor, by making purchases more expensive for consumers who are already struggling financially. Companies even use data to determine their employees’ career trajectories, with promotion and raise decisions being made based on these employees’ browsing history². What is arguably most frightening is that this information can be attained by nearly anyone: the data these companies store is unprotected, or isn’t protected well, with hackers gaining access to the logs of many of these companies.

I think that if you don’t want companies to gather your information using your browsing history, you shouldn’t use the Internet. Likewise, if you don’t want companies to deny you certain products because of the purchase history on your credit card, always try to keep cash at hand. I think the fact that companies gather this information is to be expected in a way. Companies are there to make money, and if they can make more money by gathering information about their consumers, the companies will do that. That said, I think that there probably needs to be tighter government regulations on some of these things. I don’t feel comfortable with a company having so much of my information, but I don’t think it’s up to the company to stop it. I think that the government should help protect citizens by keeping our data safe, even if the government actively works against that goal with programs such as the NSA. I don’t think that privacy has to become unrealistic, but it is up to out leaders to make sure privacy is something Americans can have in today’s world.

I don’t know how I feel about companies gathering my information like this with hopes of selling it. On one hand I feel like it is invasive, but on the other hand I realize that by using free products such as Google I become the product: it is to be expected that the companies have to make money somehow, and by giving me access to a free product, obviously the company is making money by selling a different product. I think that if I really cared about privacy, I would stop using the Internet except for school-related things, and get my entertainment through reading. However, I must not care about privacy too much, because I keep using the Internet for entertainment. I have never used NoScript or AdBlock but I would guess that those products don’t work very well unless they require a monthly subscription. Otherwise, I would guess that they’re just cheap gimmicks to give the illusion of privacy.

Sources:

Government Surveillance

Imagine a quiet Sunday afternoon. You are a greying man in your mid-thirties, and you couldn’t be more pleased with yourself. You’ve made chocolate chip pancakes for the first time in your life. Yes, you’ve attempted to make chocolate chip pancakes before, but to no avail. As you give each of your young children a plate full of your pancakes, your wife gives you a small smile. She’s so happy that you’re home with the kids for once, since as American businessman you rarely make time for your family. Though usually Sundays are spent working in your office, you finally decided to do what your wife has been begging you to do for years now: take a Sunday off for once and do something for the kids. You realize now that this is the happiest you’ve been in a long time. Through the eyes of your wife and children, you’re there for them, and that’s all they’ve ever really wanted from you. You realize that the for the first time in your life you don’t have to feel like you’re not enough; you’re finally the father your kids can look up to, and the husband you told your wife you would be on your wedding day.

Then, a government official, with no warrant or any kind1, busts down the door to your suburban house. Your wife shrieks, and your young son drops his fork on the floor in dismay. You jump up from your seat at the dining room table, ready to fight for your family. However, you see his badge, and realize that he’s from the government, and his presence shouldn’t be alarming to you. Although neither you nor your wife have ever committed a crime, the official has every right to be there: a few years ago the government decided to start invading people’s homes, without their consent. The government argued that this way, major crimes committed in private would be stopped, and that a small invasion of innocent citizens’ privacy was a small price to pay for lives saved2.

You sit back down, and watch as the official tracks mud through your living room. He sits down at your dining room table, saying nothing. He rests his gun on the table, and sits besides your wife, watching her a little too closely for your liking. Your wife is frozen in fear as he watches her, and although you’re uncomfortable as well, there’s nothing you can do about it. This is a normal part of life, and if the government wants to see what you’re doing on a Sunday afternoon, they can, no questions asked. Where your children were previously happy and talkative, they’ve silenced themselves entirely, obviously frightened of the strange man. Your wife looks visibly unnerved, but does nothing to stop the man from being there, realizing that there’s nothing she can do.

The government official get up from the table and walks around your house, going from room to room in your house and rummaging through your family’s belongings. Your wife quiets your son as he tries to ask her a question, and your family listens as the man rummages through dressers and drawers. The good mood you had is gone and replaced with feelings of discomfort, even though you’ve told your children and wife time and time again that the government is simply trying to keep the peace. Although you’ve told them that these random disturbances into your daily life are helpful, and that it stops people who are doing wrong from doing that wrong, you can’t help but feel a bit insulted. “Why did he choose my house?” you wonder. After all, you’ve worked hard and been a good man your entire life. “Why would they care about me?” You stop yourself, realizing that if you let yourself feel this now, then all the times you told your wife and children that if they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear would be for nothing. The government official comes back to the dining room and sits down, again saying nothing. You try to talk to the official, make the situation less awkward.

“Great weather we’re having, don’t you think, Mr….?” The government official says nothing, but his eyebrows raise in suspicion. He watches you closely now, moving his attention from your wife to you. “Why is he allowed to do this, when I’m not allowed to know anything about the government?” you wonder to yourself. You try to keep your composure as you go back to your pancakes. Your youngest daughter starts crying, and you suddenly regret arguing with your wife that the government invading privacy like this was a good idea. “If you’ve got nothing to hide, then you’ve got nothing to fear,” you told her. You wonder if you should have listened to her arguments instead of letting the opinion of your socially-conscious co-workers determine your political opinions. Your wife is comforting your youngest daughter, and you suddenly regret every time you left her home alone with the children while you worked hours into the night, telling your wife time and time again that you were working for her and your children, but you were really working so much to avoid going home.

Finally, the government official seems satisfied. He gets up from the chair, picks up his gun, and walks out without saying a word. Your family listens as his car drives away. Your daughter is still crying, and your son runs off to his room, obviously spooked. As your wife comforts your daughter, she glares at you, and the guilt makes you stare down at your uneaten pancakes in shame. As you look down at your uneaten food, you can sense her still glaring at you, and your shame turns into anger. You get up from the table and go to your office, resigning yourself to work the rest of the day. “I’m not gonna let her argue with me, AGAIN,” you think to yourself as you leave your wife alone to comfort your daughter. You slam the door to the office, wondering why your wife can never be on your side.

As you stare blankly at the computer screen, you wonder to yourself if the housing companies that had refused to allow the government to force them to build unsecure homes were onto something3. Although you had vehemently opposed these companies at the time and cheered in rejoice when the government found ways to bypass housing company’s security measures to break into homes at any time4, you wonder to yourself if what your wife has been saying all these years was right: by invading people’s homes and personal privacy for the sake of security, the freedoms that the government is there to protect are threatened. Recent statistics about the increased number of criminal break ins since the laws legalizing government home invasions give you pause4.

You snap out of it, though, realizing that you can’t allow these thoughts to take over and you can’t let your wife win the ongoing political argument because of the incident this morning. The government is just trying to protect us, you tell yourself. Sure, they invade the privacy of a lot of innocent people, but you’re sure by doing so they catch more criminals than they would otherwise. Besides, we’ve never had absolute privacy5, there’s barely a difference now. It’s not as if criminals work around these laws, and continue committing crimes, right? Something doesn’t sit right with you, but you ignore it. You have a lot of work to do, and it’s not going to do itself. You can hear your daughter crying somewhere in the background still, but you ignore it. “Christina can handle it,” you tell yourself as you go back to your work.

Sources:

Interviewing Process: What I Know Now

As junior year dwindles down, I am quite honestly still unsure about my summer plans. While most of my peers have internships lined up, I’ve had a tough time getting an internship. While this is partially because it’s tough out there, it’s also partially my own fault. Between bad planning, busy school weeks, and breaks that I’ve actually used as breaks rather than as time to get an internship, I’ve sent in few internship applications and have received no interviews. The reader is more than likely judging me as a lazy, do-nothing right now, and I suppose in some ways that’s fair.

However, I think that part of my problem stems from bad time management. As a sophomore and first semester junior, I was unsure about how to prepare, and I kept procrastinating on it out of general confusion. While obviously the career center would have been a good place to start, it’s hard to make time for that when you already have five classes and a good amount of homework everyday.

Not only did confusion factor into my procrastination, but discouragement factored in as well. My GPA is not the best, and I was already discouraged about school when teachers and peers starting bringing up internships more often in sophomore year. I felt inadequate compared to my peers in the classroom, and inadequate enough to get any kind of internship.

Based on these experiences, I would say that the most important part of the guide my group created would be the preparation timeline as well as the “What I Wish I’d Known” section. In the former section, we outline exactly what to do to prepare for the internship interviewing process and when to start preparing. This would have helped me greatly, since I was a bit confused in my sophomore year about how to look for an internship. I think this section could help students who are similar to how I was, by giving them a guide as to exactly what they’re supposed to do.

The latter section gives some tricks for staying positive. I think that it is easy at Notre Dame, when you’re surrounded by smart, put-together peers, to feel average or below average. I wish I would have read this section my sophomore year. While perhaps I wouldn’t have listened, it also would have been encouraging to have an older student tell me that it was possible to get an internship even without the perfect resume. I think that a lot of times students are hindered in that they just can’t get started because of some kind of personal problem, and so I think this section would help these students, at least a little.

I don’t think a guide like this should exist, though. While colleges have traditionally been viewed as places of learning, I think that colleges should adjust their programs to accommodate students looking for jobs and internships. As of now, the system seems a little broken, in my opinion. Students spend hours and hours in class and doing homework, and at the end of that they need to put even more time into getting a job. It seems a little unfair to students. They spend tons of money on an education, but at the end of the day this education doesn’t give them the skills they need to get a job or internship. I think the ND CSE program could improve this by having CSE electives geared towards helping students prepare for interviews, or perhaps some kind of fall break workshop geared towards this. Maybe ND could cut out the university requirements for engineers, give CSE majors more room in their schedules later on to use for preparing for internship interviews.

All that said I don’t know if looking back I would change too much about my college experience. Even though I don’t have an internship lined, I think that I’ve tried my best even if, to an outsider, my best seems like I’m not trying hard enough. I know that I’ve worked hard, and no one can take that away from me.

Whistleblowing

According to the readings, Bradley/Chelsea Manning was an Army intelligence analyst who leaked classified videos and government documents to Wikileaks¹. Some of these leaked videos showed the US performing secret airstrikes that killed innocent people, among other things. A Wikileaks contributor who believed that her actions were truly dangerous to US security reported Manning and Manning was arrested and imprisoned as a result. However, Manning believed that her actions were justified, as, in her mind, some of the things she found belonged to the public. Obama commuted her sentence³, obviously believing that she was justified under the under the Whistleblower laws⁴, assuming what she leaked helped guarantee freedom of speech. However, he could have also believed that her mental illness demanded her more leniency than others for her actions.

While Manning believed her actions were justified and righteous, it is possible that Manning acted out of feelings of resentment rather than out of a strong sense of right and wrong. Manning was a socially isolated person². She was a transgender, but was generally unaccepted by her peers in the military and was not even given the proper treatment she needed for her gender dysphoria by the Department of Defense. Furthermore, Manning was depressed, and had even attempted suicide. These feelings of isolation could have led to a resentment that caused her to leak sensitive information.

I’m undecided as to whether or not I believe Manning was justified. While part of me believes that it is unethical that the government keeps secret’s from its citizens, I also believe that the government must have some secrets. In foreign affairs and war, it is risky to tell citizens what exactly the government is doing because it would allow other governments to know secrets of the United States. This is actually unfair to citizens of the United States, because it puts them in danger. While I can see the justification of Edward Snowden, who leaked information about the government actually illegally listening in to citizens’ private conversations, I don’t know if I agree that the type of information Manning leaked was as much of a violation of freedom of speech. While Snowden leaked information that affected citizens’ right to freedom of speech, Manning leaked information that was in place as a secret to help protect citizens and, from my understanding, did not violate freedom of speech. Because of this, I do not believe that Manning was justified under the Whistleblower laws.

I believe that Manning was angry about her situation and her peers refusing to accept her. While I feel sorry for her, I think that she was selfish when she leaked the information and probably was a traitor. Still, I’m overall undecided about Manning, because I also think that the government is generally too big and too invasive. I realize that actions such as Manning’s help people realize that the government should be working for the people, rather than the people being slaves to government laws and regulations. I also realize that actions such as Manning’s greatly influenced the election, as people realize that the government isn’t an honest organization with the people’s best interests in place. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing for people to demand more honest politicians, even if I don’t think that Trump is the solution to this.

Sources: