internet

So, before this seminar, I actually thought about online voting. When I thought about it, I told myself that this was a great idea, and I wondered why it wasn’t actually a reality yet…

Naturally, I decided to get in contact with my local congressman and nearby politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren. I presumed that if I could get a meeting with a political leader, I can spearhead the future of voting. While sending a bunch of emails and snail mail, I decided to take this discussion to my dorm room and discuss it with some of my tech friends, or geeks, as many others would call them. After telling them that online voting is the future of voting, they looked at me perplexed. The problems they saw with it were innumerable:

“Online voting would be a disaster! Do you really want the Russians to determine who our next president is?”

“Ammer, you’re a smart guy, but this isn’t a smart idea..why do you want everyone to vote anyway? Only those willing to go to the polls should vote, and isn’t that easy enough already?”

“Let’s say voting was as easy on going online and pressing a button–who says the encryption won’t be unbreakable or the database is put into the right hands? You’re just opening up a can of worms this way. It’s easy enough, and 60% of Americans voting is perfectly sufficient.”

So, after hearing my friend’s remarks, I shied away from reaching out to political figures about this issue because I learned that voting is not an issue; although, online voting would make it into an issue. While 40% of the eligible voting population is not voting, I’m okay with it. Most of that 40% of eligible voters not voting are not voting because they do not care enough to go to the polls and fill out a ballot–I mean, it’s not like their vote matters, right? (total sarcasm..) While I wish for that 40% to dwindle, I don’t want that number to decrease by making it easier than it already is to vote. That would just bring unwanted votes in…I want that number to go down through education–that is the future of our country. This educational gap is such a big problem in our country, and I can’t put a finger on the cause, but its side effects are numerous. Not going into all of its side effects, voting is one of its biggest side effects.

So, while its obvious that education and knowledge is they key to resolving voter turnout, and not online voting, how about cheating at the polls? This has been happening for a while–think 1950s Chicago, when briberies would go on in polling booths to sway the vote for a particular candidate. But those are the old days, voter fraud no longer exists! Except, that’s definitely not true. Voter fraud is still very relevant today, but in more advanced ways. The traditional techniques such as ballot-stuffing, the destruction of ballots, voter impersonation, and misuse of proxy voting are still around, but that’s not my worry. My worry is the tampering of electronic voting machines–adding malicious code to alter vote counts for a particular candidate, tampering with hardware for the same effect, abusing administrator control of machine, and results that are sent through the internet can be vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, giving a hacker the ability to intercept the results and change them to favor a candidate. With all these internet vulnerabilities and some states strict use of online voting machines, the possibility of voter fraud becomes more and more possible.

While I don’t know if electronic voting will ever be tampered with, I can confidently say that internet voting is just not needed as of now. The system makes it easy enough to vote, and the voter turnout is perfectly fine the way it is. Those who don’t vote are mostly uninformed or do not care, but this is not to claim that everyone that votes is informed as well. It’s not the time for online voting. Maybe, just maybe, it will be the time for online voting in the future. This is: the future of the internet.

~ammer s.

This is a really interesting idea for the future–will computers, similar to the Terminator, take over humans one day? Will computers become smarter than humans and be able to act independent of and against humans?

Let’s get into talking about the possibility of this happening.

Theoretically speaking, this could most definitely happen and become a reality. As long as Moore’s law holds true for the next few decades, computers will be able to model the human brain in terms of processing and functionality. The ability to act quicker and more intelligently can be a reality, but I want to discuss two key ideas before we continue: intelligence and modeling after the human brain.

Intelligence is such an ambiguous term. A good way to examine the definition of intelligence is by looking at Harvard students. If you take a look at the average admission statistics for Harvard College, you’ll notice that the College reports that the average SAT score and GPA for admitted students was a 2260 and 3.97 unweighted–two main measures of intelligence or “college readiness”. Considering students who attend the college were among the top of their class and scored better than 98% of all of America, on average, I think many people would confidently conclude that Harvard students are intelligent. While I’m not trying to challenge that assertion by any means because many of my peers perform very well academically, I would say that based off of those statistics, it can be assumed that Harvard students test well academically and performed well academically. In terms of intelligence, I cannot say that my peers are intelligent because intelligence is so unclear. Is the best biologist in my class also an expert in the game of football? Does he share the same football intelligence as some of the most famous coaches or players of all time? Possibly, because it is Harvard, but probably not. This does not mean that he is not smart or intelligent; this just means that he is intelligent in terms of biology and whatever other subjects this particular student may excel in. How about the student the student that does not do well in biology, but is extremely social? Is this student dumb? Definitely not–he is socially intelligent, but perhaps not so well-versed in subjects such as biology. This is what I mean that intelligence is ambiguous–there are so many different types and no definitive ways to measure it. For the singularity to happen, however, many of us assume that computers have to outsmart humans, but we have no idea what “outsmarts” even means. Does that mean overpower, does it mean to have the ability to learn better and faster than humans, or is it a combination of both? This is a difficult question that I really do not have an answer to. The best answer I can provide, however, is that computers must have the ability to learn quicker and better than humans to be considered “smarter” than humans and be able to use this obtained knowledge better. If these computers can learn and use the information better, they will be able to teach themselves in all aspects to objectively be smarter than humans.

Let’s move on to the idea of modeling it like the human brain

If computers can learn better and more than humans and use this information better than us, then how do you go about making computers like the ones described? Do you model the human brain? Well, the brain is a network of chemical pathways, whereas the computer is a network of electric pathways. Are chemical and electrical pathways the same? How about the fact that we don’t even understand how the human brain works (good luck trying to model it after something we don’t understand). How about the idea that you don’t model it like the human brain, and instead model it into something better and more efficient than the human brain because it is meant to be more efficient anyway. How about the idea that the brain is known to have poor memory and clashes between different types of intelligence, such as emotional and logical intelligence–do you allocate enough memory so that it remembers everything perfectly or just partially, like us, and do you allow for these clashes or prevent them at all costs? The human brain is such an intricate system and abstraction would come into play big time here when modeling it like or even better than the human brain.

I think the singularity is really interesting, but I am a firm believer in the laws of the universe: what can be created, can be destroyed. If we were nearing the singularity, you can either stop innovating through a ban if you can detect that point. If it’s made already and is seen to have possibly detrimental effects, then it should be maintained the same way nuclear bombs are.

What can be created, can be destroyed. 

The Internet of Things.

When I first heard that phrase, I had no idea what it meant. In the context of the conversation, I assumed that it meant the expansion of the Internet to “things”, but I wasn’t sure what “things” really meant. Isn’t the Internet expansive enough, I thought? With my entrepreneurial mindset, I couldn’t see any room to make the Internet more applicable. That’s because:

1. I didn’t understand the Internet at its core.
2. Narrow-thinking–you gotta think big.
3. I didn’t believe I could make an impact the magnitude of the IoT

After being introduced to the IoT and its wonders, I’ve really been thinking about the ethical implications and potential consequences of the IoT. Let’s begin with some examples and analyze them from there.

One of the coolest examples regards the future of your home. Imagine a home that has its own connected network of gadgets, or better yet, its own internet. Your home knows when you aren’t home, so it turns off the lights for you to conserve energy and help you save money on your electricity bill. Occasionally, especially when out for longer durations, your home will turn on and off the lights randomly to apply the facade that you are home to scare away potential thieves and ensure the safety of your home. Assuming your home is connected to your phone, the possibilities become endless. The data that your phone and home can collect can be super helpful in improving your quality of life. Your home will know now your typical work hours, and on your drive home, not only will your phone tell you alternative routes to avoid traffic, but your phone will tell your home that you are on your way back so your house should turn on the air condition to make the house nice and cool by the time you get there. Once you get out of your car and approach the door, the smart lock on your door will know its you because of your phone, and will unlock the door for you. Upon walking in, the camera that you have set up facing your door will turn off, the lights will turn on, the shades will go up, the air condition will turn off, the TV will turn on with your favorite news network playing and the list goes on. Time is limited, and the idea of your home running by itself in your favor is attractive for good reason (or reasons?).

While this all sounds good and super helpful for all homeowners, it has some fatal flaws. Big data is scary–do you know who’s behind the screen looking at the data that’s being collected? Is it being collected anonymously or is your home associated with the data that is being collected? How about modes of interception–what if it gets in the wrong hands? The data can be extremely valuable to anyone with a malicious intent, so how secure is this data? There’s definitely a tradeoff made between convenience and risk, but by how much? With industry standards for encryption, I’d say that the chances are slim for this information to be intercepted. However, if this information is ever put in the wrong hands, the damage that can be done is enormous. So while there is a low risk, the potential damage is extremely high. However, this risk and potential consequence, when weighed against the convenience of a smart home, may not matter as much as some people might think.

Let’s talk about our smart phones. The data that my smartphone collects is crazy; it tells me the traffic on my way home when I didn’t even tell it that I was going home–and somehow manages to get it right all the time–and knows where I am at all times. The risk of this type of data getting stolen is minimal because isn’t easy to do, but I would argue that it would be easier to intercept than intercepting a smart home’s data, just because smart homes are not as common so it’d be difficult to pinpoint which home uses specific technology and which homes do not. The data that these phones collect can also be used for detrimental effects just as bad as the smart home’s data, but we still use our smartphones without even thinking twice of the risk. I don’t think we should live in a nation of fear, albeit current national security tensions raised by the one and only individual that I am not going to mention in this post. We are a nation of progress–a nation built off of technology and intelligence. We are heading in the right direction with smart homes and other IoT gadgets. Let’s embrace the progress that we see and rather than believing the notion that the data being collected can be used against us, let’s think more about how it can be used for us.

~ ammer s.

Last week’s seminar was super insightful; we finally began to talk about Internet as we know it today. This discussion made me think about where the Internet is heading in the near future. While we have many more weeks to go to talk about this–I want to see what I think about it now and see how my opinion changes in the coming weeks. So, let’s do this.

To me, the Internet was invented for one reason: to make connecting simpler than ever. This notion will never change. The premise that the internet will evolve to ever have a different purpose is not what this class is about. This class is about educating us on how the means to connect in a simple manner will evolve in the near future (plus more, of course). So, if the whole point of the internet is to connect us–whether it be to a news source like Yahoo! (lol), or long-lost twin on Facebook (that must’ve happened, considering its 1 billion+ user base..)–connecting will be different. Let’s take a look at an example: Uber.

Uber is fascinating. To me, it seems so blatantly obvious of an idea and I’m personally shocked someone didn’t come up with it early. I mean, let’s think about what it does: it connects you to a driver to simplify your traveling experience. Taxis are great and all, but Uber is just so much more convenient, and better yet, cheaper (for the most part). Uber singlehandedly disrupted the Taxi market and are slowly driving them out of business. Just take a look at Harvard Square on a Friday night; you’ll find tens of cab drivers waiting outside their cars waiting for business while Uber drivings are receiving overflowing requests. It’s a great idea that helps connect people in need of a service at a lower cost. Overall:  brilliant.

Now, let’s move on to another idea that really fascinates me as well: Venmo. Invented by University of Pennsylvania students, Venmo creates a digital wallet for people to transfer money in their bank accounts or Venmo accounts to their friends. Ever go on a late-night food run with your friends and forget your wallet? No worries. Venmo got your back (and your friends, assuming they brought their wallets…). When you boil down Venmo to its core functionality, you notice that it achieves a similar purpose to Uber. It, once again, connects you to friends to simplify the means of which you transfer money. What I think is even more brilliant is Venmo’s creation of a digital wallet. If someone sends you money via Venmo, it stores automatically in your Venmo account. From there, you can choose to put that money in your bank account or leave it in your account for future transactions so that you can send that money to others on Venmo–pure genius!  This all revolves around the idea of connecting–connecting you with others to transfer money easier and connecting this money to a type of digital currency. Overall: brilliant.

So we talked about two brilliant ideas that go on to show how the internet’s primary use seems to be connectivity–which is what I’m very convinced of. Let’s talk about an idea that uses this premise of connectivity and simplicity: bringing the classroom to you, no matter where you are. I always thought about this as a child who’d miss school quite frequently because of sickness–how can I keep learning at the comfort of my own bed? How can I be connected to my classroom at home so that learning never stops? It’s a simple idea, and this is definitely not terribly difficult to integrate. It makes me think about the future and what I think the Internet could be good for–I think this is one of them.

~ammer s.