When George Orwell wrote 1984, it seemed like a great dystopian society book, but everyone thought of it as just that, a book. I don’t think that in 1949, people would think that this could even be possible, let alone a reality. “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.” Telescreens everywhere, monitoring the private and public lives of the people. Propaganda films, military parades, and public executions. Seems like the stuff of books and movies, right? And everyone thought so for half a century. Until 2003. Until Edward Snowden. Until the truth came out.
In June 2013, all Americans were shocked. The United States National Security Agency was collecting the phone calls of millions of Americans. Unassuming Americans, people who were innocent of any serious crime, people who had no reason to be recorded. When Edward Snowden came across this information, he thought that it was his responsibility to inform the public of what was truly going on. He met with three journalists in Hong Kong, and over a period of several days, they published documents revealing the truth: that the government had been monitoring the private activities of ordinary citizens who had done nothing wrong. Did Edward Snowden act ethically and morally? That is a question with no right answer, I think. It’s a hard decision to make because the answer can change depending on which side you’re looking at it from. As an American, I want to know if the government is violating my privacy. I want to know if they are exploiting faults and vulnerabilities in the software to monitor my activity. And as a human being, I don’t want to be recorded and monitored without my consent. But if I think of it from the standpoint of security, I realize that this can be a way to get information about terrorist activity and that this has the possibility of preventing a major attack. In retrospect, it doesn’t seem like such a bad trade off, to give up a little bit of privacy for the sake of protection. Especially if you don’t have anything to hide. I think the biggest problem with this was the lack of transparency. If citizens were made aware of the measures that the government was going to in order to assure their safety, then maybe they won’t have as much of a problem. But then again, when you look at what the program has actually done and its results (it only foiled one terrorist plot which was a San Diego cab driver who gave $8,500 to al-Qaeda), it doesn’t really seem like a successful surveillance program. I don’t think that it has benefitted us because unfortunately, Americans don’t really care. Unless it is directly affecting their lives, people don’t usually know about it or don’t care. It hasn’t impacted me personally, however my thoughts on government, national security, and technology have changed. Before it came out, technology was just the thing I used and was what made my life easier. However, when it did come out, I realized the dangers of technology, how it can be misused, and the different avenues of surveillance it allows. I also realized that the government would put national security over the rights and privacy of their own citizens. And that is disappointing. In an ideal world, we can have total safety and total privacy. But we have to acknowledge that the two cannot co-exist. In order to have one, the other must suffer. It’s just a matter of us deciding which one matters more.
0 Comments
Even if the technology industry truly was a meritocracy, it should still matter where the employees come from. If the company is based in, let’s say X nation, then the company should ultimately serve X well. A company that is based in America should make sure that it is providing American jobs. However, it is also important to acknowledge that it is in the best interest of America for the companies to succeed and do well because when they do, they are contributing more to the American economy and creating new jobs for other Americans. Companies should be free to hire the best, regardless of national origin. However, this is not to mean that the whole company can consist only of foreigners. It is also important to discuss the motive behind hiring people from other countries; is it truly because they are the best or because they are cheaper labor? If the reasons are because they are truly the best, then there should be no reason as to why companies shouldn’t hire them. The majority of the company should be Americans, but we should not eliminate the possibility of having foreign workers as it can potentially harm our status as a technically dominant country.
I do believe that companies have a moral and ethical obligation to their home country. If their home country succeeds, then it will only boost the morale of the company and improve their standing, both technically and monetarily. Money is important, but it is not above all. Yes, if companies have employees from other nations they are most likely going to be cheaper, but I think that companies have to be held accountable to their home country. Should nations prioritize the needs of corporations over individual citizens? I’m not sure. I think there should be a balance between the two because if you put one before the other, the other suffers and impacts the first. Dear Senator Todd Young,
We are writing to address our concerns about the H-1B visas. As you are aware, the H-1B visa was established to be used in situations when a job position could not be filled by a U.S. worker with equal or better qualifications. Companies have been known to use these visas to find cheaper labor, but this misuse of the visa program does not warrant its complete dismissal. There are many benefits to the continuance of the H-1B visa program. America is a nation of immigrants. It was started by immigrants, for immigrants. The plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty states, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” It is important that we not forget where we began. These H-1B visas enable people to rise above their current situations by giving them opportunities that they otherwise would not have. The narrative for H-1B visas is the same as any immigration discussion: immigrants are taking away American jobs. However, the validity of this argument is untrue. Adding immigrants to the pool of candidates for jobs increases competition, and we think that is good because we believe that competition and innovation go hand in hand. Once these ideas become a reality, new jobs are created for Americans. We need to recognize that retaining talented immigrants is in the best interest for the American economy. This is how we put America first. Another reason that we need to keep the H-1B visa program is to protect America’s status as a technically dominant country. We would be putting ourselves in a precarious position if we deny the help foreign workers can give to us and our economy. By removing foreign workers, we lose the ideas and drive they can bring to us. Instead of working with Americans, they will bring their talents elsewhere. Another country will be able to take this talent and utilize it themselves. Think about Apple, Amazon, and Google. What do all of these companies have in common? They were founded by immigrants. If they have ideas for new startups, they will take away what could have been thousands of American jobs. That being said, the program is obviously not without its flaws. There are some ways in which companies are abusing the privileges presented to them, and there needs to be reforms to the visa program to decrease these while still maintaining the competitive edge America has. There have been public cases in which American workers have been kicked out of their jobs and replaced by foreign workers. There has been at least one case in which American workers had to train their own replacements. This is a gross misuse of the program because the purpose of the H-1B visa program is to fill spots that are not otherwise being filled by American workers. To combat this, there needs to be stricter criteria to ensure companies actually have an open position and have looked to fill the job with American workers. Another problem is the lottery system currently in place. This needs to be re-evaluated because this actually hinders the American workforce since workers are being chosen at random and not for specific skills. Finally, the salary concern is a prominent issue that has arisen when discussing H1-B. There has been clear misuse in which companies avoid having to pay American workers the high salary which they deserve by paying immigrants less. If there was a salary system which took into account location and levels of experience, there would be less abuse. This reform would be beneficial to all; not only would it make companies more inclined to hire American workers, but it would also help immigrant workers earn the living they deserve. We hope you take into consideration our thoughts on this important issue. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, Esmeralda Cervantes Laura Syers Melina Valencia Julianna Yee First of all, wow. I am not ashamed to admit that I am woefully ignorant of a lot of our space history. There are a few things that have stuck in my head, but this? This is not one of them, which is surprising. This is a fail of epic proportions. And on such a big stage! The Challenger set off on January 28. Just over a minute after liftoff, and a mere 10 miles above Earth, the space shuttle Challenger exploded over the Atlantic Ocean. The “orange fireball and billowing white trails” confused a lot of people who didn’t realize that that was not what it was supposed to look like. In the live CNN video, all you hear is the man from Mission Control stating, “Obviously a major malfunction” and “we have no downlink,” whatever that means. To confirm the obvious, he then said, “We have a report from the flight dynamics officer that the vehicle has exploded.” I, of course, was not there during the explosion, but the one thing I think everyone would agree with is that the sentiment was shock. How could something so huge fail so catastrophically? Everyone would assume that something so big would go through so many checks to avoid something like this from happening. But when you take the whole story into account, it doesn’t seem so hard to believe that something like this could happen.
The reason why the Challenger went boom is because of the failed O-ring. The seal failed on the rocket booster and because of the hole, a stream of hot gas was released and ignited an external fuel tank. There was evidence that erosion built up on the O ring seals and that the unseasonably cold temperatures during liftoff could have worsened the problem. It was recommended that they postpone launch until the temperature rose up to 54 degrees. However, with so many eyes on NASA, the managers were quick to dismiss a lot of concerns in lieu of sticking to the deadline. These NASA managers knew that the O-rings performed poorly under cold temperatures and suffered damage, but not enough to cause catastrophe. Instead of taking the time to redesign it, they classified it as an acceptable flight risk. Roger Boisjoly was ethical in sharing information with the public. He did his job by warning the managers that the O-rings used to seal the joints could fail at low temperatures. He warned that, “the result would be a catastrophe of the highest order- loss of human life.” And he was right. With others by his side, they took on the arduous task of trying to convince management that keeping the launch date would be dangerous, but they failed. It is utterly ridiculous for the company to have treated him the way that they did. While yes, I understand that business is business, I still have to believe that a shred of decency is to be maintained in business. That company should have known better than to ignore the warnings of its engineers. And it is unfortunate that this mistake had such a fatal consequence. Roger was just doing what any decent human person would. Whistleblowing is something that is needed, but difficult to actually do. It’s a hard task that a few people have to take on, but for the greater good of society, it needs to be done. People need to know the truth and with so many companies and executives trying to hide it, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to have a few people out there to help spread the truth. The fact that we are still questioning whether the lack of diversity present in the technology industry is a problem is sad. Can anyone, genuinely, in good conscience, say that it isn’t? Can they actually say that this is a reality that we just have to say? If that’s the world that we’ve come to, well then, it’s a shitty world. I won’t say that this is just a reality because then that means I’ve given up on making it a better place for future women. It means that I’m resigned to accept this fate and just adjust to it. And I won’t. I’m not.
The obstacles that women face every day just because of their gender is ridiculous. There are walls and hoops that are in place from the day that they are born that women will have to jump through the rest of their lives. Every day in the field, women face the possibility of sexual assault and harassment. Their work will be questioned, doubted, reviewed over and over again because they’re women. Their competence will not be believed because programming and coding is a man’s job. How could a woman ever be capable of producing the same results as a man in a line of work that is not theirs? Computer science is a gendered major. It has traits associated with it and a gender tied to it too. The field is thought to be made for a man: analytical, powerful, difficult, all things that are tied to masculinity. Gender stereotypes lead people to downplay a woman’s skill level. The problem needs to be addressed. But how is difficult to say. The root of the issue is in society itself and how it has gendered male and female qualities. From birth, women are taught certain things: how to act, to dress, to think, behave. We are told that certain things are ‘for boys’ while other things are ‘for girls’. By the age of 6, girls already start to think that they are not as smart as boys. Once we get to high school and college, these ideas and thoughts have taken root in our brain and we believe these things. We start to think that there are certain things we can’t do because we are women, because we aren’t made for it. It’s hard to go against something that is engrained in us for so long. It is this that we need to fight, that we need to challenge. Women should never have to doubt their capabilities because we are taught that. Minorities should never feel less than what they are just because of stereotypes that are perpetuated through mass media. The tech industry has to take steps to shorten the gender gap and the minority disparity. As a woman and a minority, it’s my unfortunate reality that I have to face. But I don’t want to. I don’t want to learn “the fine art of the three-quarters smile, as well as how to deflect conversation away from [my] personal life and return it to topics like sports and market strategy” or how to “distinguish between actual predators and well-meaning guys who were just a bit clueless.” That’s my reality. I have to learn how to smile so I don’t send the wrong message. I have to learn how to change the topic when a man starts to pry too much into my personal life. I have to learn who is a good guy and who is out to get me. The fact that that is my reality is depressing. Just because I am a woman, that is the life that awaits me. In my internship, I worked with two other male interns, one was a fellow computer science major, the other was a math major (let’s name them Bill and Joe, respectively). We had daily scrum meetings with our manager in India where we’d report with updates on our previous work and receive our next task. Bill and Joe were both constantly given much harder work than I was. Now Bill was understandable because he was a computer science major and he had plenty of previous internship experience at other big-name tech companies. Joe, however, was not. His previous role was as doing statistical analysis, and had no previous coding experience. Our project was entirely code based. He, a math major with no coding experience, was given more responsibility than me, a computer science major. Why? Bill wondered this with me because while he was doing his work, I finished mine and had to help Joe do his work too. This experience was frustrating because one person was damaging my experience with this company. He was questioning my ability. He put my education at risk because of some misguided belief that I could not to it. That’s why the story of what is happening at Uber is so frustrating. The fact that it is happening is frustrating. The diversity and gender problem needs to be addressed, and soon, so that no other woman needs to experience what so many from our generation and those before us have. Wow, pbui. You’re really trying to get some discussions going, huh? Immigration is a touchy topic. It’s a polarizing subject, and it brings up strong feelings in a lot of people. You’re either for it or against it, even if you consider yourself part of the ‘middle ground’, you lean more one way than the other. The whole controversy regarding H-1B Visas is about the job security. Americans fear that with the introduction of these visas, jobs would be taken away from other Americans.
The purpose of the use of H-1B Visas is to attract top talent to the United States. It is supposed to help the US stay on top by having the most talented people working for them. The H-1B visa program is a temporary visa for foreigners in “special occupations.” It is typically for careers where a college degree and specialized skills in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The narrative for H-1B visas is the same as any immigration discussion: immigrants are taking away American jobs. Those who are in support of these visas maintain that retaining talented immigrants in the US is crucial to the economy. One of the biggest problems with the H-1B visa is that, to some extent, people are right. I do think that they are taking away American jobs. The initial purpose of the visa was to bring in people from outside of the US because there were jobs that needed to be filled that could not be done with US workers. Companies are outsourcing jobs to people from other countries because they were looking for people who could accomplish what they felt Americans could not. Or at least that’s what they’re saying. These companies are actually abusing the H-1B visas to find cheaper labor. What was once supposed to be a tool to keep America on top is now being used to take jobs from Americans to give to immigrants. Employers are giving these jobs to immigrants who supposedly have skills that cannot be found in America and giving them a salary of just over 60,000 to be able to meet the minimum requirement for the visa. Those who are for the visas say that immigrants are essential to the American economy. There are several startups that have been founded by immigrants that have created thousands of jobs for Americans. They claim that the tech-talent shortage is real and that the H-1B visas are needed to fill that gap. Even though there is no actual evidence of this so called, ‘shortage’. I am in favor of these H-1B visas, but not the way that they are currently being administered. These visas are important because they are giving opportunities to those that do not have the same chances that we do. But the way that they are currently structured is letting companies take advantage of it and take away jobs from talented Americans. The H-1B visa program needs to be reformed so that it is giving jobs to people who have talents that can’t be found in the US. It shouldn’t be about trying to cut costs. Adding immigrants to the pool of candidates for jobs increases the competition and I think competition is good because I believe that competition and innovation go hand in hand. The visa program can be beneficial to the US once it is reformed. What those reforms entail is beyond my paygrade. I think that America should, not necessarily prioritize, but think of Americans first before looking elsewhere for employees. Am I concerned with competition because of outsourcing or foreign workers? Sure, a little. But never will I say that the US should curtail programs like the H-1B Visa or DACA. America has been the land of opportunity. That’s why my parents came here. That’s what they’ve given me, a land of opportunity. And I want to keep it that way. I agree with everything that my group wrote. That Manifesto is my manifesto. Is it a warcry? I guess you can call it that. What we wrote in the Manifesto is everything we as women in a STEM career face. Our abilities are questioned. Our accomplishments are doubted. Our talents are minimized. And our Manifesto talks about just that. It speaks of the challenges that we encounter every day, just because of our biology. It’s about the stereotypes we have to beat just to be taken seriously. But it also talks about our willingness to face them and overcome them. Because we will be heard and seen, and the things that we will do will amaze.
I think most of my differences with the Portrait we created lie in hobbies, appearance, and origin. I don’t play video games, nor do I go to hackathons and code for fun. I am not a male, and I’m actually shorter than our typical ND CSE student. I am not from the suburbs of Chicago. These are very superficial differences, but otherwise, the Portrait is pretty spot on. Stereotypes are everywhere. We use them every day, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. Most of the stereotypes are not baseless, they are based in some truth, while others are wildly wrong. I think a person’s thoughts on stereotypes depends on if they have a positive or a negative connotation and whether or not the stereotype of him/her is one he/she identifies with. I don’t like them. On paper, I am a female Hispanic in computer science. The way the world views females, Hispanics, and women in computer science is not the most positive. People treat you differently when there is a negative stereotype of you. I was treated differently in my internship because of who I am. And it sucks, but the only thing you can do is prove them wrong. Manifestos are helpful. They share thoughts and feelings. But the presence of a Portrait is harmful. It creates an image of what you should be and if you don’t fit into the mold, it’s hard to not feel like an outsider. Why should there be only one mold, when we’re all so different? What’s so hard about embracing the differences? If you ever find out, please let me know. Written with Erin Bradford and Esmeralda Cervantes
Manifesto We are biologically wired to be less in a man’s world. We crack under pressure. We can’t be trusted with money. We’re too emotional. We’re too bossy. We belong in the home. We lack ambition. We are not qualified to do a man’s job. We will leave our job to get married and have children. We lack confidence. We can’t do math or science. We are more equipped to deal with people, not technology. We have soft skills, not technical skills. We aren’t born with the capacity to program. We get jobs to fill a quota, not because of our talent. Our empowerment comes at the expense of men. Wrong. We thrive under pressure. We can handle money. We control our emotions. We’re assertive. We can work full time. We have ambition. We are qualified to do a ‘man’s’ job. We can achieve a work-life balance. We are confident. We can do math and science. We are just as capable at dealing with technology. We have technical skills. We can program the shit out of anything. We get jobs based on our talent. Get out of our way and watch us run this world. If you don’t like that... Sorry not sorry. Portrait of a Notre Dame CS Student ORIGIN Hails from the suburbs of Chicago. Top of their high school class. Better at math than english but still doesn’t want to do math ever. Played a sport in high school so they think they are athletic. Computer Science was not the major they applied as. APPEARANCE Typically male, although regardless of gender average height is 5’5”-5’7’ - short enough to hide behind their computer. Everyone has poor eye sight: either you can tell (glasses) or you can’t (contacts). DRESS Men will wear shirts advertising internships or networking events with large tech companies. Females are willing to actually put in effort, but don’t always. RELATIONSHIP STATUS Single. Or dating fellow CS major. Or trying to date a fellow CS major. EQUIPMENT Females: Macs. Males: Lenovo ThinkPad. All: Water bottles, CS decals. HOBBIES Coding for fun, spending weekends at hackathons and getting drunk under the pretense of a ‘networking’ event (resumes are involved). Gaming of any kind. The older the game console, the more respect garnered. Going to the gym. LIKES Showing up way too early to every class and 2 hours early on test days. Energy drinks. Caffeinated sodas. Especially Coke. Python. Ultimate Frisbee. Vim. Tabs. Stack Overflow. Google. DISLIKES Writing. Assembly Code. Classes that ban laptops and cell phones. Matlab. Theory of Computing. Spaces. Mendoza College students. BELIEFS (Politics & Religion) Catholic. Generally right leaning, though moderate. WEAKNESSES Talking about anything not related to technology. Eye contact. Gender Relations. Problems that can’t be Googled. Reading comprehension. Writing manifestos. POST GRAD PLANS Software companies. Pariveda. Consulting in general. Probably end up in California or Chicago. |
AuthorJust a New Yorker trying to survive in the Midwest. ArchivesCategories |