Technology and Us

Technology and Me

I spend a lot of time on technology. This semester, I am completing 18 credit hours, researching, and working 10 hours a week at my university's Information Technology center. Technology is unavoidable and my life at the same time. 

However, I try my best to limit what I do. During school hours, I complete my homework online, as well as take notes and read textbooks on my laptop. For almost the entire day, I listen to music: between classes, while doing homework, and going to the gym. I communicate with my friends with my phone, but honestly, I only prioritize very few people to respond to. I only respond to calls when it is someone I very much care about, and prefer to communicate face to face. This is easy when my friends all live in the same campus as me, so I spend a large amount of time just hanging out with my friends or boyfriend. 

I am certainly dependent on technology. Computer science and game design do not lend themselves to let me unplug for large amounts of time. However, I do enjoy reading books on the promenade and going to exercise. When I have nothing to do, I bring a towel and lay in the grass while either crocheting or reading a book. 

Technology addiction affects everyone in the modern era in some way. I will not try to prove that I am not addicted. When I have time, I play video games for hours at a time. I find alone time without music to be off-putting, and I definitely spend some time before bed scrolling. However, I feel that it is alright to indulge somewhat. I work extremely hard, and sometimes I leave the dorm at 9 in the morning and don't come back until past 10. Sometimes, I don't come back all night. I feel that it is unproblematic to allow myself a small amount of time to consume content without any other obligations. This is also not a lot of time. If I'm lucky, I watch a 15 minute YouTube video before bed. 

Social media takes up the lives of a lot of people. However, I try to minimize what I do on social media. I rarely post on Instagram (although I do post a lot about HPU on my story) and only follow those who I know personally. I use Snapchat for group chats, Discord for my computer science and game design friends, and have not downloaded TikTok. I don't particularly look at other people's social media presences either, not because I don't care about them, but I just don't have enough time in the day to look. I am mostly unaffected by how people appear on social media, and this results in the fact that I don't compare myself to others much.

Technology and The People Around Me

They say you are the people you surround yourself with. I surround myself with similar people who work on computers, games, and friends that want to communicate with me. They live in the same online spaces that I do. My friends that I communicate the most with online are, fittingly, mostly computer science majors, and we spend many hours on our computer talking in the group chat. This all took us through the Covid era, where in person communication was impossible. It's not the same as looking them in the face, but everyone was very active, and we called or video chatted often. 

I have a pretty low screen time on my phone. It's close to about 4 hours, with at least some of it related to life-necessary activities like ordering food and signing into Workday. The reason that my screen time is so low on my phone is also because I spend a lot of time on the computer. Discord has the great advantage of that it is both a phone app and a computer app, so I communicate through my computer a lot. 

I have a much lower screen time than most people I know. For example, I asked my roommate and one other friend, and they both have close to 8 hours on their phone. Honestly, I'm just way too busy to have this much time on my phone. I'm completing two majors at the same time, working, doing research, and attending 4-5 clubs a week. These are all things I enjoy, and are more fulfilling than spending my free time consuming content. 

Technology and Society

The Digital Age is the time where we reside, a time where the relationship between humanity and technology is so intertwined that we cannot imagine life without it. In general, I believe it is unhealthy. It is not as dramatic as this video makes it seem, but there are definitely some parts of truth. The amount of people that have been injured or killed playing Pokemon Go is much higher than it should be, standing at a current 24 deaths and 62 injuries. It is ridiculous to think that people are so distracted playing Pokemon that they neglect bodily safety, but honestly, this happens a lot with technology. 

I work in customer service, and the amount of people who are hopelessly confused confound me every day. Society produces people that use technology, but they are not necessarily technologically literate. People don't know how to use applications, avoid malware, put together a computer, or moderate their technology use. Of course, this is a sweeping statement, but for the population that does not concentrate in computers, this is true. 

I feel that people are generally quite willing to jump headfirst into technology without doing any sort of background critical thinking. The idea of autonomous cars is cool in concept, but the closer someone is to actually developing the technology the more they doubt this invention. The National Law Review cites that more deaths happen per million crashes in autonomous vehicles than in non-autonomous vehicles, even though 90% of crashes are a result in human error. The Internet of Things, or the idea that every daily task will be aided by technology in some way, is already something that exists, with smart fridges, watches, alarm clocks, lights, etc. 

This resembles the Futurama hopefulness of what technology can do to us, but it is an unrealistic optimism that cannot exist in the world so long as humans continue to be human. There could be a world where humans are free to create and relax, with all tedious jobs fulfilled by AI, but there will not be. Already, AI has been winning art competitions, putting people out of jobs, and automating daily tasks. Unfortunately, we live in a world where efficiency matters, so instead of limiting tedious tasks and freeing human labor for more creative careers, companies will try to replace as many people as possible. 

My Future with Technology

As much as I criticize technology, this is my past, present, and future. I enjoy being in the online space (responsibly), and I very much enjoy going through my computer science degree. I love to program, develop games, and problem solve. I will probably end up completing some kind of graduate degree, in either game design or artificial intelligence. I am also taking an interest in data science, as I find my research modeling fission reactions quite fun. 

I believe technology can become a refuge for people. I spent my time during the pandemic socializing online with my friends, participating in online games, voice calls, and video chats. I didn't feel alone, even though I was isolated from everyone else. It's a way to communicate with the people that I miss from back home when I'm at college. It will stay this way, as I call and text my high school friends every day. The further I get from my parents, the more valuable online chatting is. 

If we aren't careful, technology can also be both a crutch and a hinderance. It can be addicting and mind-numbing. It shields us from having to make the difficult choices in face-to-face human interaction. It makes life safer in some areas, but takes away from what makes us human in others. Technology is what we make of it, and it's important to remember what life is like without it sometimes.

Net Neutrality

 

After watching everyone else's EOTO presentations, I was struck by the topic of net neutrality. I remember in 2014 when President Obama defended net neutrality. The principles of which include: no

blocking, no throttling, increased transparency, and no paid prioritization. This may have been the first time I actively researched and was aware of some kind of policy that was going on in the United States, since I was only ten years old but quite active in the Internet space. 

Internet Service Providers

I think it is ridiculous that some defend a lack of net neutrality. The principles of net neutrality are equal access for all, which should obviously be something that Americans defend. Net neutrality rules prevent targeted control of Internet access in the United States, which would give internet service

Examples of ISPs

providers (ISPs) more power than they should have. ISPs are already huge conglomerates, and there is no reason to restrict Internet access. Without net neutrality laws, ISPs would be able to charge users of their services excessive amounts of money on a tiered system. Large conglomerates and affluent customers would be the only ones with speedy Internet access on websites. 

The other issue, as well, is that many ISPs own their own websites, and a lack of net neutrality would make it so that carriers could block or throttle traffic to competing carriers. In fact, carriers could block or throttle anyone for any reason. This could be for reasons like the customer doesn't align with certain beliefs that the ISP has, the customer is criticizing the ISP, or any other reason, since they are all private companies. The ability to promote only themselves and others that are willing to pay large amounts only fuels the monopoly problem in the United States. 

CEO of Verizon, Kyle Malady

2013 - Verizon v. FCC

For example, Verizon has historically fought the FCC on net neutrality regulations. The Verizon v. FCC case in 2013 was an example of Verizon trying to fight the anti-blocking and anti-throttling regulations, and they ended up losing because of the climate of net neutrality at the time. Of course, this is because Verizon has also been suspected of rerouting online searches to websites that are often owned by themselves. 

2017 - Net Neutrality Repealed

In 2017, many of these regulations were repealed under the Trump Administration. At the time of writing this, net neutrality rules are not as powerful as they once were. Because of how intertwined corporations are with policy-writing, this is not surprising, but it is disappointing. Corporations do not need to be propped up more than they already are, and as someone who is very much in the online space, I am a supporter of net neutrality.

Smith-Mundt Act

Karl Mundt

1948 - Smith Mundt

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 has gone through many policy reforms. Seventy years of change has created the modern Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which demonstrates the change in contexts from back then. Originally, the act was developed to promote better foreign perceptions of the United States. 1948 was a strange period in the history of the world, as WWII had recently ended, but the Soviet Union and the United States were beginning to engage in the Cold War. The Soviet Union spread a large amount of misinformation about the US, and the Department of State decided that it would be wise to promote truthful content about the US. The growing "global communist threat" gained support for the act, as many hoped to portray the US positively in Europe. 

The act did not push for more pro-US propaganda to be shown to foreign entities, or at least that is not the motivation initially. United States citizens were embittered to the name-calling employed by the Soviet Union, and aimed to only spread the truth about what the US stood for. The government wanted information about the US to come directly from us, which they thought to be more powerful than countering with similar propaganda. 

1948 Soviet Propaganda

The second piece of the act controls domestic spreading of the propaganda released to the rest of the world. These pieces of propaganda were explicitly required to be available to media organizations upon request, but not to private citizens. Congress was not concerned with Americans gaining access to this content, but did not want to compete with commercial news broadcasters in the spread of information. In 1948, the Smith-Mundt act allowed the pieces of information developed by the Secretary of State to be disseminated through "press, publications, radio, motion pictures, and other information media". 

1972 - Fulbright Amendment

The 1972 version of domestic dissemination of information, often called the Fulbright Amendment (after Senate Foreign Relations Chair William Fulbright), stated that material prepared for international dissemination shall not be spread within the US or its territories. However, it is available upon request for media organizations, scholars, and members of Congress. 

1985 - Zorinsky Amendment

The Zorinsky Amendment of 1985 (named after the Democratic Senator Edward Zorinsky) adds onto what was already written in the act, prohibiting public diplomacy fund usage in essentially propaganda creation. The words are "to influence public opinion in the United States", but of course "propaganda" is regarded so negatively that no piece of legislation wants to use the word. Some argue that the Amendment hinders public diplomacy efforts, but Zorinsky clearly was of the opinion that propaganda should not be something that the general public funds. 

1994 - USIA Internet Services

In 1994, the Internet Services branch of the USIA was formed. This was obviously because the Internet was widely used around this time, and was necessary to control the spread of information in these areas. How was the US supposed to stop citizens from getting access to public diplomacy when the Internet made it so easy to find everything? US citizens were previously unable to access the websites that disseminated this information, and US government officials were prohibited from sending the links out. Enforcing restrictions became entirely impossible, even a hindrance at times, where foreign officials would cite Smith-Mundt to avoid investigation about bad journalistic practices. Concerns with enforcing this part of the Smith-Mundt Act went on for nearly two decades until President Obama signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act in 2012. 

2012 - Smith-Mundt Modernization

This Act allowed any dissemination of public diplomacy upon a person’s request, including past information that was previously restricted. This lifted the idea that foreign propaganda was “too dark” for Americans to possibly comprehend, and also allowed for more transparency within the government. The Smith-Mundt Act had good intentions at the beginning, but the hypocrisy could not be avoided until the belated Modernization of information. 

Privacy on the Internet

What Can Go Wrong?

The Internet can be a scary place. Internet literacy is not particularly taught in schools, but things like typing and downloading applications are. Generally, Internet safety is taught through trial and error. At least, that is what happened for me. 

Interconnectivity is not necessarily a good thing. When your personal information is required every day to complete purchases, read newsletters, or talk to other people online, it is easy to experience a breach of data. For example, when I took my first PSAT in seventh grade, I consented to having my email available to colleges on the form. I was barely thirteen years old, and I am still facing the consequences of
allowing my email to be given for free. 

I get emails to this day asking about my applications to
places I have never heard of, and when I try to unsubscribe, they just make another email account and continue to spam me. I have gotten my school email hacked, my personal email hacked, and my Instagram hacked before. The school email being hacked was the one that was the most shocking to me, since it was an email that I had sent to myself, threatening pictures to be leaked if I did not sent money. However, I knew these images did not exist, so I felt free to change my password and ignore the email. 

Others may not be so technologically literate. Any kind of link is suspicious, and as an avid technology user, I know exactly what kinds of information hackers can have access to. Phone scams are also relatively common, as phone numbers are generally sold to companies without people's consent, but I almost never answer my phone to a number I do not know. 

There are the classic grandparent scams where someone over the phone pretends to be their grandchild and request money or they would get deported (or similar requests) that elderly people are not aware of the dangers of. In addition, deepfake AI programs only need about a minute of human voice to recreate someone's voice quite accurately, so it is not difficult to fake sounding like someone. 

The Government's Job

The government is not doing a good job of preventing information leaks like this. Although legal, it is morally questionable for companies like Facebook and Twitter to be selling our information. We do agree to this in the terms of service, but this is a contract of adhesion, or a contract in which one party has much more power than the other. In addition, the concept of Third-Party Doctrine means that once a second party has our information, then nothing stops them from selling it to a third party. The government should address this, because it is not good for our security or privacy in the US. 

Requiring this information in the first place is illogical and unnecessary, and companies should be required to argue to request it. For example, there is no reason for an online newspaper to require my phone number, address, email, and credit card information. Email may be helpful in case I want to subscribe, but I often put in my email and then it signs me up without my consent. 

Other things that should not be legal are deepfakes created without the person's consent, and more money should be directed to the cybersecurity of the nation. We are much further behind than the field is, especially considering how quickly AI develops, and top cybersecurity experts should be hired in force to work for the government, even more than already. 

What Can We Do?

There are steps that can be taken, though, to protect ourselves from our information being leaked. I do not have my phone number connected to my Instagram account, which has personally saved me once. A phone number is all you need to find someone's home address, previous
addresses, criminal records, full names, and family members (and more if you are willing to pay). I also use an alternative email account to sign up for newsletters and for purchases, and there are also programs that let you use temporary phone numbers to sign up for things. 

The most useful thing you can do to protect yourself from Internet scams and malware is to download an adblocker and avoid any sketchy links. Adblockers will get rid of unnecessary links that you could possibly click, as well as eliminate popups that want your information. Some links look similar to real links, but it is easy to check using an online link checker. For files, I also use something like virustotal.com that will verify the file or link before clicking on it. As someone that is almost always on the Internet, I have learned to become very safe with my information. However, I actually discourage use of antiviruses, as I think they limit the things I can do on my computer. 

America and War

Shadow Wars

The United States may not be in wartime right now, but there are always indirect wars that we are involved in. The state of our country as a superpower and a NATO-supporter makes it so that we feel incredible pressure to intervene in inter-country conflicts. This includes things like sending people, weapons, and money to foreign entities. The most controversial, relevant issue of 2024 is the war between Ukraine and Russia. The United States has sent billions of dollars to Ukraine, in a move that enraged (and continues to enrage) much of the population of the US. 

It is clear that the US has done this in an anti-communist bid to keep Russia off of NATO's door. Europe would be displeased with the idea of Russia on Europe's doorstep, and keeping Ukraine independent is necessary to keep it that way. However, the US is obviously in need of money in other places, as the national debt grows every year. Citizens think it is hypocritical to be giving money to countries completely unassociated with the US billions of dollars while millions of people suffer from homelessness and unemployment. 

Many news articles are released daily that criticize the politics of the United States especially. With an election coming up, more focus is on the Biden Administration than ever. With how polarized the opinions of US citizens are, it is no wonder that there are voices that are less than pleased with the current President's actions. 

Opposing Voices

Some are more radical. Referring to sites like antiwar.com and theamericanconservative.com, which take staunchly antiwar stances. Headlines like "US Admits 'Missteps' in Handling Gaza, Won't Alter Policy" are quite drastic, and it is certain that the US does not want this to be widespread. Antiwar.com uses the word "war" liberally, even if the US is not technically in a state of war. They proclaim that a shadow war (ie. a war that we are not directly involved in but we send weapons or people to) is a war in everything but name. 

It is strange that we do not see headlines like these in mainstream news, or maybe it isn't. Of course, words like these are likely to get people enraged, and many private companies do not want to deal with the conflict that strong voices may cause. In addition, publicly criticizing the government is not something most people are willing to do.

Although it is protected under the First Amendment, that does not stop private actors from facing consequence. In addition, if companies do speak against the government, they would have no opportunity to gain government favor if they are openly criticizing them in the first place. This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it is a real possibility. 

The Marketplace of Ideas theory dictates that everyone should be able to say anything, and the people will determine who they listen to by themselves. These websites are examples of this, and although they are not mainstream, they do continue to get some amount of attention. 

The Typewriter

History

The typewriter is an old, yet classic machine. This precursor to the keyboards we use today were much clunkier, louder, and slower to use. Although they have fallen out of popular use, collectors still appreciate the technology that has brought us to where we are today. I have only ever used one typewriter, which was one put out for public use at my town library. This one had both upper and lower case, which is a "newer" feature to the typewriter scene. We wrote several pages for fun, and this one even had the ability to go back and erase a single letter once. Typing on this machine felt like being transported to another era, where letters came to life in a more tactile way that electronically onto a screen. 

Hansen Writing Ball

 The typewriter has a somewhat controversial first iteration. It was arguably first thought up in 1575, when Francesco Rampazetto, an Italian printmaker, who supposedly attempted to create a machine to help the blind communicate. This machine, called the “scrittura tattile”, impressed letters upon paper, as opposed to the more modern ink-based typewriters. The next major development is documented in 1714, where Henry Mill patented the idea of the typewriter. His goal was to aid those with slow or illegible handwriting, but he did not actually bring the machine to life. This occurred almost a century later, when, between the years 1801 and 1808, it was invented for Countess Carolina Fantoni de Fivizzano. She was a blind woman, and reports are undecided about the true inventor. Some claim Giuseppe Turri, a friend of Carolina, created the machine, but others claim Fivizzano's brother, Agostino, invented it for her. This version of the typewriter also came with the invention of carbon paper, or paper that would transfer the writings onto a piece of paper below it when pressure was applied. 

Still, typewriters were not in common use. They were also not standardized in any way, and access to the machines were limited. However, in 1865, Reverand Rasmus Malling-Hansen invented the Hansen Writing Ball. This was similar visually to a pincushion, with every "pin" being a letter in the alphabet and other special characters. It was unusually ergonomic, and contained fifty-two keys upon a brass semi-sphere. It was put into production in 1870 and was moderately successful in Europe. 

At a similar time, in 1868, the first real breakthrough had happened. Christopher Sholes, Carlos Glidden, and a few other Americans patented the first actual typewriter. It was produced by E. Remington and Sons, and the typewriter itself was often referred to as the Remington. It had the unusual QWERTY keyboard, which is not as intuitive as it seems today. Every keyboard we use has this format, and although outdated, it has stuck. The keys were initially in alphabetical order, but the keys would jam whenever several were pressed at the same time. Therefore, the keyboard was made so that more frequently used keys were further apart, preventing jamming. Of course, modern keyboards do not have this issue, but the typewriter is recent enough that a transition to a different order of keys would be difficult. 

Modern Uses

It is obvious that the typewriter lives on in modern devices, even if it is obsolete. The QWERTY arrangement is one of the most iconic features of a keyboard today. The satisfying tactile feeling of clacking keys and seeing them ink letters is recreated in the feeling of a mechanical keyboard. As I play video games for a hobby, I spend a lot of time on the keyboard, so having a useful and satisfying keyboard is important to me. When I remember that time I spent on the typewriter, it felt more powerful to watch each switch hit the paper. It took somewhat of a considerable force just to type the few pages I did.

     
Typewriters are still being made, and I feel like if I had enough room to start another collection I would start a typewriter collection. Electronic typewriters are a fascinating upgrade to the mechanical typewriters that were popular in the early 1900s, and many still purchase them today. Of course, they are more expensive because of both inflation and the vintage status of typewriters, with fancier ones being several hundred dollars. It's likely the same price as having a custom keyboard hobby, though. I appreciate the typewriter for what it paved the way for, and I think all libraries should have a typewriter for children to experience. I remember when I was at that library, an older man walked up to us and expressed how happy he was when he saw us at the typewriter. Because the typewriter was only obsolete about forty years ago, it was a large part of people's lives until half a century ago.