This week’s discussion will revolve around the article “The Business of Digital Disability” by Gerard Goggin and Christopher Newell.

I selected this article because I believe in advocating for accessibility for everyone. In a world that continually marvels at the technological advancements that have been made, there still continues to be a struggle for those with disabilities to gain the access they need.

Goggin and Newell’s article argues that, when it comes to technology, disabilities are often overlooked in policy, design, and protocol. The one line in the entire article that struck me most was used in relation to Australia’s policies in 1991 regarding the accessibility of telecommunications for disabled people. The statement is, “It was not, as both government and industry deeds demonstrated, deemed to be in the national interest” (2007, p.164). While being used in relation to one country, I think the statement could be applied elsewhere in the world as well.

Accessibility for all should be more than just a national interest; it should be a worldwide one. An article I found titled “Depending on the Digital Design: Extending Inclusivity” by Guy Dewsbury, Mark Rouncefield, Karen Clarke, and Ian Sommerville, states, “technology can only be used effectively when other structural and architectural elements are attended to” (2004, p.821). Disabled people make up the “structural and architectural elements” of society. How can technology be considered effective if it doesn’t also meet their needs?

“The Business of Digital Disability” points out that, when it comes to accessibility for the disabled, it’s often described as “an extra cost and a nuisance” (Goggin & Newell, 2007, p.164). Many establishments don’t see the point in spending the money to meet the needs of the marginalized. “Depending on the Digital Design” brought up a good counter to that argument, however. The article quotes Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” saying that “until basic needs are met then higher needs cannot be considered, it has been found that when the living environment of a person is substandard, due to structural constraints or inappropriate attention to detail, then considering advanced technology is simply impractical” (Dewsbury, 2004, p.821). It doesn’t matter how advanced technology becomes if it cannot meet the needs of those who require it most.

The process for more inclusion is messy. It’s not something that can be fixed overnight. However, both articles do an excellent job of pointing out that, so long as we are unable to meet the needs of everyone, technological advancement will continue to fail us.

References

Dewsbury, G., Rouncefield, M., Clarke, K., & Sommerville, I. (2004). Depending on digital design: extending inclusivity. Housing Studies, 19(5), 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000249224

Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2007). The Business of Digital Disability. The Information Society, 23(3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323572

Welcome! Today I want to base my post off the article “Supermarkets Offer Personalized Pricing” by Olga Kharif.

In the article, Kharif uses two examples of individualized pricing and both refer to lowering the price for an item the buyer uses frequently; one was for eggs and the other was for a free loaf of bread. The idea behind the first example was to offer the customer a deal around the time she generally purchases eggs, because it may encourage her to buy them more frequently (2013, p.1). For the loaf of bread, the point was to encourage an extra trip to the store in which the consumer may choose to purchase other items he needed or wanted while he was there (2013, p.2). In both instances, the customer benefited from the prices.

However, this leaves me with questions. If prices could be personalized and lowered for customers, then couldn’t they also rise when an item is in high demand or needed within a certain time? Is some form of discrimination involved with this kind of system? And it makes me wonder if personalized pricing could become more problematic than helpful.

I found a journal article called “Personalized Pricing as Monopolization” by Ramsi A. Woodcock. In the article, Woodcock argues that personalized pricing is a form of price discrimination in the sense that the goal is to “charge each individual consumer a price personalized to match that consumer’s maximum willingness to pay for the product” (2019, p.314). Basically, companies charge the consumer as high as they can and still have the consumer purchase the product, which in the end, doesn’t benefit the consumer at all.

There may be a way around that particular approach in the system though. Another article I found called “Shopper Alert: Price May Drop for You Alone” by Stephanie Clifford mentions how a consumer managed to avoid price spiking.  She noticed a way to “game the system” by alternating between two brands of ground coffee (Clifford, 2012, p.3). Both companies, in order to remain in competition with each other, would offer her cheaper prices to get her to continually buy their product (2012, p.3). Essentially, when companies are no longer in competition with one another, that’s when the risk of price monopolization comes into play. So, in order to keep prices low within a personalized pricing system, there still has to be competition between companies just like with uniform pricing.

Another article I found called “The Benefits of Personalized Pricing” by Adam N. Elmachtoub also points out that “implementing any form of price discrimination, including personalized pricing, may be costly and/or difficult” due to the “need to engage in price experimentation and market research, invest[ing] in information systems to store customer data, and build[ing] analytics expertise to transform these date into personalized pricing strategy” (2018, p.2). So there’s a chance that, not only would the system not be all that beneficial, but it would cost a bunch of money to have it properly implemented.

I could see personalized pricing being beneficial. We already see potential benefits from it from advertisements of great deals popping up while we are on social media. However, because companies still need to make money—and they enjoy making money as much money as possible—I feel like they would take advantage of the system in a way that they would benefit more from it than the consumer.

References

Clifford, S. (2012). Shopper alert: Price may drop for you alone. New York Times, 9. Retrieved from https://msu.edu/~conlinmi/teaching/MBA814/NYTpricediscrimination.pdf

Elmachtoub, A. N., Gupta, V., & Hamilton, M. (2018). The value of personalized pricing. Available at SSRN 3127719. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3127719

Kharif, O. (2013). Supermarkets offer personalized pricing. Companies & Industries. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-14/2014-outlook-supermarkets-offer-personalized-pricing

Woodcock, R. A. (2019). Personalized pricing as monopolization. Connecticut Law Review, 51(2), 311-374.Retrieved from https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.utk.edu/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/conlr51&div=12&start_page=311&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults

Hello again, everyone! This week, I want to revolve my discussion around the article “Feds Can’t Force You To Unlock Your iPhone With Finger Or Face, Judge Rules” by Thomas Brewster.

I picked this article because, ever since personal devices became a consistent part of day to day life, I’ve been curious about where law enforcement draws the line between what constitutes a violation of privacy and taking necessary means to retrieve evidence.

Something that stuck out to me in the article was the explanation of how, before the judge’s ruling, “…courts had decided biometric features, unlike passcodes, were not “testimonial.” That was because a suspect would have to willingly and verbally give up a passcode, which is not the case with biometrics. A password was therefore deemed testimony, but body parts were not, and so not granted Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination” (Brewster, p.1). Basically, the “right to remain silent” didn’t extend to parts of an individual’s body because body parts were not considered testimonial. As such, you couldn’t plead the Fifth Amendment to prevent law enforcement from making you physically unlock your phone. The judge disagreed with this law and ruled otherwise.

A part of me wonders, however, if this way of thinking is correct. After all, measures like warrants exist because of an individual’s refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. While warrants override this refusal due to probable cause and allow officers to seize property or search premises, they only seem to work to the extent of physical objects. However, much incriminating evidence is now moving from physical format to digital format. Officers aren’t always going to find a physical paper trail concerning crime. Thoughts, photographs, videos, notes, and many other things are now kept on phones and digital devices rather than journals or notebooks. Due to this change, maybe an individual should be legally required to give the passcode to an iPhone or computer under certain circumstances.

In two articles I found called “A Tale of Two Phones: Discussion of law Enforcement’s use of the All Writs Act to Enforce Apple to Open Private iPhones” by Meredith Espino and “Breaking iPhones Under CALEA and the All Writs Act: Why the Government was (Mostly) Right” by Steven R. Morrison,  there was a case discussed concerning iPhone access. The case pertained to a terrorist attack in 2015. While those responsible for the attack had died, law enforcement recovered an iPhone that potentially contained key information and evidence regarding the attack (Espino, 2017, p. 98-99). However, Apple contested the order law enforcement gave them to assist in opening the iPhone, stating it was a violation of privacy and—therefore—in violation with their contracts with Apple customers (Morrison, 2017, p. 2041). While this differs in some ways from the case Brewster writes about (due to the guilty party being dead), it’s still similar in the sense that there is an urgent situation with no quick way to access case evidence. This feels problematic to me. If law enforcement has a warrant concerning certain individuals, then a passcode to a technological device should be seized and have it count as legal action, right?

I will argue though that in the case discussed by Thomas Brewster, I believe the judge to be in the right for that particular instance. My reasoning behind this is that law enforcement didn’t want to search one particular individual’s phone, but the phones of everyone on the premise (Brewster, p.1). When a warrant is obtained, it is in regard to the property of a particular individual or individuals and the same should be said for technological devices as well.

Basically, there’s going to be a lot to figure out in regards to what limits law enforcement will have in seizing evidence on personal devices. It should be interesting to see how or if the laws change regarding personal devices like iPhones.

References

Brewster, T. Feds can’t force you to unlock your iPhone with Finger or Face, Judge Rules. Forbes. Retrieved from https://utk.instructure.com/courses/94374/files/folder/Readings%20for%20Blogging/4th%20Blog?preview=4725572

Espino, M. (2017). tale of two phones: discussion of law enforcement’s use of the all writs act to enforce apple to open private iphones. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 43(1), 97-109. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/rutcomt43&id=107&men_tab=srchresults#

Morrison, S. R. (2017). Breaking iphones under calea and the all writs act: Why the government was (mostly) right. Cardozo Law Review, 38(6), 2039-2082. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cdozo38&id=2111&men_tab=srchresults#

Alright, everyone knows the drill by now. This week’s post was inspired by the article “The pill that costs $9,000 in US sells for $70 in India” from The Times of India.

I chose this article because it reminded me of a documentary I watched for my Social Informatics class. The documentary, Shenzhen: The Silicon Valley of Hardware, discusses manufacturing growth that turned the city Shenzhen, China into one of the most well-known cities regarding invention and innovation of hardware. While the topics of the documentary and the article are wildly different, the morals discussed in both hit very similar points. I’m referring specifically to the subject of patents.

Watching the documentary on Shenzhen opened a doorway for me in exploring the ethical aspects as to what extent patents should be permitted. An example the documentary gave was Apple’s desire to patent the rectangular shape of a smartphone (2016). It made me wonder whether patents should have limits. I think I found the answer—for me, at least— starting with The Times of India article.

The news article explains that India has laws concerning what items can be patented. If a medication is patented, there is a law that prevents the company from reinventing the drug in an attempt to have the patent extended. Therefore, once the patent expires, generic drugs can be sold as well at a more affordable price (2016, p.2). Here in the U.S. we have no such laws restricting patents on medication. This causes me to question the morality of even patenting medicine at all.

My natural inclination is to argue that medication—particularly those that are life-saving—shouldn’t be patented, or if they are patented, should have laws that don’t permit patent extensions. I found a journal article called “DEVELOPING DRUGS FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD: AN ECONOMIC, LEGAL, MORAL, AND POLITICAL DILEMMA” by David B. Resnik. The article states, “In the United States (US), prices of prescription drugs have risen at a rate far greater than the inflation rate: the average cost of filling a drug prescription rose from $34 in1990 to $61.33 in 1999. Pharmaceutical sales in the US rose from $59 billion in 1990 to $91.8 billion in 1999” (2001, p.3). The fact the prices rose “greater than the inflation rate” bothers me because that means the companies consumed more money for the medication than is necessary, therefore denying these medicines to those who can’t afford the drugs they need.

However, the Resnik article points out later that, “While many people regard the drug companies as villains, the plain truth is that a great deal of research would simply not be done without money from this industry” (2001, p.4). So there is a counterpoint in the sense that pharmaceutical companies need money to perform research and further discover how to make medication. It’s a fair point, but it also makes me question if that’s actually what most of the money is being spent on. The article also mentioned quite a bit of money is spent towards marketing, which doesn’t seem as necessary as actually researching, making, and distributing drugs that people need (2001, p.4).

The last article I found that I want to reference is called “Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property” by Nevin M. Gewertz and Rivka Amado. The article highlights moral arguments between John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls argues that “a person’s right to health is a basic liberty and therefore of greater moral import than an individual’s right to intellectual property” while Nozick believes “an individual has a fundamental right to intellectual property and the state should protect” those rights (2004, p. 296). Essentially, Rawls believes the right for everyone to live a life of quality is more important than only one individual benefiting from a product for financial gain and Nozick believes that, due to the time and research an individual puts forth to create an item of quality—such as a drug—that they have the right to be compensated for those efforts. To an extent, both make good points. I think what troubles me is, while I do believe someone should receive compensation for their time and effort, I also believe it shouldn’t come at the expense of another human being’s quality of life. However, I also know that a solution to the problem can’t be magically fixed overnight.

References

Amado, R. & Gewertz, N.M. (2004). Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property. J Bus Ethics 55: 295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-0993-z

Resnik, D.B. (2001). Developing Drugs for the Developing World: An Economic, Legal, Moral, and Political Dilemma. Developing World Bioethics, 1: 11-32. doi:10.1111/1471-8847.00004

(2016). The pill that costs $9,000 in US sells for $70 in India. The Times of India. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Natalie/Downloads/3%20The%20pill%20that%20costs%20$9,000%20in%20US%20sells%20for%20$70%20in%20India%20-%20Times%20of%20India%20(2).pdf

(2016). Shenzhen: The silicon valley of hardware [streaming video]. WIRED. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY

Welcome back for week two of blogging! This week I want to discuss some points surrounding the article “Universities may soon replace professors with AI and robots” by Allison Schrager and Amy X. Wang.

I selected this article to center my discussion on because I’m a huge nerd and I find AI really intriguing. Most of my interest stems from science fiction movies and books regarding the moral implications surrounding a machine with the intelligence of a human. Generally, the exploration of Artificial Intelligence in fictional stories covers two different themes: robots gain conscious thought and seek a violent end for all humankind and robots gain conscious thought and seek to be recognized on the same level of equality as a human being. While both are fascinating concepts, the likelihood of either actually coming into question in reality is slim at the moment. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other moral and philosophical complications that come with AI.

The line that stuck out to me most in Schrager and Wang’s article on robots and AI in the educational environment was, “Instead of a helping hand for struggling students, imagine the outstretched fingers of a—better, faster, arguably more engaged—machine…. [AI] is, some say, the future of work —one day replacing masses of humans in the workforce, if not entirely” (Schrager, 2017, p.4). While machines have assisted in easing the burden of much manual and technical labor, my question is: at what point does technological progress become more of a hindrance than a help?  

If Artificial Intelligence advanced to the point of replacing humans in the workforce, the result would be putting masses of people out of a job, leaving them with no way to earn a living. Schrager and Wang’s article does describe the current situation as not being quite so extreme yet though. For the moment, AI is only being experimented with in the sense of it being an educational aid or tutor at these universities to prevent professors from being overwhelmed (2017, p.4-5). However, like all forms of technological advancement, AI is going to continue to evolve.

In regards to how AI could affect the work force, I found a document called “AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs” by Aaron Smith and Janna Anderson. It contains highlights and key findings of a canvassing done among technological experts and analysts in 2014 called The Future of the Internet (p.1). The result of the canvassing was split with a 4% difference of opinion. 48% of the experts interviewed believed robots and AI could “[displace] significant numbers of both blue- and white-collar workers” by 2025, while 52% believe “human ingenuity will create new jobs, industries, and ways to make a living” (2014, p.2). While the higher percentage of experts believe new jobs will continue to be created, I find myself feeling a bit skeptical as to how smooth the transition will be.

The article goes on to point out that “many [experts] are concerned that our existing social structures— and especially our educational institutions—are not adequately preparing people for the skills that will be needed in the job market of the future” (Smith & Anderson, 2014, p.2). Maybe human ingenuity will be able to create more jobs as AI overtakes the jobs humans already perform currently; however, that could take an immense time of adjustment, especially if people aren’t being prepared for how the job market is shifting. In the meantime, people would lose their jobs and then scramble to find their footing in a society that wasn’t prepared for this type of change.

However, this future scenario wouldn’t be the first time the work force had to be reinvented. Despite my skepticism, there could be a possibility of new jobs being invented and provided to people without causing mass chaos. And in the meantime, AI could be beneficial as far individualized learning and allowing students to get the help they need in such a way that wouldn’t leave educators in a position of overextending themselves.

References

Schrager, A & Wang, A. X. (2017). 2 universities may soon replace professors with AI and robots. Quartz. Retrieved from           https://utk.instructure.com/courses/94374/files/folder/Readings%20for%20Blogging/2nd%20Blog?preview=4725561

Smith, A., & Anderson, J. (2014). AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs. Pew Research Center, 6. Retrieved from http://www.fusbp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/AI-and-Robotics-Impact-on-Future-Pew-Survey.pdf

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.