CS 4001C - Computing and Society - Midterm 2

CS 4001C - Computing and Society
Summer 2003
Midterm Exam 2

This page is no longer under construction...except for some possible typographical errors that might be corrected, this is your entire midterm exam.

Send your completed midterm via electronic email to smarlowe@cc.gatech.edu

Introduction to your midterm exam

Welcome to your second midterm. I hope you find the readings stimulating and the questions challenging. Each question is based upon an article published just within the past couple of weeks. (I don't have to make this stuff up. I just open a magazine or newspaper and exam questions fall out. Is this a great teaching gig or what!?)

This is a take-home, open-book test. You may use any written sources, including web-based publications. You must, however, cite those sources. You may not discuss the test with anyone, either in person or remotely (e.g, telephone, radio, email, chat, telepathy). Other than what you use from the sources you cite, everything else that you submit for evaluation must be entirely your own work.

Although you are allowed to use outside reference materials, don't go nuts. This isn't intended to be three more term papers. Your answer to each of the three questions is to be no more than two pages long, single spaced, including your references, and nothing smaller than 12-point type. You'll submit your exam answers electronically as a nicely-formatted Microsoft Word document. And believe me, we're only going to read two pages for each question, so do not exceed that limit.

Your answers are due by noon on Thursday, July 10. We'll give more detailed instructions about turning your answers in next week. [Hey, here are those instructions: email your answers to Steve, your TA, at smarlowe@cc.gatech.edu -- don't send them to Kurt, as he'll just lose them.]

Remember what we talked about in class after you took your first midterm. We want thoughtful, well-articulated arguments for whatever position you take. Good arguments always consider the viewpoints of the different parties involved. Arguments that sound like talk radio aren't going to help your cause.

The three questions are below, with links to the appropriate readings. The readings themselves come from the Newsweek website and the Atlanta-Journal Constitution website. Both websites have a tendency to archive their articles after a few days or weeks, after which time it may cost you money to look at those articles. So even if you don't intend to work on the exam right away, please go to the websites and download the articles right now for later reference (hey, that's what's called "fair use", and it's one of those things that might go away with Digital Rights Management).

Question 1
Read the Newsweek article at http://www.msnbc.com/news/928869.asp?cp1=1.

This story raises all sorts of issues, doesn't it? Here are two for you to address:

  • Julie Veteto's father says "This stuff shouldn't be online." Do you agree or disagree? Why? (Note that there are legal and moral considerations here, and they may not be in agreement.)

  • Who is responsible for Julie's death? Why?

    Question 2
    Read the Newsweek article at http://www.msnbc.com/news/932582.asp.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States secures "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" while the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The Newsweek article describes a situation where the Constitution appears to be in conflict with itself: if you believe that your religion requires you to share your faith with others, and recorded music is reprsentative of that faith, then Article 1, Section 8 would seem to prohibit the "free exercise" of that religion. Yikes!

  • In the article, Marlee Welsh is quoted as saying "You're supposed to receive and spread God's word, and by that I don't think downloading is stealing." She may not have thought about the Constitutional contradiction I proposed above, but that same contradiction might provide some support for her claim that, in her case, downloading isn't stealing. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't. What do you think? Is peer-to-peer filesharing of religious music protected by the First Amendment, or is it just a plain old violation of copyright law? Or maybe it's something that just isn't covered by existing law? Whichever position you take, don't forget that you need to support your position with a convincing argument.

  • Terry Hemmings, a BMG executive (BMG is a big music company) says, "If Christian parents found out their 7-year-old could think she's downloading a song and instead be downloading the latest porn video, I can tell you it would stop immediately." Pretend you're now the head of some big music company. Would you promote fear of the Internet as a mechanism for solving this downloading problem? Why or why not? If not that, what would you do? Legal action? Something else? Explain.

    Question 3
    Hmmm, let's see...we've had a free speech question, an intellectual property question...what's left? I know...let's do privacy!

    Read the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article at http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0703/02penturban.html.

    Here's the specific issue you are to take a stand on: Should Congress enact legislation preventing or constraining the deployment of "Combat Zones That See" (or similar technology) within the United States?" Some things you might want to think about include (but are not limited to):

  • Several people who are quoted in the article express concerns about privacy with respect to "Combat Zones That See". What are the privacy concerns? Are there other privacy issues not mentioned in the article? Are these privacy issues important? Why or why not?

  • The Department of Defense spokesperson, Jan Walker, says "Combat Zones That See" isn't intended for homeland security or law enforcement and couldn't be used for "other applications without extensive modifications." How much trust should we place in assurances like these?

  • In this post-9/11 world, one might argue that "Combat Zones That See", if deployed in the United States, could help prevent terrorist attacks. How much privacy should citizens give up to help prevent terrorist attacks? Could this proposed technology prevent attacks, or is it more likely to be of use in tracking perpetrators after an attack has occurred? Should this distinction be a factor in deciding whether Congress should prohibit or constrain deployment of this technology within U.S. borders?

    In Conclusion...
    You could work on these topics for days, and write incredibly long answers. Don't. And even though there's a two-page limit on each answer, don't feel obligated to use all of two pages on every answer. You don't need to do a core dump to make your argument; in fact, your argument will probably suffer if you do. Enjoy your holiday. See you next week.

    Last revised: July 10, 2003 at 1:40am