.

My Presentation: New Voting Systems

 The story that I presented to the class was about new technological advances voting systems. They are designed to make the voting process easier and more accessible, by using a computer to tally votes. The new system also allows internet voting, so that soldiers overseas can vote. As good as these new systems sound, they have one fatal flaw: they are vulnerable to hackers.

Researchers at the University of Michigan were able to easily hack the device, so that every time a vote was cast, the machine played the school's fight song. Although the hackers left behind traces that they had compromised the system, the corruption went unnoticed for two days.

The question that I posed to the class was, "Do the risks of this machine outweigh the benefits?" The responses I received were quite thought provoking. My fellow students examined the issue from angles which I had not.

The consensus seemed to be that the use of these voting systems is a potentially very bad idea. If these machines are put into use, election results can be altered, and American democracy could essentially become a thing of the past. Another alarming prospective problem, which one of my classmates pointed out, is the fact that if hacked, then voter privacy could be in danger. If a hacker has the ability to infiltrate the system, then they might possibly be able to see who voted, and for whom they voted.

One of the negative, and very real possibilities that occurred to me, is the fact that the government may still implement use of these machines. As technology pushes forward, it will seem archaic to continue use of older voting systems. These machines may just be put to use, exploitable issues included, and the voting citizenry will have no say in the matter. And it will be done in the name of progress.

The article that I am referencing can be found here:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=569367252307714952

Technopoly, by Neil Postman, Chapters 7-11

Postman's perspective of technology, thought it may seem radical, is an insightful and useful one, particularly for someone as steeped in technological culture as I am. I am impressed with the way he actually put his money where his mouth is and offers solutions to resist the "Technopoly"  instead of merely ranting about it, which was my initial impression of his intention.

Portions of this book are reminiscent of Computers, particularly where he goes into Charles Babbage's various technological endeavors, like the primitive computer that would have used a punch card system had it been completed (p. 109). Bits like this brought the two readings together and reinforces his message with solid historical material.

One of the sections that I found to be particularly interesting was Chapter Six on medical technology. I had not previously known how much technology negatively shapes the medical profession. I could not help but remember, however, Sara's presentation two weeks ago on the ways that technology helps neurologically disabled people find their previously unheard voices. I have also read articles recently about exoskeletons being constructed for paraplegic people, people who had not walked in decades, that provided for them the ability to walk. This does not silence Postman's warnings, but I do think that there needs to be a middle ground; perhaps we should use technology to enhance medicine instead of relying upon it in place of skilled physicians.
I now feel the need to blushingly backtrack, and amend my prior blog post. What is leading me to do this is his guideline on page 184, "do not regard the aged as irrelevant." I fear that I may have given the impression that I felt this way in regard to this subject. I still do maintain, that Postman comes off as a bit of an alarmist curmudgeon, but his perspective is valid, and it is always reasonable for the older, more learned generations to keep the younger, often cocky generations in check.

Technopoly, by Neil Postman, Chapters 1-6

In a sense, the beginning of this book is much like Computers, aside from the fact that there is a heavy moralistic and ethical spin on the content of Technopoly. Postman goes into great detail when describing the history of human innovation. He also questions each stride that man has made technologically which has brought us to our current advanced state.

One of the larger question that the content of this book leads me to ask is: Is this author an ideal candidate to write this book? He presented a fascinating history and really engaged the reader with thought-provoking content, but I feel that he may not be of a member of the proper age group to present a fair and balanced view of technology. Now, let me begin by saying that I will be generalizing quite grossly. I am drawing upon my own experience when I say this, but it does seem that older generations, let us say the fifty-plus group, tend to have a rather gaping lack of understanding of technology. This is not to say that he did not make some extremely valid points: "[Technology] undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. Technology... is both friend and enemy." (p. xii) And this is a true statement. It does tend to dumb down meaningful human interaction. Instead of catching up with a friend via a warm telephone conversation, or a face-to-face lunch, we are reduced to, "Hi wut u doin miss u <3" via text message. Yet Postman comes off as such an alarmist, that it is hard to really evaluate what harm is truly being wrought by technologies. It is even hard to agree with him at times because he does not always support his arguments clearly. In one section, he describes the dangers of the overflow of information. It seems like a reasonable argument until he closes the paragraph by stating that one of the drawbacks of such a deluge of information is that people will "have difficulty imagining reasonable futures." (p.72) I will forgive for the moment his use of the ambiguous term "people," but the is such a vague and seemingly unprovable thing to say. Is there data to back this claim up? Why would it lead to this? What sort of future would they imagine?

So far, this book is hard to take completely seriously due to the nature of the author's complete technophobia. That is not to say that the topic should have necessarily been broached by someone of my generation, as the bias may have been too pro-technology. This book is excellent for opening up a dialog on the ethical and moral implications of a technologically-saturated society, but the author is certainly not presenting an even-handed argument himself.