Our group will be evaluating the culture of anonymity on the Internet. We will explore different aspects of the issue of anonymity on the Internet. We examine the technical aspects of the situation: How anonymous can one truly be on the Internet, or how anonymous does current technology allow a person to be on the Internet, both in the United States and abroad? There are a number of tools out there that claim to give anonymity and untraceability, but do they work? How does the public interact with them? How might one try to track down an anonymous user of the Internet? We then delve into the more social aspects of Internet anonymity: How do people change under the influence of (real or the illusion of) anonymity? What happens when anonymity leaks into the real world— intentionally, such as while protesting a real-world organization or event, and accidentally, via hacking or other means? This then leads to the political questions: What freedoms are allowed under current laws in the United States and how do these freedoms differ from one country to another? Is there a responsibility to track the identities of people or prosecute people who post anonymous messages that threaten other people online? We aim to answer some, if not all, of these questions. However, the fact of the matter is that there is still so much that remains unknown, masked behind these anonymous identities. Much research has gone into the personal side of the phenomenon, but still much work is needed. The ethical questions, too, loom large. While we cannot provide a definitive answer to them, we hope to offer astute insights into where the choice lies, and what the benefits and detriments of each position are.

In our project, we touch on the following five major points:

1. Reputation amnesty and digital forgiveness: the idea that after a certain period, a user’s online history is erased and he/she is given the opportunity to rebuild their online reputation.
2. Qualitative difference between privacy in social networks (as a class) and privacy in the meat world. In social networks today we don’t have control over the information we upload, we cannot differentiate between different groups of people who we want to share the info versus not people we don’t want to share the info with.
3. Data use - explicit (e.g. targeted advertising) vs. non-explicit (e.g. GPS location storage). There is, and always have been, a vast amount of data out there about each of us. What has changed in the last decade is that this data is now being explicitly used. In the past, for example, Google has had access to user’s emails and could gather information about them. Today, this kind of information is being used in targeted advertising.
4. Privacy settings - usually too cumbersome for the average person to deal with. You need to go out of your way to protect your privacy, the default is full disclosure. With each new functionality of facebook, for example, your activity will appear on the news feeds of everyone in your network. It’s up to you to navigate the labyrinthine privacy settings and figure out how to conceal these things from others—and then, you’re still powerless against what the company itself wants to do with your data. There’s a contract of sorts: the networks provide a medium for sharing, and you (implicitly) agree to relinquishing your data.
5. That the complexity of privacy control is irreducible for social networks; insofar as for each media object that is to be shared the person that can access it must be explicitly set. Even with reasonable reductions of 500+ contacts into a smaller number of “friend groups” of varying level of access, the complexity of privacy control has a non-zero lower bound (ie: the number of decisions made for each object).

One of the most exciting aspects for users of the Internet is the ability to access almost any media for free, be it songs or email or applications. The constant availability of free services on the Internet has birthed a unique culture of consumers and providers. While this provides a wonderful experience for the user, costs are still incurred that must be paid somewhere. Our project aims to explore the roots of this “culture of free” and its novel consequences in a number of specific industries. Social networking sites allow users to connect to every corner of the globe, but in return the sites gain access to millions of people’s personal information and provide enormous advertising opportunities. While social networking services have thrived recently under new business models, older media have not adapted as successfully. Traditional news companies have not yet settled on a workable strategy to survive under this culture of free services. Will existing alternatives like blogs or Wikileaks provide suitable and reliable replacements for older news sources? How will more everyday media, such as the music industry and film/television, adapt to deal with the ease at which users can access their products for free via both legal and illegal sources? Users are able to circumvent copyright restrictions more easily now than ever. Clearly, some types of services have adapted well to the challenges of doing business online, while others seem to be failing. Within the computing industry itself, will traditional software companies be able to maintain their economic success in the face of more reliable open source availabilities? Are some industries simply incompatible with the culture of free? And to what extent is this culture simply an illusion created by hidden costs?

In 1971, the New York Times published a collection of top-secret government documents known as the Pentagon papers. Leaked by U.S. military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers revealed a previously untold history of the Vietnam War, as seen from inside the Department of Defense. While these documents had been in Ellsberg’s possession since 1969, the public was unaware of them until they were acquired and published by a major national newspaper.

Last year, 75,000 classified documents detailing the events of the War in Afghanistan were published by the website WikiLeaks. Comparable in scope to the Pentagon Papers, this leak marked a new era in whistleblowing. At each stage of the process, from obtaining the documents to distributing and publicizing them, computers and the internet were intimately involved. Technology enabled and expedited the wide-scale dissemination of state secrets, providing valuable public insight into an ongoing conflict but posing a potential threat to the security of U.S. military forces.

Computers and the internet have made it easier than ever to share information on a massive scale. In some cases, however, this information has been privileged and confidential. The rise of online whistleblowing, championed by WikiLeaks, has proven to be an effective and widely recognized effort. As technology moves all information toward this model of unfettered accessibility, the consequences for secret information could be dramatic. We hope to investigate how the concept of whistleblowing and information leakage has translated to the digitally connected society that now surrounds us.

Internet commerce is almost completely conducted in soft electronic currency. In this environment transactions are reversible, and exchanges are overseen by trusted third parties such as banks and credit card companies. Furthermore, transactions are rarely anonymous, and records of all financial actions are dutifully stored. While this way of conducting business aligns closely with the economic philosophies of the United States federal government, an opposing outlook has emerged in the form of Bitcoin.

Based on a 2008 paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a digital currency that is fully anonymous, decentralized, and non-reversible. In place of the more common idea of a trusted third party, the Bitcoin economy utilizes strong cryptography to ensure the safety and security of the currency. Proponents of Bitcoin praise the system because it is free from regulation and value manipulation.

Nevertheless, Bitcoin raises serious economic, legal, and political questions. Opponents fear that Bitcoin would produce an unproductive economy that would be overly susceptible to market fluctuations and deflation. Many doubt whether Bitcoin economies should even be legal because anonymous, decentralized and therefore impossible to tax or regulate. As a result, Bitcoin economies could be havens for black markets, undermine the roles of government in capitalize economies, and decrease productivity.

Our project explores these issues and attempts to determine what, if any, place Bitcoin or other digital currencies have in our modern economy.

Software plays a significant role in various computer systems, especially when dealing with extensive disciplines such as self-stabilization, monetary control, information exchange, and so on. For these systems to function efficiently, producing quality software and maintaining security is a must. There are various models that software companies select during software development and during the process of controlling the software system. But the key problem is that the development of software deals with sophisticated mechanisms compared to hardware manufacturing. Moreover, the prevalence of software bugs in a computer program’s source code and design is an inevitable issue nowadays. Unlike hardware problems, software problems have to be fixed and controlled with top quality tools, thus becoming a major problem in its development process. Within this framework, the project presents various strategies that promote both software quality and credibility. In addition, the project aspires to analyze the method of software testing by underlining the certainties and risks of software implementation.

Specifically, we will concentrate and examine whether the idea of creating a required license to practice software engineering, also known as “professionalizing” the field, would help create a more uniform and reliable environment. We will discuss the direct positive ramifications of professionalizing software engineering and the reliability it would afford us, and include a discussion on the negative consequences inherently associated in general with professionals, ranging from issues of customization to obsoleteness. After weighing the pros and cons, and by taking case studies of licensing attempts in the past—but within the United States and internationally—we will conclude whether licensing or another approach would be most effective to solving the above problems.

The cloud has shown issues in three key areas. While there are ways of addressing these issues, addressing one issue negatively affects the others.

• Reliability. The reliability for cloud servers can be bad at times. If a server goes down from a power outage or some other unforeseen event, it can take hours before the client’s data can return. This loss of time can effect production and cause a strain on a company trying to access the files. Also, as was the case with Amazon’s EC2, if something goes wrong with a server, such as with updating, then clients can lose important data.
• Security. Hackers are able to access data on the cloud because security is generally weak. They are able to steal important information from clients from this.
• Speed. Latency is a big problem with the amount of traffic cloud servers get. Productivity can become a big problem because of this latency.

The cloud, however, also has some important benefits that make it a great option for normal computer users.

• Movability. Users can save data on the cloud on one computer then move to another computer and work on the same data. The data isn’t forced to only one machine. It can be accessed to any other machine that has access to internet.
• Cost Effectiveness. Clients are able to store data on cloud servers extremely cost-efficiently.

Google Books was launched in December 2004 and has developed into a widely used resource around the world. The project involves the scanning and storing of millions of printed texts into Google’s digital database, further supporting Google’s objective of organizing the world’s information and extending it into the offline world. Since the project’s launch, many top universities have joined Google in its effort to digitize print resources, unlocking access to knowledge that was previously unavailable to millions of people.

Although countless users have benefited from the convenience and depth of knowledge delivered by Google Books, its legality and its effect on the industry remain unclear. Since the project’s inception, Google has faced legal challenges concerning potential copyright infringement relating to its scanning and distribution of copyrighted works. Several settlements have been proposed, but the debate on Google Books has not been resolved. As recently as March 2011, the project has been subject to new court rulings concerning its settlements, which leave its future in question.

In our research, we explore this tension between access to information and protection of publishers’ rights, with an emphasis on the potential impact on future innovation in the publishing industry. We examine the cases, positions, and motivations of both sides of the legal battle, the past and present legal and cultural context, and the desirability of possible outcomes. We also survey Google’s response to the publishing industry’s concerns, including their modifications to the Google Books program, and address the question of whether limited access to copyrighted content can benefit the publishing industry.

Downloading consciousness is the idea that people may one day be able to upload the contents of their mind to a digital medium. Popular representations of downloading consciousness touch on aspects of the subject such as immortality, speedup, multiple existence, etc. This is exemplified in The Matrix, in which characters upload their minds to a virtual reality, and one character uploads his consciousness into multiple copies of himself. Downloading consciousness is also touched upon in the television show Dollhouse. In the world of Dollhouse, people are constantly having their minds wiped and rewritten so that they utilize multiple personalities and skillsets.

Although popular fiction takes many liberties with the concept of downloading consciousness, the state of current technology suggests that we are still a ways away from seeing this become a reality. Current research in the field approaches downloading consciousness through several avenues. Projects such as IBM’s Blue Brain attempt to model the brain using artificial neural networks. Another avenue is that of brain imaging. Current brain imaging uses scanning technologies to create detailed maps of the brain. Achieving downloaded consciousness will require a much greater level of detail than that provided by today’s brain-mapping technology. Lastly, the act of downloading consciousness is believed to require a hypothetitical technology known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). A brain-computer interface would essentially be a direct neural connection between a human brain and a computer.

Despite progress in research, many obstacles remain which prevent downloading consciousness from becoming a daily phenomena. Several of these problems stem from moral quandaries related to the topic. For instance, consider the social implications of having multiple copies of one’s self walking around. Other problems are more practical in nature. For example, our technology is not at a point where we can manufacture artificial networks with the same complexity as human brains. Despite the fact that downloading consciousness remains a futuristic and still theoretical technology, as research progresses, more and more scientists are affirming the possibility that it will one day become a reality.

The near field communication (NFC) chip is an exciting technology that has seen a lot of press lately. The ability to safely make peer-to-peer mobile transactions, positively identify documents and ID cards, replace physical keys for your car, home, office, hotel room, etc., and pair devices in a Bluetooth-like manner, all with your mobile phone has taken the tech-blogging world by storm. Google has already promised NFC-integration in its Android Gingerbread update. The key to the success or failure of this technology, however, lies in the ethical rather than purely technological sphere—security concerns such as eavesdropping, data modification, and physical phone loss pose a major threat its viability. The development and resolution of these issues will provide an interesting topic of discussion.

We begin by exploring the history of development of near field communication as well as the foundation of the NFC Forum in 2004, a group started by Nokia, Sony, and Royal Phillips Electronics devoted to “developing specifications, ensuring interoperability among devices and services, and educating the market about NFC technology.” More than 140 other organizations have since joined. We then discuss the many uses of NFC and the new realms in which this potentially powerful technology could enter. This could be effectively analyzed by contrasting NFC with its predecessors RFID and Bluetooth. Finally, we investigate possible solutions to the ethical challenges presented.

Within the past few decades, advances in global positioning technology have made it increasingly difficult to keep information about a person’s location private. The usage of global positioning systems (GPS) in automobiles has become commonplace, and nearly eighty percent of phones incorporate GPS tracking. Through a combination of GPS and cell phone triangulation, cellular companies can closely approximate a person’s location. The recent discovery of stored location data in the Apple iPhone and other smartphones has reignited privacy concerns associated with GPS.

The iPhone scandal has highlighted a need for increased protection of consumer privacy. However, it is important that, in procuring those protections, legislators do not significantly reduce the efficacy of GPS. In our website and presentation, we discuss the societal and individual benefits of GPS as well as the strengths and limitations of current privacy legislation. We also explore cases where corporations and governments have infringed upon the consumer’s right to privacy in the past and use these cases to suggest additional legislation that could prevent further abuse of GPS data in the future.

We are interested in the impact of tablet-like devices on information availability. Tablets have influenced the kinds of content that people choose to access, changed people’s expectations of technological interfaces, increased invasions of privacy, and altered the social interactions of people in real life. Our project attempts to understand these phenomena in greater detail and explore their ethical implications.

In the first part of our project, we look for empirical studies of media sales on various devices, such as phones, readers, and pads, to see what kind of impact the devices have had on people’s choices of what to consume (nom nom). The emphasis is primarily on books and magazine and newspaper articles, especially about important genres such as politics and health.

Another part of our project studies the interaction paradigms that have become commonplace with the extension of phone-like interfaces to tablet-like devices. Many expectations have been set by Apple’s proprietary iOS interface and results in monopolistic control of other kinds of content. For example, iPads change the way people watch movies, which gives Apple influence over the movie industry.

Are tablets a cause or effect of privacy invasions? This is a question we ponder in our project.

Finally, the availability of information on tablet-like devices has affected the way that people interact with each other in real life. Teachers taking attendance electronically can move around the classroom if they have tablet devices, and nurses can access vast amounts of information as they interact with patients. On the other hand, even as portable computation devices make asocial activities more social, they encourage people to engage in these asocial activities rather than interacting face to face.

According to classical economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. An argument can be made that Apple’s approach to running their iTunes Store business for iOS mobile applications is a monopoly. In this project, we examine Apple’s policy of approving new Apps, as well as the rules they have in place for allowing new apps to run on iOS devices. Is this practice monopolistic and anti-competitive? While Apple’s complete control over every piece of the iOS platform does feel ominously monopolistic, at this point intervention is neither realistic nor advisable. In the end, the natural course of the mobile marketplace will decide whether Apple’s “closed” platform dominates and sets the model for a new ecosystem of centrally controlled software. If this occurs, government intervention may be necessary to protect users from a big brother decision engine like Apple. This project also confronts the question of whether monopolistic practices as seen in the technology sector need to be looked at differently than those in the past because of the rapid pace of change in the industry and society.

Last fall, investor Peter Thiel launched his 20 Under 20 Fellowship, which offers young entrepreneurial students $100K grants and expert guidance to pursue their tech start-up dreams. The catch? Current students—i.e., nearly all the participants—have to drop out of school to work on their ideas full-time for a two-year period. At first glance, the Thiel Fellowship seems like a great opportunity, but its under-20 requirement presents a clear ethical dilemma: Is it right to encourage students to drop out of school? Given that the vast majority of tech start-ups fail, is it truly in the participants’ best interest to forgo a college education and work on such a high-risk project?

Taking the Thiel Fellowship as a case study, we examine the unique entrepreneurial environment at Stanford—it seems like every Stanford student wants to start his/her own company—and consider its causes and consequences. We interview current students, alumni entrepreneurs, professors, and representatives from many of the entrepreneurship groups and programs on campus (e.g., STVP, Mayfield Fellows, SSE Labs, BASES, ASES) to answer some of the big-picture questions surrounding Stanford’s entrepreneurship culture: Does Stanford focus too heavily on entrepreneurship at the expense of a classical liberal arts education? Does the university train real innovators or simply business leaders? After all, it’s been said that the various Institutes of Technology produce stronger engineers than Stanford, but Stanford engineers end up managing the others. With so many other universities and regional governments around the world trying to emulate the dual prosperity of the Stanford-Silicon Valley connection, we should make sure that we’re truly worthy of the flattery.

Genomics, the study of using one’s genetic makeup to understand one’s phenotype, is one of the fastest growing fields of modern science. The human genome is comprised of 23 strings of hundreds of millions of nucleotides. With the power of modern day semiconductors and the speed of computing, this high-throughput discipline not only has decreased the sequencing time of a full human genome from a year in 2001 to two days, but it also has decreased the costs from millions to $15,000. However, the increasing computing power has brought genome sequencing to the consumer at the cost of multiple ethical and moral issues.

An important issue regards the broad range of information stored in one’s genome. 23andme, a personal genomics company that integrates a social network with one’s genotype, has been at the helm of a debate regarding the safety of one’s data. If one’s disposition to certain genetic defects is available in the Cloud, will insurance companies and potential employers leverage the data online? Genetic discrimination could save billions for insurance companies, but leave millions uninsured. The act of “playing God” has been in constant debate as well. Should parents be allowed to genotype their fetus’s genome, even if the genome indicated an 80% likelihood of terminal Huntington’s disease? When a Los Angeles fertility clinic offered to allow parents to “design” their babies in early 2009 via genomic embryonic selection, the public was divided. With the increasing strength and convenience of sequencing, technologies will allow humans to become more powerful creators, but that control is interwoven with ethical issues.

This project presents issues including who owns genetic data, the ethics of using computing technology for genetic discrimination, and the ethics of designing human life.

In 2002, the Stanford Student Computer and Network Privacy Project (SSCNPP) conducted a study examining student privacy issues at Stanford. The study examined how federal laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), along with institutional policies such as Stanford’s Principles of Privacy and Stanford’s Computer and Network Usage Policy together impacted student privacy on campus. Their recommendation was that these documents needed to be updated to protect student privacy and that the information contained within these documents should be better propagated to educate students about their privacy. Despite making these recommendations nearly ten years ago, Stanford’s policy has changed very little to reflect the study’s findings.

Perhaps most disconcerting, the group found that it was possible using university-sanctioned programs such as Stanford Who to access such private student information as home and school street address, class schedule, e-mail activity logs, and physical location if the user was accessing a cluster computer. They raised concerns in the ambiguity of terms in both FERPA and ECPA that could be interpreted in such a way that was harmful to student privacy. As far as university policy, there were also concerns raised regarding system administrator power and the university’s Principles of Privacy, which has yet to be updated since 1984.

Our research will use the SSCNPP’s research as a foundation, and illuminate how Stanford’s privacy policy has adapted in the last decade to keep up with newer technologies. We will attempt to discover other security flaws and explore how the proliferation of newer technologies such as torrent downloading, social networking and mailing lists affect the balance between the students’ rights to privacy and the university’s legal duties. Our goal is to synthesize a more current recommendation to update Stanford’s privacy policy.

Press freedom guarantees the liberty of expression for journalists through written and electronic media by preventing governments and other institutions from interfering. It promotes transparency by freeing the journalist from the bias of any powerful player.

In 2004, Apple Computer challenged press freedom by filing a lawsuit against several unknown individuals who leaked secret product information that got published on several blogs. Apple wanted the bloggers to identify the sources that gave them the confidential slides. First the courts found that the information was stolen and a subpoena could be granted, but later the courts ruled that the identity of the confidential sources should be protected.

This suit raises an important question about the extent to which press freedom should be granted to bloggers. The issue of press freedom has always been crucial for journalists, but the legal system has been challenged by new issues raised by the internet. In recent cases such as Wikileaks, and other incidents like the release of the Pentagon Papers, the freedom of journalists to publish secret information has been a core issue.

Several ethical considerations arise in these situations. If one obtains secret information, what should he or she do with it? When is it okay to release the information? When should one keep it secret? Does someone ever have a moral obligation to release secret information? This report will explore these questions in the context of several press freedom cases including Apple vs. Does, Wikileaks, and the Pentagon Papers.

We know that computers are getting faster and that the rate of improvement is accelerating. A group of thinkers and futurists believe that it is only a matter of time before computers and artificial intelligence outstrip the human brain. At that point superintelligent computers could be able to take over their own design and improvement, leading to the development of even more intelligent entities on even shorter time scales. That point in time can be thought of as a singularity because, similar to the space-time singularity associated with black holes, our ability to predict what would happen after that point in time breaks down because we lack knowledge of how a superintelligent system might behave.

Is it possible to get to singularity or will a “technology paradox” keep us from ever progressing that far? If singularity is in the future what ethical dilemmas does it create and how should we plan for them? In this project we will give a brief background on the exponential growth of technology along with a comparison between humans and computers. We will discuss the different possible paths to singularity as well as the criticisms of each hypothesis. Theories abound about what the singularity will mean for humanity, ranging from extinction to immortality. We will also examine how superintelligence might affect humans, considering both doomsday and golden age possibilities.

Journalism is cited as being central to democracy. Indeed, statesman Edmund Burke called this institution the “fourth estate” of a democratic government in the 18th century. In the modern era, journalism continues to play a vital role in society. Our research thus begins with an exposition of the roles journalism plays and the obligation it has to society.

This exploration motivates a discussion of how journalism has changed in the digital age. This begins with an analysis of what started it all: the inception of the so-called “digital age.” This includes the development of the Internet and later Web 2.0 technologies. We explore these developments and their effects on social expectations. How did these effects transform the expectations of journalism? Then, we observe how economics of journalism have changed as a result of this new era. In other words, how have the business models that have promoted profits and sustained membership been forced to change in the digital age? Are there innovative business models that can save print media in this tide of restructuring? Finally, we explore how the changes to the profession and the practice of journalism have resulted from a transition to the digital era. We rely on interviews of practicing journalists to chart how the routines of such individuals are changing as a result of the digital era. We also observe the characteristics of online media and report on the broad structures of journalism that are changing.

This framework motivates ample connections between observed changes in technology, economics, and journalism. Furthermore, the process permits us to ask whether new forms of journalism are fulfilling the obligations that journalism has to society. Such analysis allows a thorough interrogation of the nature of journalism in the digital age.

Since their emergence, cellular phones have become rapidly accessible to all economic classes. Once exclusively a toy for the rich, cell phones are now utilized by over half of the world’s population. Currently, a similar trend is arising among smart phones—a class of mobile devices equipped with Internet access and GPS location technology. Previously only available in the developed world, smart phones have begun to spread to emerging economies. By 2015, it is estimated that 31% of all African mobile phone subscriptions will include Internet.

So why does this matter? Compared with their simpler predecessors, smart phones are more powerful tools for economic development. Enabling access to information, banking, and insurance services, smart phones dramatically increase market efficiency in developing regions. In addition, smart phones provide communication to lower income markets, allowing global corporations to greatly expand their consumer bases and move their products into previously untapped territories. More importantly, smart phones provide access to medical information, and in the future, could potentially allow for the cheap, quick diagnoses of the world’s most deadly diseases. However, the greatest promise of smart phones is that they provide all of these benefits at a fraction of the cost of a computer. Furthermore, they lack the need for a sophisticated and expensive IT infrastructure that requires frequent maintenance.

Smart phones have the ability to revolutionize the economic market, especially in the growing economies of the developing world. With their convenience, affordability, and promises of communication and information, the possibilities for smart phones in all economies are endless.

Given the vast amount of unpoliced information available on the Internet today, how does one decide whom to trust? What happens when companies, governments, or individuals betray that trust? In this project, we explore methods to establish trust online and how websites use—and sometimes abuse—that trust. We examine trust on the Internet from multiple perspectives: the effect of user interfaces on websites’ reputation, the technical aspect of encryption and authorization, and the use of reputation systems.

Trust on the Internet often relies on subtle interface cues. A 2004 study of patients’ evaluation of medical websites found that certain UI elements had a dramatic effect on the perception of the trustworthiness. Over 94% of reasons cited for mistrust included UI features such as pop-up ads. As a result, trustworthy and untrustworthy entities alike can use professional-looking website design to promote user trust.

Users also rely on technical cues, such as the lock icon in the browser address bar, to indicate security. Security does not imply trustworthiness, however, as SSL certificates are extremely easy to obtain. Malicious sites often exploit this misplaced trust to lure unsuspecting users into providing sensitive information. The ease with which SSL certificates can be abused undermines their usefulness as indicators of trust on the Internet.

Many popular websites use systems that allow the users themselves to control the reputations of other users. On eBay buyers rate their experience with sellers, allowing other buyers to decide if sellers will legitimately follow through on sales. On StackOverflow, a question-answer community for software engineers, users votes to modify the reputations of other users. Wikipedia has anonymous contributors, forcing viewers to rely on citations and style to evaluate articles’ reliability.

We aim to teach users how to establish authority on the Internet and decide which websites to trust.

Recent advances in technology have brought many benefits and changes to our society. As the software behind this technology becomes increasingly complex, humans are able to rely on the automation of tasks that would otherwise require much time and effort. However, this complexity also creates problems for which our solutions are steadily more dependent on the power of computers. In addition, technology has brought benefits that bring forward new issues that require ever greater technical creativity to solve.

For example, technological leaps in medicine have led to an increase in average life expectancy, but left the ever growing elderly population without adequate resources to support them. This is particularly a big problem in Japan, where nursing homes are increasingly turning to robots to relieve the labor force. Similarly, advances in business, military, and research have led to systems that are either too large or dangerous for humans to operate; algorithmically advanced robots may present a possible solution.

Today, robots already have quite a presence, but the technology is still young and the dangers of giving machines too much responsibility are not yet evident. However, as machines become more intelligent, they will be placed in situations where they will make decisions for humans. It is important to continue our development with a strong understanding of the risks. We cannot guarantee ultimate safety, but we can guard against them. Our research focuses on how to draw the line between power and safety when assigning responsibility to robots. We will also cover the extensive changes that will have to be implemented by engineers, manufacturers, and users of this technology in order to ensure that intelligent machines will not pose a serious risk to human users.

From early text-only games to deeply immersive manufactured universes, virtual worlds have characterized the digital space, and have drawn millions of users across the globe to participate and interact. Inhabiting virtual avatars or crafted profiles, users continue to explore and push the limits of digital social interaction and gaming, using the anonymity and idealization available online to meet friends to interact with offline or to establish completely new personas and reputations. Defining virtual worlds as specifically including anthropomorphic avatars inhabiting a digitally created space, such worlds have transitioned from purely for gaming and entertainment purposes to encompass a whole range of applications and use cases, and appealing to a much broader audience. Virtual worlds, so often the focus of science fiction, are inexorably connected to the advent of the digital revolution, and have similarly transitioned as technology has grown and evolved. Much like the computer itself, virtual worlds, once only accessible and utilized by the technical elite and used primarily for the powerful ability to create imagined, often phantasmal alternate personas, have more recently gained much broader appeal, and are focused much more on socializing and creating relationships that will be continued offline. Though often taking on quirky, stylized appearances, virtual worlds have recently tended to acquire more characteristics of the real world and lessened the anonymity barrier, incorporating facebook profiles or using real-life pictures associated with avatars. Virtual worlds have become tailored for certain social interactions, such as specifically for dating, meeting other students within a university, for gaming while piggy-backing on existing social media platforms, or even for tracking and working on day-to-day tasks. Since the text console games of old, virtual worlds have tended to move away from pure entertainment to immersive social experiences with concrete ties to real life.

In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lawrence Lessig, until recently Professor of Law at Stanford University, argues that the future shape of the Internet depends on the actions we take to define it. He writes that, in order to protect freedom on the Net, we need to take actions to safeguard the values we cherish. The action he upholds is educated, government intervention rather than libertarian market faith. Lessig believes that we should not sit idle and hope that the Internet will fix itself. He criticizes the belief that the Internet is a sovereign entity without ties to the traditional legal system and warns that this fallacy could lead to the demise of core values such as free speech, privacy and anonymity, to name a few. To maintain these values and to save the Internet from over-regulation, Lessig proposes—counter intuitively—increased regulation. To begin, Lessig describes four methods of regulation that apply to both cyberspace and the natural world:

1. Regulation through network architecture (code)
2. Societal regulations (what is considered appropriate social behavior);
3. The market costs associated with maintaining parts of the Internet;
4. The law.

Combined, these work together to regulate our Internet behavior. Of these, however, Lessig believes the most effective form of regulation online is through architecture, “[online,] code is law.” Because of the legal power code holds, Lessig cautions against the commercialization of code, which he believes will lead to the privatization of law and increased governmental control. In response, Lessig proposes that we subject private entities to increased constitutional controls. He also argues in favor of open-source code which, like the laws governing the natural world, can be examined by everyone.

In the United States, most people take the right to freedom of speech extremely seriously and are almost absolute in their determination to protect that freedom, even as it applies to the Internet. Thus, American governmental control of cyberspace has been relatively light. The governing bodies of other countries, however, such as those in the European Union and Asia, have taken the initiative to control information flow on the Internet. One of the most well known attempts at information control is the much-criticized “great firewall of China.” More recently, European countries have been using similar systems, most notably site blacklists, to prevent the spread of information that their respective governments deem to be “harmful” or “unlawful.”

Such actions have roused great debate regarding free speech in many countries. On one hand, governments seek to protect their citizens and shield them from hate speech, slander, and the likes of child pornography. On the other hand, netizens fight for their right to free speech and unregulated access to information on the web. Laws such as the Telecoms Reform Package have been passed to allow censorship by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), limiting freedom of speech. The content that ISPs decide to block, however, are arguably harmful to society, and it is for this reason that the government passed such laws in the first place. In this report, we will explore the methods that different governing bodies use to censor Internet content and examine the consequences of such amendments to free speech, including effects on the vast amounts of information dispersed online and reactions from the hundreds of millions of Internet users.

Our group primarily focuses on Internet freedom in China. China attracted our attention because it’s one of the world’s fastest growing economies and issues that affect the freedoms of its population will ultimately steer the development of China itself. Our group will provide a primer on how the Great Wall works, as well as discuss its implications on Chinese citizens and the international world.

Some events that we’ll examine and analyze include Google’s decision to withdraw from China and the requirement of Chinese citizens to install monitoring devices on all computers. We’ll also look at how Chinese citizenry has responded to this censorship. For example, we will look at the development and use of Tor’s anonymizing web-service. We will also pay special attention to the rise of the “human-flesh search engine” and websites that create them. Both of these services bypass China’s censorship software in different ways and allow citizens to organize collectively to free themselves from government monitoring and government-sponsored mass media.

As part of our analysis we will provide our own interpretation on the moral issues raised by the Great Firewall as well as the ways by which it is circumvented. We will look at China’s response and the possible ways in which the situation might evolve. Integral as China is in today’s global economy, the results will carry great implications not only for people of China, but for the rest of the world as well.

One of the defining characteristics of Chinese culture is the influence of the Chinese government. Starting from early Confucian beliefs regarding sharing and openness and strengthened by the recent ascent of Communism, the Chinese government has played a significant role in shaping technological developments in China. There is little sense of privacy on the Internet as the Chinese government maintains the right to survey citizen usage of the Internet, and thus there is also very little freedom of speech on the Internet, as speech and the expression of ideas are heavily regulated by the Chinese government. Furthermore, recent censorship of many of the most popular websites in the West, such as that of Facebook and Google has brought to light the heavy censorship of the Internet by the Chinese government. On the other hand, the idea of sharing promoted by Communism has also made the government less restrictive on some issues, primarily that of intellectual property. With some statistics citing the fact that as much as 90% of software in China is pirated, the Chinese software industry has had a difficult time growing due to piracy, despite the clear presence of talent in China. Yet, technology also seems to be shaping Chinese culture and beliefs. A recent survey showed that 80% of Chinese citizens strongly disagree with Chinese censorship of the Internet, and despite heavy censorship, a younger generation of Chinese citizens are being exposed to Western beliefs. Thus, while emerging technologies in China have illustrated the continued presence of strong Communist beliefs in China, it also appears to be facilitating a shift towards more Western beliefs.

There is a change in our culture from centralized systems, to decentralized systems. Bittorrent, Cloud Computing and Bitcoins are some examples that represent this change. Even though Bitcoin is fairly new (2009), many have adopted it very quickly. There are over 6.2 million bitcoins in circulation with a valuation of over $7 per bitcoin.

Using open source software, anyone on the internet can create Bitcoins, the first decentralized digital currency of its kind. Transferred directly from person to person and free from financial or legal regulation, Bitcoins represent a modern, networked approach to finance. While it is still too early to estimate the success of internet-based currency systems various online retailers currently recognize and accept the Bitcoin as a valid currency. If this trend continues, legal and ethical questions would undoubtedly arise as a result of the widespread use of a currency that is not regulated in a traditional sense.

Bitcoins have many of the same characteristics as traditional, paper currencies like the American dollar. For example, like the silver that once backed the American dollar, Bitcoins are scarce in their own way. Computed by computer algorithms, the amount of Bitcoins that can exist in the world is capped at a given number based on the complexity of generating new Bitcoins. Similarities aside, there are some stark differences too.

The consequence of everyone using such a currency can be examined by comparing it to the Euro. However, even with the Euro, there is a central governing body making decisions about its value, and maximizing benefits to its member nations. With Bitcoins, there is no such authority. This free floating nature would lead to interesting possibilities. For example, the police won’t be able to “seize” bitcoins from an illegal trader.

Latin American countries invest less in science and technology compared to other countries of greater economic development. As a result, there is a huge gap between the total number of technological advancements made by Latin American countries and other parts of the world. The amount invested in research and development has, on average, been less than 1% of the GDP of these Latin American countries for the past decade, and this has caused these countries to fall behind in the tech economy. In recent years, however, countries such as Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela have taken initiative in expanding their technology-based industries in an effort to decrease this gap. The primary mechanisms for this change have been through the development of technological infrastructures and the expansion of science and mathematics based educational programs, and encouraging a healthy business environment. The campaigns by which some of these countries are developing their high-tech workforces have been effective, as demonstrated by Brazil, which is recognized as one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The rapid expansion of these economies is changing the social landscape in their respective countries. In this project, we will analyze the strategies of several Latin American countries and examine the repercussions of such changes through both a social and economic perspective.

The “brain-drain” epidemic, which refers to the loss of valuable, skilled human resources to outside of the country, has become an increasingly substantial issue in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the opportunity, a significant number of people from these regions choose to work in more developed countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, mostly swayed by the higher salary and better quality of life. This free export of valuable human resources is detrimental because developing countries invest a large amount of resources in developing a skilled workforce through universities, scholarships and training programs, but lose them to already-developed countries. Our research will focus on examining the efforts taken by various governments in the Asia-Pacific region to solve the brain-drain predicament, evaluate the effectiveness of each step carried out and determine ways to improve them.

The emergence of micropayments in the e-commerce market has long been anticipated. Defined as any online transaction up to $10.00, micropayments allow for a la carte service on the web, replacing alternative subscription models that demand larger upfront payments. Today, users can pay an upfront cost for certain products, such as an access pass to paid content. The system of micropayments seeks to simplify such schemes of e-payment. However, the reason micropayments have yet to catch on in industry is because of the various implementation issues. Micropayment schemes need to make their systems fully reliable, secure, and easy to use. Not only is the billing method a technical challenge, but so is the user interface. Downloading software, authenticating bank accounts, and constantly monitoring charges make the implementation of micropayment schemes difficult at best.

Aside from the implementation challenges, more interesting points arise when assessing the economic and social impact of this concept on the Internet. Most immediately, micropayments facilitate payment to intellectual property owners who do not get paid when files are shared illegally and help consumers itemize their purchases. But what happens when services that are currently free, like digital newspapers, start charging for their services? Does this inadvertently cause a change in usage for those who could once access online material and can no longer due to an additional cost? Micropayments also pose greater concern for user anonymity. Security is a major priority, but when companies can keep track of your personal information, every transaction can make consumers apprehensive of making online purchases. Such social and economic dilemmas are what make implementing micropayment systems complicated. By assessing the technological, social, and economic challenges in current micropayment schemes, we hope to present a convincing justification as to why micropayments are not as beneficial as initially hoped.

During this past decade, efforts to apply artificial intelligence to military defense applications have made possible the idea of autonomous drones in the battle field. The Autonomous Learning Agent for Decentralized Data and Information Networks, also known as ALADDIN (2005-2010), was a joint project developed by BAE Systems, the universities of Oxford, Bristol, Southampton, and Imperial College London, which aimed to create a network of information gatherers that allow for a complex algorithm to decide the best course of action in a variety of situations, ranging from disaster relief to military operations. Each machine employed in these unpredictable situations has a command module that can be considered an agent in the overall response. A ship’s computers, the control system of an unmanned aerial vehicle, or an analysis program monitoring online activity are all examples of these agents.

ALADDIN provides a toolbox of techniques, both for the design of single agents and for their implementation. Its algorithms allow the agents to exchange information with each another and build a bigger picture of the situation than they would have on their own. The agents then effectively negotiate with each other to decide the best course of action for the whole team. This approach can be particularly useful during a cyber attack or natural disaster, when communication from a central authority is compromised.

ALADDIN brings up several important ethical questions. We have typically only used machine learning to facilitate decision-making in non-threatening situations, but ALLADIN proposes that software can be trusted to do so in high-consequence situations such as terrorist detection. Since software and algorithms are not perfect, there is always risk in trusting ALLADIN to make life or death decisions.

The decentralized nature of ALADDIN is meant to avoid the vulnerability of a central backbone, but it is also more difficult to isolate and solve problems in the system. Moreover, since a distributed system contains more points of possible attack, the integrity of the whole system cannot be guaranteed, which could endanger people relying on the system.

Not too long ago, Mark Bohr, Intel Senior Fellow, and Kaizad Mistry, Program Manager of Intel’s revolutionary 22nm Transistor Technology, unveiled the design behind Intel’s new Tri-Gate transistor, which is claimed to provide “an unprecedented combination of improved performance and energy efficiency.” This battle to lengthen battery life in portable devices, reduce electrical consumption, and reduce the amount of wasted energy is one that is constantly being fought by tech companies. However, there are unintended casualties in this never ending battle to improve energy efficiency. Intel says it can increase performance of their 22nm processor while reducing energy leakage by adding a new layer to the silicon. Instead of silicon dioxide, Intel is making use of a material called “high-k metal gate” to provides better insulation. The high-k process, codenamed, Penryn, is expected to use 30 percent less power, operate 20 percent faster and leak five times less electricity than a 65nm processor. However the production of silicon wafers is not without controversy. The process generates a range of byproducts, some of which are hazardous. In Silicon Valley alone, pollution as a result of these hazardous chemical byproducts has become a major environmental concern.

In 2004 researchers found that manufacturing one desktop computer and 17-inch CRT monitor uses at least 240 kg of fossil fuels, 22 kg of chemicals and 1,500 kg of water. Furthermore, in CRT monitors there can be anywhere from 4-8 pounds of lead protecting the user from radiation. At the end of the life cycle, this lead poses a serious environmental risk; it has been estimated that billion pounds of lead from older computers will be thrown away in the next few years.

At present, there is no Federal mandate to recycle e-waste or to properly dispose of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. There have been numerous attempts to develop a Federal law. However, to date, there is no consensus on a Federal approach.

The United States accounts for much of the innovation in web technology today, yet the country ranks 16th in the world in percent of residents with broadband access, trailing such nations as Sweden and Singapore. This report will examine how such a situation arose and attempt to explain why a nation that features so prominently in Internet innovation is lagging in Internet access. Furthermore, this report will investigate the potential harm that this is doing to the United States, taking a closer look at how a strong Internet infrastructure can aid everything from the economy, to education, to law enforcement. Finally, we will consider several potential solutions to the problem of the United States’ lagging Internet proliferation, including some measures already in effect, such as the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, the National Broadband Plan, and other proposals on the horizon. Ultimately, our goal is to raise awareness about the U.S.’s limited broadband reach, and to provide hope that improvements will allow it to maintain its leadership position in Internet-driven innovation.

In light of the recent revolts that have taken place in the Middle East, and the reactions of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments, strong questions have been raised about a government’s right to limit access to digital forms of communication and information. In these countries, internet access and phone connectivity were largely cut in attempt to quell the revolts. But what is the significance of these actions in light of ideas such as freedom of speech? What impact do these restrictions have on the residents who have come to rely on such means of communication? How could the governments use such forms of communication to forward their own causes, as some say is seen in the recent revolts on Israel’s border with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine? We would like to examine these issues by looking at the actions taken by the governments, the responses of those affected, the subsequent responses of those same governments (after the restrictions backfired), and the reactions of other governments such as our own. We would also like to use policies from the previous decade as a lens through which to view these more recent restrictions. The Middle East has had its share of internet censorship and legal action due to these issues. A legal suit, for instance, was brought against the Tunisian Internet Agency for some of its censorship policies, which was dismissed by the court, with no explanation. Situations such as this show that even before these revolts, there existed a tense climate in the realm of internet freedom. By looking at the actions taken in the past, and how they led to the current state of the internet in the Middle East, we will conclude with an analysis and a portrait of what this may indicate for the coming years in the region.

How should the group Anonymous be classified? As defenders of the public good? As cyberterrorists? As trolls? The Internet allows people with moral and political agendas to operate differently than ever before in history. Some claim that the scale and distributed nature of the Internet has forced corporations and governments to be more transparent, empowering people who would have ordinarily been isolated from information they deserve. Others see hacktivist groups as platforms for theft and loss of privacy. There are clear examples supporting each evaluation, and others that just don’t make sense. We will attempt to divide historical examples of hactions into similar categories. The first encompasses acts of “cosmetic” hactivism intended solely to spread a political or moral message without causing severe collateral damage. Examples in this category include the relatively harmless anti- proliferation vandalism perpetrated by WANK (Worms Against Nuclear Killers) in 1989 and the defamation of the Kriegsman Fur and Outerwear company by animal rights activists in 1996. The second category will include incidents which have more damaging consequences, such as the attacks on the websites of MasterCard and Visa by Anonymous in 2010. Our presentation will use such incidents to investigate and detail these categories, and the grey area in between, in an attempt to address the ethical questions surrounding hacktivist behavior and culture. Ultimately we will try to make a judgment about whether or not hacktivism is good for the world.

The culture and process which surround the hiring of computer programmers, particularly in the Silicon Valley region, differ sharply from the culture and process for most jobs. It is marked by fierce competition for the top talent; constant movement from one company to the next; and a culture of persistent search to find the “ninja” programmers who ensure your product’s success. These features have their origin in distinctive aspects of the programming profession: most notably, a lack of adequate labor supply and orders-of-magnitude variance in programmer productivity.

This hiring culture produces a job market that is not just nationally integrated but internationally so. A topic of constant chatter in Silicon Valley is the process of hiring the best foreign programmers to bring their skills into the US. To hire internationally, though, companies must navigate immigration law in addition to usual labor laws.

There is widespread concern in the technology community that US immigration law is deleterious to the success of American technology companies. In particular, much of that law treats immigration in general fashion, and does not distinguish between the immigration of highly skilled foreign programmers and the less skilled “typical” immigrant. Thus there are constant proposals for modifications to the law that might, for instance, sponsor a large program to “fast-track” the visa applications of skilled tech workers who already have employment.

Our project seeks to investigate the successes, problems, and dilemmas that emerge in the complex interaction of the programmer labor market and US immigration law. We study the situation as it now stands, and what the government might do to improve immigration laws. In particular, we focus on ethical issues that arise when balancing the often competing goals of furthering American competitiveness and maintaining a fair and transparent system of immigration.

In recent years, countries within the EU have undertaken several high-visibility projects that involve substantial amounts of software. These projects have required significant intergovernmental corporation and pose new questions about ownership, rights, and costs amongst the participating nation states. Such projects such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, which will be the focus of this project, benefit from cross collaboration. The software running the LHC hardware is generally built by the individual hardware contractors and interfaced by CERN. Yet the LHC only generates data (faster than it can write it to disk in its massive data centers), and ships it off to a very large network (the computing grid) that stores and processes it. Researchers run their own software on the grid, using the data stored at particular systems, and shipping their jobs wherever it makes sense. CERN and the majority of the software they make is open source, developed by many individuals and organizations all over the world. Overall, this has maximized the access for researchers around the world and distributed the effort and cost of writing good software (CERN is an organization devoted to research, not making money, so open sourcing its software makes the most sense). Either way, software has not been the bottleneck for CERN, as the physical engineering efforts have been much slower and much more costly. CERN runs GNU/Linux (their own distribution, Science Linux).

Imagine an Internet in which you cannot watch Netflix because Hulu is paying your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to block its competitors’ traffic. This is exactly the situation that many proponents of Net Neutrality are afraid of. Net Neutrality aims to maintain the current open state of the Internet by preventing ISPs from discriminating against certain types of network traffic. In April of last year, the Federal Appeals Court ruled that as long as the Internet is a service and not a utility, the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the network management practices of broadband providers. Still, in December, the FCC made a move towards Net Neutrality when it approved of a set of regulations for fixed-line providers. The rules are meant to ensure transparency of network management practices, prevent blocking of lawful content, and prohibit unreasonable discrimination. Republicans in Congress are attempting to overturn these regulations.

In this presentation, we will provide an in-depth survey of the current and future state of the Net Neutrality debate. We will close with a defense of our belief that an open Internet must not prevent access to or prioritize certain types of legal content, does not price discriminate within a medium, should not block or throttle traffic to or from particular applications or services, and is transparent to the average user.

In the relatively new industry of online gaming, a new trend has been observed in the type of speech seen between players. The increased amount of social interactions that combine the competitiveness of the games with the anonymity of the Internet lead to new problems. Cases of “griefing,” harassment, and trash-talking on online gaming are becoming more prevalent and part of the interactive gaming environment.

Our research seeks to answer the questions as to whether this phenomenon is helpful or harmful in today’s society. We will seek to find whether the harmful aspects in online games will outweigh the positive aspects achieved in further social interactions. We will also explore how the virtual space in games improves the quality of the gaming experience, but will also consider the negative aspects that come from the anonymity component of online gaming.

Some interesting components are the demographics involved in the games of interest. The gaming industry has grown such that it has few boundaries in terms of the people that play them, but this could have negative repercussions, as you will often end up mixing people in social interactions that could be detrimental. Probably one of the most harmful people that could be hurt by the range of gamers are children, as they are exposed to things like racism, sexism, and foul language in online gaming.

Lastly, we will consider how to improve the online gaming experience by looking into possible solutions to the type of negative speech encountered while playing these games. We will consider the role of freedom of speech but also offer the possibility of restricting harmful speech. If it is decided that some level of censorship is the best route, we will discuss whether a regulating body is necessary or should the consequences fall on the individuals.

Imagine a world in which our current human species has evolved into a different one. We have superior DNA, technologically advanced body components, and never-ending life. Tracing back to the Enlightenment Era belief in unbounded human potential, transhumanist theory advocates the inevitability and beneficence of this outcome. But is this actually good?

Transhumanists strive to utilize technology to modify and thoroughly improve Homo sapiens as a species. They have envisioned various methods by which the Human can be enhanced, including bioengineering, neuroscience, nanotechnology, mechatronics, artificial intelligence, and more. Transhumanists hope not only to enhance the human body, but also to control the evolutionary progress of our species to eventually transcend natural limitations, reaching new levels of physical and mental capability.

The difficult ethical questions raised by the visions of transhumanism must be examined. Do the benefits of an advanced species outweigh the risks? How do we resolve issues such as the potential for genetic discrimination, abuse of technology, and distortion of social order? How would the politics of the transhumanist movement as it exists impact the social order of a transhumanist society? More fundamentally, transhumanism raises the question of what it even means to be human. Will transhumanism result in the extinction of humanity, or will it rather extend humanity beyond its current feeble state?

In the virtual worlds of Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games, such as World of Warcraft and IMVU, virtual economies play a tremendous role in gameplay. Players can use in-game currency to buy upgrades to enhance their avatars, as well as be used to purchase virtual goods much like real life luxuries. This in-game currency can be obtained in several ways mattering on the game: doing quests or missions, killing monsters, creating items, or even exchange real life currency for in-game currency. Whatever method the player chooses to earn his or her in-game currency, though, the player has to work hard to earn enough money to have purchasing power. As a result, MMOs have their own constantly churning economy.

However with any economy, problems arise with the protection of property and economic disruption. First of all, protection of virtual property in these games becomes a big issue because players actually “work” to earn money to buy virtual goods. This work can be equated to real life work because there is a time investment that is required to earn the money. Therefore, it is only natural that players feel the need for protection from hackers and malicious users. Inflation is another in-game issue. Because there is virtually no economic bounds, the virtual economy runs the risk of running into inflation, and so user sold items are sold at a price a lot higher than originally meant.

It is possible to purchase in-game currency with real world money, which can also cause inflation. In some games, this creates a “gray market” where companies purchase excess virtual currency and reselling it to other users.

As a result of these problems, the producers of the games should control the economy and provide protections for the players of the games.

One of the core aspects of modern software engineering is the so-called “worse is better” design strategy, that it is better to quickly release a flawed program than to meticulously design a correct program. This strategy allows software to progress rapidly and is arguably one of the reasons for the success of the software industry. However, the worse is better mentality also leads to spectacular software failures.

Because software is deployed before it is fully tested, clients often assume a much greater risk by using the software than one would expect. Compounding this problem, large software systems are often built of many smaller components. If any component contains a bug, the entire system can be at risk. Security risks in particular are often hidden until someone exploits them, lulling users into a false sense of security.

In this presentation, we will discuss how public policy can be used to harness the strengths of the worse is better philosophy while avoiding its weaknesses. In particular, we will investigate how revised software liability laws, combined with “software insurance,” may allow worse is better to flourish while also providing better protection against unnecessary failures.