I have wanted to sit down and discuss the topics we’re covering with my boyfriend because I was sure he would have some insights on them, especially because he works in the tech industry. Instead of writing a typical blog post in which every other sentence was “And then he said…” I’d thought I’d craft an interview. It might get a little geeky, but that’s okay.
Me: So Andy, what is your job title and what do you do?
Andy: My title is Software Engineer and I work on the mobile application development team at Time Inc.
Me: So for example you take TIME magazine, or Sports Illustrated, and turn it into an iPhone, android, and/or iPad app?
Andy: Sort of... the team I work on is actually more responsible for what we call "mobile utility apps." These are apps that supplement magazine content, highlight a specific feature from the magazine or brand's content, or present a specific bit of content associated with a one time advertising deal.
Me: I'm taking a really awesome ethics class right that is focusing on ethical issues in information technology, and I thought you might have some interesting opinions on the topics we've been discussing.
Andy: Sure! That sounds great!
Me: I know you support open source software, and other movements like creative commons. Can you explain why you do, and is there ever a conflict between your roles as a developer vs. corporate employee?
Andy: Sure, I am a big fan of free and open source software for a few reasons. The first is that [open source software] makes it really easy to learn something new, because you have this wealth of information available for free and it really makes understanding new technologies and methods of execution easier.
In addition, it really helps to build a community between developers and other individuals in the software industry. I came into software from 3D motion graphics industry, where there was nothing like [open source software] in that field, knowing "how to do something" was an "edge" you used to distinguish yourself from others.
Me: There wasn't as much of a community around helping each other?
Andy: Yes exactly. So no one shared that information
Me: So what is your relationship with open source now?
Andy: Open source becomes a tricky area to navigate in the context of commercial software development
[in which some part of the final product is proprietary] because first, legally, we have to check all the licenses of the software libraries that we use.
Me: Licenses? Sort of like the Creative Commons licenses we read about in Tavani (259).
Andy: We have to check the licenses of open source libraries to make sure we can use it for commercial purposes (i.e. without releasing the source code).
Me: Which certainly violates Stallman’s description of free software (Ess, 76).
You've developed code/programs that are open source and some that aren't—do you feel any conflict about that? What differences between the two have you noticed?
Andy: I started working with open source software when I was learning a lot of the basics of programming, but in my field (mobile development) there are sort of two pathways that have emerged with regards to open source.
The first is "native mobile apps," which is where I am, and that involves a lot of work with proprietary (closed-source) platform code from Apple and Google. Android is theoretically "open source," so developers can see the code, but they can’t affect any changes they make back to the phones made by Google.
Me: As I see it, this follows Stallman’s list of freedoms 0-2, and allows access to the source code, but in terms of “freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public” (Ess, 76) Android is lacking. Theoretically, someone could edit the source code to make their own version of Android and contract with a phone-maker to produce their own line of phones to run their software, but short of that there isn’t really a way for innovations to be shared.
Andy: The other is the experimental "HTML5" web development realm, which is much more reliant on "open web standards" from communities around open source software. Everything in the web world is "open" and code/techniques for development are generally more experimental and meant to "push the boundaries" so open source works much better for them to pool ideas together.
Me: In class, we've talked a lot about the ethical issues surrounding new media, such as how they affect communication, privacy issues, and information processing. Do you have any thoughts about these issues? Maybe from your work experiences?
Andy: Sure, I have a few examples. First, in relation to privacy issues: when using APIs [Application Programing Interface, like the tools Facebook provides developers to connect Facebook to their app] that involve social integration and personal information, it is really important to always use the APIs official implementation.
For example, Facebook provides an API that developers can hook into to add a "share" button to their app
Facebook has a "permissions" system where your app has to ask the user for permission to post on their wall, permission to read wall posts, etc.
Me: Yeah we've all seen that screen. Sometimes it makes you think twice about whether OmGF!NdOuTYoUr$uperFriend$!~* needs access to all your information. But it does seem people are more trusting and therefore more vulnerable in a social media/communication oriented setting.
Andy: There is a legal "acceptance" step here where the user accepts these "permissions" (terms). One of the mistakes I have seen in software is a (probably naive) misuse of the Facebook API. The mistake was to show the official Facebook login page, and then "steal" the session token when the user logs in.
This is wrong because it bypasses the permissions system, and basically your app is impersonating Facebook since all permissions are granted in this case.
Me: Yikes! Glad they ended up fixing that. Could it have comprised any users if the app was released with that bug?
Andy: Well, there's also a responsibility to keep session tokens secure, if your app is saving them. The purpose of a session token (or access token) is to provide a transient means for keeping you logged into the app without the app ever coming in contact with your username and password. So the app is supposed to get your session token to identify you but its supposed to do it in the way Facebook approved, so that it can be linked back to that app if anything malicious were to happen.
Me: Ah, so there are some responsibilities for privacy built into to the system, and since the system that would be compromised is Facebook, Facebook is keen to control how other programs interface with its users.
We’ve also been discussing issues of illegal downloading, intellectual property rights, and copy right issues. Anything come to mind when you think about those?
Andy: [and he got very fired up about this topic] Well, there are these “Non-practicing entities”— NPEs, or as they are otherwise known, “Patent Trolls” that acquire a lot of patents, usually they buy them from individuals who invented something.
Me: Since I’m short on space, if you want to know why they are called patent trolls, you should listen to the This American Life podcast about patents: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Andy: And they SAY they help independent inventors who would sue people infringing their patents, by buying patents and suing those people themselves. But they specifically wait for a small company with no legal budget to infringe on the patent and go after them with licensing fees and/or lawsuits.
Me: And ignore the big companies on purpose? Pick on someone your own size!
Andy: We’ll that’s the debate, and maybe your class will weigh in on it, but what these NPEs are doing, they claim is perfectly legal. But I think it’s unethical to use patents in this way versus using them to develop technology that could benefit someone. They even file the cases in a specific region of the country where they aren’t many criminal cases so they can get them prosecuted.
Me: I don’t know why but things seem so much worse ethically when money is involved. It just gives me this knee-jerk “yuck” reaction. Take the illegal downloading (of whatever) issue—it might be bad when someone makes copyrighted material available on a website for free, but to me it seems a thousand times worse to charge for it.
One more question—what would you say to people who think technology is a source of new problems, that maybe it’s even destroying our ability to communicate like before or form meaningful interpersonal relationships?
Andy: The whole point of technology and new media should be to enable people to do the non-technological things in their lives better.
Me: Thank you Andy, very much. I’m thankful to get to discuss these matters in person instead of over asynchronous discussions posts—it’s much easier to keep a train of thought! I think you have a unique perspective on the issues surrounding the development and use of technologies by being a producer, and not solely a consumer of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment