Snowden Drifts

The Kunia Regional Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Operations Center was a National Security Agency (NSA) facility located in Oahu, Hawaii. In May 2013, contracted employee Edward Snowden stole and then leaked a large number of top secret documents from the establishment to the press, revealing controversial mass surveillance programs being conducted by the NSA on American citizens. The security lapse at the center was caused by three notable factors.

First, Snowden was a Booz Allen contractor and worked at the base as a system administrator. This position allowed him the freedom to view and move a wider variety of files than a regular NSA employee. In addition, his work was completely unaudited and left almost no trails or logs of his actions. Second, the “thin client” system used at the facility allowed Snowden direct access to servers located at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. His position as a system administrator allowed him to access the NSA intranet (NSAnet) without leaving a signature, essentially making him a ghost user. His time zone in Hawaii also allowed him to access NSAnet after employees in Fort Meade had already left for the day. These two factors allowed for the third factor of social engineering, in which Snowden was able to transfer data onto external thumb drives and leave the premises. Normally, NSA policies force an “air gap” between NSAnet and the outside world that prevent employees from exporting any data. However, Snowden’s position as system administrator gave him a ready excuse to transfer files “internally within the intranet”, and so he bridged the “air gap” with minimal effort.

A general policy to fix these flaws include 1) tighter regulations and technologies for entering and exiting the facility (which will probably be unpopular among government employees). Policies more specific to this incident could be 2) requiring audits for system administrators or 3) requiring multiple administrators to work jointly together when handling or moving highly sensitive files.

From an ethical perspective, I admit that I can’t really give an informed opinion on Snowden’s actions. I personally can’t imagine myself doing the things he did, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was unethical. Taking the situation at face value, stealing from one’s own government is wrong. Living in a country means respecting and abiding by that country’s rules, which includes not stealing from the government. “When in Rome” and all that. But what happens if the tables are turned? What if it is the government that is taking advantage of its people? From creation, governments have an obligation to protect and safeguard their citizens. This very responsibility is why they are trusted with societal power in the first place. Regardless of the truth, Snowden’s actions forced people to question these assumptions when they otherwise might have not. In this sense, it was good. From a security standpoint, it also forced the government to be more sensitive to attacks from the inside. This is also good. But there is always a dark side to progress. Although there were no doubt also negative effects, they have very low visibility to the American public because of factors like national security and will likely never see the light of day. I wouldn’t go so far as to label Snowden a paragon of virtue because of this, but one can’t deny there was some good to what he did – intended or otherwise.

Project 02: Work

Submission: Project 2

Before even looking at the diversity statistics provided for ND CSE students I expected that Caucasian students would comprise the majority of its body every year, and I was not wrong – after all, this makes sense from a historical perspective considering cultural proximity. However, as the ND CSE body grew over the years, this proportional gap between majority and minority stagnated more than I had predicted; according to collegedata.com white students comprised 74% of ND’s general student body in 2015-2016, and this was mirrored in the CSE student body which consistently kept its proportion of white students between 65% and 75% every year. I suspected that this was indicative of a similar ethnic spread on the state level, and census.gov reports confirmed my suspicions: Indiana was reported to have an 85% white majority in 2014. These sets of statistics together seemed to support the idea that, despite the acceptance of out-of-state and foreign students, the academic spread of minority ND CSE students heavily relied on the ethnic spread that was present within Indiana.

Was this trend the same with all academic institutions in the US, even those outside of Indiana, or was this specific to Notre Dame? I chose California to make my comparison because it holds a reputation as being the melting pot and international gateway for the United States. Census.gov reported that 38.5% of California’s population was white in 2014, so if the trend was also to be found here then around 38.5% of Stanford’s student body would have to be white. My guess was not far from the mark, as collegedata.com revealed Stanford to have a 41% white student body. This proved that, at least to a certain extent ignoring extraneous factors, that the ethnic spread of an institution is reliant on the spread of its encompassing state. Therefore, Notre Dame and Stanford must handle diversity in very different ways because of the vast difference in their state’s ethnic population.

It can be said that Notre Dame accurately reflects the culture of its surrounding community, and confirming the validity of this is as easy as taking a glance at how large an impact Notre Dame football has had on the Southbend community. Particularly, white students familiar with similar customs find it very easy to adapt and obtain a sense of camaraderie within a Catholic community that nurtures brother and sister dorms. On the other hand, the lack of diversity makes it harder for minority students to adapt as there is no incentive for the majority to accept or make room for the minority culture. This truth is also very easy to confirm by taking a single glance at how culturally limited dining hall meals are. Conversely, Stanford opens itself to an extremely wide pool of applicants that can provide new skills and methods for achieving this same level of camaraderie without having to rely on singular events such as football.

While having a diverse community may be ideal, it is not something that should be forced immediately. Notre Dame could suddenly start increasing their acceptance of out-of-state and foreign students, but by doing so they give no time for the community to adapt and risk destroying the culture that has already been established (aka football). Diversity must be eased in, and the best way to do so is to create more situations that would appeal to the major ethnicity and “forcefully” convince them to interact with the minority – an example would be ethnic based football events that attract both the majority and minorities.

The Cost of Blowing Whistles

Thirty years ago on January 28, 1986, the world witnessed the tragedy of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. The lives of seven brave astronauts were lost, one a schoolteacher, and America’s space shuttle program was set back two and a half years. The cause of the incident was one of the Challenger’s O-rings, a gasket that was supposed to seal a joint in the shuttle’s right solid rocket booster (SRB). The freezing temperatures the morning of liftoff caused the O-ring to fail, allowing the pressurized gas inside to leak to an external fuel tank. This made the Challenger unable to support itself, and the orbiter was ripped apart shortly thereafter by extreme aerodynamic forces.

What could lead to such gross negligence on NASA’s part? Surely years of preparation and taxpayer dollars should have resulted in a successful launch attempt.  Embarrassingly, the answer lies hidden among the bureaucracy and “go fever” that infected NASA. Several engineers at Morton Thiokol, the corporation that developed the rocket and propulsions systems for the Challenger, noticed the below freezing temperatures that would hit Cape Canaveral that morning. Historically, the O-rings they manufactured did not perform well in cold conditions, and the 20 degree weather that was expected was already well below the previous low outlier of 50 degrees. One engineer specifically, Roger Boisjoly, realized the danger and was particularly adamant about delaying the launch. “The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order – loss of human life,” he wrote in a memo the previous year regarding the O-ring’s resistance to the cold. However, years of postponing the Challenger’s voyage had already ruffled the feathers of NASA’s upper management, and they were unwilling to take no for an answer. The pleadings of Boisjoly and four other engineers fell on deaf ears until the shuttle was a fireball in the sky.

President Reagan established the Rogers Commission after the disaster to investigate its cause. Frustrated at being silenced, Boisjoly passed several documents to Major Gen. Donald J. Kutyna of the commission and even met secretly with a National Public Radio (NPR) reporter to expose the problems at Morton Thiokol and NASA. Needless to say, his whistleblowing had obvious consequences. His managers at Morton Thiokol “cut him off from space work” and NASA tried to “blackball” (reject) him from the industry. Even his own colleagues treated him “as if [he] has just been arrested for child sexual abuse.” Boisjoly tried to file lawsuits against both organizations, but they were quickly swept under the rug.  He received multiple awards for his moral courage, but his former career never recovered. In the end, he went the way of most whistleblowers and went into business for himself. Eventually he started lecturing future engineering students about ethical decision making.

Whistleblowing can have many different connotations. It draws attention to the whistleblower, which makes some people view it as a publicity stunt. However, the amount of backlash the whistleblower receives in their personal life makes the act seem selfless. In the case of the Challenger, Boisjoly obviously had good intentions so his sharing of information with the public was completely ethical. Thanks to his efforts, the “go culture” that surrounded Morton Thiokol and NASA thirty years ago got widespread attention and, as a direct result, is now publicly frowned upon. Despite this, the key figures involved in ignoring Boisjoly’s claims were never explicitly held accountable for their actions. Weighing these uncertain benefits to the quality of one’s everyday life is a decision that is made by every justice-seeking whistleblower. Just like the risks, the cost of whistleblowing is always very high.

The (American) Engineering Lunch Table

There are always social problems that need fixing. I think to deny that is to be either idealistically naïve or dangerously indifferent. To those that are aware of them, these problems can have many solutions. Most of the time they differ. Other times, people can’t agree from the get-go if a perceived problem is actually a problem at all.

The fact is, there is a clear lack of diversity in the technology industry. It’s not particularly a secret; it’s easy to see that both women and minorities have little presence in the software development world (make that doubly so if one is both a woman and a minority). Google basically confirmed these suspicions back in 2014 when they released unsurprising records of their employee demographics: 70% male, 60% white, and 70-80% of each in leadership positions. But what’s the big deal? Some would argue that this particular diversity imbalance just happens to be the end result of natural causes. Why worry about it? What’s the harm? Software development author Martin Fowler calls this reasoning the “natural balance hypothesis”. It states that maybe the reason women and minorities are underrepresented is simply because they have less inclination to program in the first place. Perhaps it is simply a combination of genetics and personal choice that prevent these groups from achieving higher numbers in the industry.

Needless to say, I believe this is a very narrow minded view of the situation. The natural balance hypothesis assumes that the only factors affecting employment are genetics and choice, which, in my honest opinion, comes from a very privileged perspective. In the real world, people are not perfect – I think everyone can agree to that. This hypothesis either naively or intentionally ignores the fact that, outside of genetics, there are other factors in hiring beyond our control. What if the interviewer is having an awful day, and they’ve already decided before breakfast that they won’t hire anybody just to spite their under-pressure boss? A petty example, but an example nonetheless. Not only that, there can be factors such as this that can exist all the way from the daily interactions of the lowly employee all the way up to the board of directors or the president. Companies are made up of people. And people, after all, still have their own flaws.

It could be true that the software development world does not look as inviting to women and minorities. And it could be true that the environment is influenced a high school social mindset, where like-cliques have a tendency to always hang around each other. If that is so, then if the engineering world in the media appears to be composed of 90% another ethnicity or sex that particular lunch table may not seem that welcoming to outsiders. This is good news. That means the only thing that remains to be done is to make the table more welcoming! If one looks around the world, there is definitely no shortage of non-white or female engineers. Programs that encourage diversity, such as Notre Dame’s own Minority Engineering Program (MEP), work towards this ‘welcoming’ objective and are large steps in the right direction. It is also just as important to demonstrate in the other direction that the industry has no tolerance for intolerance. Friendly faces make as much of a welcoming impression as empty seats at a lunch table.

As the idiom goes: “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Ensuring equal and fair opportunities for women and minorities does not mean a balanced demographic ratio overnight.  In the end, the choice to sit at the table is still one’s own, but that shouldn’t stop us from decorating the table and its members to be as inviting as possible. Will this eventually solve the problem of imbalanced diversity? Only time will tell.

Startups

I don’t think it’s any secret as to why startups have become popular. Back in the twentieth century the big question was always how to get your name out there. Without the Internet, there was always the notion of having to live in or move to large cities in order to make it big. New York. Hollywood. L.A. But now the age of digitized communication has given more power to the individual, and getting one’s name out there can be as simple as posting a viral video on a home computer (as Internet celebrities have demonstrated). It isn’t just limited to that either. Professional portfolios can now be stored in a place that is both easily accessible and accessible anywhere (at least with an Internet connection). Not only that, their presence will never fade. Now the big question on everyone’s minds is no longer “how can I be heard”, but instead “how can I be heard out of the millions of others?” The price of power to the people is obscurity. Because everyone has the means, an endless amount of noise gets generated by online traffic. And since content is no longer limited like cable television but self-served, everyone is trying to crack the formula on how to get people’s attention. Whether fueled through the great American dream or to become the next big bird-based mobile app, people are more motivated than ever to bet on the power of their own dreams. The popularity of startups is the result of these ambitions.

There are obvious upsides and downsides to participating in startups. For starters, you could be your own boss, adhere to your own schedule, hire your own friends, and write your own paychecks. That’s not to say that employees don’t get several benefits too. There are less levels of bureaucracy in the corporate ladder, and fewer company employees means more value (and opportunities) given to each one. Assuming you work hard, it might be safe to assume negotiable salaries and promotions are never too far away. However, with great power comes great responsibility. There are many factors that affect a startup’s success, but even more that can contribute to its failure. One could work as hard as humanly possible on their product, but consumers could still not want any part of it. That leads to the question on everyone’s minds: job security. It’s harsh, but the consequences of hard work are uncertain in startups. No one wants to go to bed at night unsure if their job will still be there when they wake up the next morning. The problem compounds itself when the higher up the chain you go, the more your decisions can directly affect the company’s direction. It’s no surprise that some people have a pessimistic eye for startups and consider them the equivalent of the business lottery.

Personally, I would not mind working for a startup company. As someone who would eventually like to start his own one day, it would certainly be a welcome learning experience. But I think I would only do so once I’m financially stable and have worked in the industry for quite a while. I’d like to be able to observe the “startup life” without the hanging fear of financial consequences. In fact, I think the most important factor about a startup is the timing. Some people create begin startups with the intention of getting rich quick. If I was to create a startup, it would be with my brothers in order to build our own legacy.