Since many of my recent posts have aligned with the most important story circulating the world right now, the coronavirus, this week I have chosen again to talk about an effect of the disease on the tech industry. Specifically, I will be focusing on the increasing reliance of Americans on technology and whether or not this could be a realistic view of our country and other parts of the world in the future. 

While the rest of the economy seems to be tanking, business in the tech sector is not just holding steady, but thriving. Amazon is hiring an additional 100,000 warehouse workers to fulfill demand. Facebook an explosion of traffic for video calling and messaging. Microsoft said users of its collaboration software have increased 40% in a week. These are just some of the many growing examples of the industry booming as a result of our reliance on technology. Perhaps the most miraculous part of this situation, is that we are doing it. Albeit a bit begrudgingly, but still millions of Americans are going about their daily lives working from home, taking classes, ordering groceries for meals either straight to their door or picked up in a parking lot. Turning instead to entertainment sources such as Netflix and Youtube or using digital services to connect with friends and family, we are getting through this. Which begs the question, in the future could this lifestyle or even a similar one be viable? 

For years we have heard concerns of young people being a technology-obsessed generation “glued to our screens”. People claimed this would decrease our social interactions and in a way, over time some effects of this reliance on tech proved this true. For example, with the rise of e-commerce came the fall of the mall. Once a go-to place for both socializing and shopping, malls simply could not compete with the ease, accessibility, and variety provided by online retailers. In fact, mall vacancies are now at a 7 year high and are only projected to increase as more and more people are forced to rely on online retailers during this time of need and perhaps after as well. But mall closures are considerably smaller than the issues we face currently.

Now in this somewhat dystopian world, we are living without human contact and fulfilling those fears. But I think the viability of living like this depends on the person. I know some people who are not as socially outgoing or simply prefer to be indoors are actually okay with the situation. I recently saw an interview with Trevor Noah in which he said he was always an indoor kid and now he gets to do his work and play video games inside. Similarly, my older brother loves to play video games and he seems to be fine working from home while using this time to play online and with his friends. I would say for the majority of people, this is difficult but I wonder if over time, people will adjust and could potentially live much more socially distanced lives than we do now. Let me know what you think in the comments below!  

Regardless, it will be interesting to see the implications of how our society moves forward after this disease and returning to “normal life” after spending some time glued to our screens. 

First of all, I want to do something a little different and revisit a topic previously mentioned in post 2.5 which was the role of technology in higher education. There, I talked about the potential for colleges to move towards a completely online format in addition to a subscription format. Now, due to the coronavirus, colleges across the nation have already moved to this format and in real time, we are measuring and critiquing the merit of this educational system. As everyone here is experiencing online classes now, I am curious to hear your opinions on Zoom lectures and whether or not this solution is successful. I’m sure most people, like myself, would rather be at Penn State right now but I challenge you to objectively provide feedback on the online system of learning and if it has been running smoothly or not/ could this potentially be the future of college for some people?  Some food for thought I guess, but let me know what you think in the comments below!

Moving on, obviously everyone is worried about the coronavirus and rightly so, it is the story dominating the news right now. In conjunction with this evolving situation, I decided to choose this week’s topic as the impact of E-commerce during these difficult times, specifically in Wuhan, China. 

Initially, after government authorities imposed a lockdown on the province, supermarket shelves were quickly emptied as citizens scrambled to endure the long haul. Yet in a matter of days, supplies began to flow into Wuhan. Although fears and concerns about the disease ran high, residents fairly quickly came to terms with the lockdown and have taken advantage of digital technology to organize and collaborate with suppliers, thereby ensuring that supplies have reached the people who need them the most.  Due to the presence of digital supply chains, the e-commerce market was able to support residents to organize delivery of supplies to the homes of those in quarantine. It seems like with the growing number of cases in the US and a stronger urge to stay inside, we may have to turn to this solution as well. 

But in the U.S., the digital landscape is less favorable for this kind of response than in China. Although U.S. consumers are known to shop extensively on Amazon and other platforms, only 16% of total American sales in 2019 were on e-commerce platforms — a number achieved in China four years ago indicating their increased reliance on the technology.

Another challenge facing increasing the use of e-commerce in the states is the delivery of groceries and ready-to-eat food. U.S. consumers have been much slower to shift to the digital marketplace in these categories than the Chinese. Even in the restaurant business, the likes of Uber Eats and others lag far behind China’s MTDP, Ele.me, and many other similar services in China.

But as the U.S. emerges from the coronavirus epidemic, governments, cities, and businesses should look at how China’s digital advantages have helped it respond to the logistic challenges presented by the crisis. I think overall, the coronavirus situation is a wake up call to accelerate the digital transformation of markets, economies, and many other aspects of society to prepare for the next pandemic.

This week, the House of Representatives is deciding on a proposed bill from Maine that would force their State Police to be more transparent about their use of surveillance technology. Maine is one of two states that has a legislative measure that prohibits police from disclosing information about their intelligence records or methods and now, a representative claims the police are concealing whether or not they are conducting mass surveillance of citizens. The ACLU has been in fervent support of this bill with a spokesperson stating “We can’t regulate what we don’t know” and “Surveillance technology  is developing at an incredible pace, and we can’t afford to wait another year to find out what our law enforcement agencies are doing with it.”

The reason this story caught my eye is because it led me to start thinking about the greater implications of the use of technology in our current policing systems. With the rapid growth of what technology is able to do and accomplish, there are also dozens of ethical questions always being posed about whether we even SHOULD do those things. With regards to policing, the questions being raised now are “how far is too far?” and when do measures start delving into the area of preventative policing and not reactionary. 

Currently, communities across the country are starting to have discussions on this issue because federal law enforcement affects all citizens. The two types of technology being discussed and under the most scrutiny are facial recognition and cell site simulators. 

Facial recognition technology can map an individual’s facial features using a digital image or surveillance video, creating a profile similar to a fingerprint. The profile is then compared to faces in existing databases, such as those from driver’s licenses, state IDs, immigration records, or passport photos. Along with the fact that this can allow the government to track individuals, many are questioning the accuracy of facial recognition software. While the FBI’s current system boasts an accuracy rate of 85%, studies have shown that facial recognition has significantly greater inaccuracy in identifying people of color, especially black women. One does not need to think too deeply to realize the greater negative implications of this. Already, people of color are frequently charged and prosecuted incorrectly and the presence of a faulty identifying system would only exacerbate this problem, not mitigate it. In addition, to many Americans, the technology is an infringement of privacy. According to a May 2018 report, the FBI has access to 418 million facial images for searches.  The framework for what seems to be a dystopian state of surveillance straight out of fiction is currently being created in our country and that scares many people, myself included.

The second piece of technology in question are cell site simulators. These devices can easily be fit into briefcases and be carried in police cars or airplanes to ping for cell phones and turn them into tracking devices. In addition, these devices could potentially then be used to intercept messages sent and received by the cell phone. What is most alarming to me about this part of the story is that the Department of Public Safety said he stands by their previous response that “The State is neither confirming nor denying a broad range of information related to technology.”

This week’s topic overall was just really eye opening  about the extent of surveillance and I hope it has left you with as many lasting ethical questions regarding policing and technology as it has left me.

In the last few decades, it seems like nearly every aspect of life and society have been vastly altered due to the technological revolution. But one area that has largely remained the same, has been higher education. Sure, students now bring laptops and tablets to class, and professors have begun to implement various devices in their teaching methods. But as Gordon Jones, dean of the Boise State University College of Innovation and Design says “Universities may be at the cutting edge of research into almost every other field, but when it comes to reconsidering the structure of their own, he said, “they’ve been very risk-averse.” 

The traditional four-year university model has existed for centuries and has not changed even as higher education costs have skyrocketed, leading many to question the validity and efficacy of our current system. Bret Stephens, a former Wall Street Journal contributor writes “We need to reinvent the model root-to-branch. That’s one of the reasons I’m against making college available to all: You are merely funneling more students into a system of increasingly dubious value.”  

However, change is slowly coming to universities. A recent report found that more than 200 educational institutions now have senior roles with words such as “innovation” and “digital” in their titles. These changes are possibly due to one of the largest disruptors to higher education in recent years: MOOCS and online learning. MOOCS, or massive open online courses on sites such as Coursera, Udemy, and Edx, emerged as a popular and viable method of learning in 2011 and 2012. Since then, colleges have scrambled to adapt, adding online courses to their curriculum and giving students more opportunities to help them learn the best way possible. Today, a variety of ambitious concepts involving technology are being developed and tested that could drastically change higher education. 

One of these experimental methods is the idea of college on a subscription basis. For a monthly fee, students could take whatever courses they want and have access to advising and other resources. Georgia Tech is already considering piloting one of these models and Boise State currently has its Passport to Education program which costs $425 a month for six credit hours or $525 for nine. This subscription model would be cheaper than in state tuition and also encourages students to move more quickly through their curriculum. Certainly innovative, I’m not sure how viable this plan would be but I think it’s too early to be ruled out.  

Another interesting change to higher education would be the use of Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Learning Assistants. Georgia Tech currently has a virtual learning assistant named Jill Watson, based off of IBM’s supercomputer and the university is also working on creating virtual tutors that could possibly be rolled out within 2-5 years. Even at Penn State, many students are using a service called Packback for their classes. Packback is an AI-supported online discussion platform which invites students to post questions while other students respond with helpful answers. The site’s algorithm monitors these discussions and provides helpful feedback, in essence replacing the role of the professor as the moderator. 

I believe these advances and research into changing higher education are beneficial and necessary if we want to improve our current system of higher education. Besides simply following precedent, there is no reason we have to keep following the same path of a standard, one-size fits all, 4-year degree. Hopefully with the use of technology, we can improve the system with regards to duration, educational quality, and cost.