All right, we've had our late summer, early autumn break. Now, it's back to the grind.
I ran across this article here on Slate.com. I thought it was pretty interesting from a collegiate standpoint. So we have our sounding point for the week.
Here's what I would like to know: if this program were to come to Kent State University, would you be okay with it? Where does this lead? What is going to happen to our society in the next generation if we keep going down this route?
Here's the second portion: Techno Buffalo is reporting a town in Leon, Mexico is taking security about 12 steps farther than anyone else.
Read the two articles, and, in 300-500 words, tell me what you think. What would you do if this came to Kent, Ohio? Are the two programs linked? Am I just trying to scare you?
This should tide you over until Tuesday, the 28th, at noon, when your responses are due.
-- MP
Retina scanners and DNA testing is more or less a new form of control. Typically, I am not a person who runs with the idea of conspiracy theory, but this whole idea is nonetheless a new idea to have people lose their privacy little by little.
ReplyDeleteI like how it states in each article that the testing or scanning is for the convenience of the person being tested or scanned. It’s time worthy and efficient. Ideally, this is to persuade the public on why it is good for the public; however, I cannot help but have instinct that there is an obvious ulterior motive.
DNA testing would be great to let students understand their background and if they have any bad “qualities” about them that they should know about. It first started with a group of guinea pigs that were used as statistics, so there was no labeling on each set of DNA as to that was who. Now as time goes on, the DNA testing wants to inch by inch take it further and now label each testing for the benefit of the student. Thus, reassuring those being tested that there is nothing to worry about and the testing will only be based on three different tests. Then, when the analysis is finished, all results will be disposed of. Now, any conspiracy theorist would, at this point, already have a light go on. There is no defined proof that every piece of data that is used is completely disposed of in the garbage and out of any computer file. Conveniently, students at Berkeley would no longer have to read a tedious essay and comment on it; however, unfortunately subjecting himself or herself under a DNA technician’s will.
Retina scanners are even more of a completely ridiculous idea. What ever happened to having some kind of privacy? Granted, I am sure at the moment, if the government wanted to include them in on my nightly routine, the government would elude my privacy via satellite. It is upsetting that mankind has come to this where there are criminals out on the streets that give reasoning for objects such as retina scanners. What are people supposed to do when they are on witness protection? Never go anywhere? Technology in mankind is advancing to the point where it is taking over. I am not too fond of someone knowing where to pinpoint my existence if I do not want to be found. That’s my freedom and my right as a law-abiding citizen to have that luxury. If a criminal were charged with a crime, then yes, he or she lost the privilege of having that right. Don’t punish innocent people of these rights.
I believe genetics and DNA can be a very powerful thing in our society. The first article about the DNA testing at Stanford and Berkley gave me mixed feelings.I feel as a whole that testing may be more beneficial than damaging to students at the university. Genetics is somethng that is more important to individuals than most think. Human genes can not only determine eye or hair color, but the occurence of many health problems that may effect many of us today. The testing used at these universities is optional and the students are not forced to participate if they feel uncomfortable having their DNA analyzed. The article mentions that peer pressure is seen to influence participants in the testing, but the participants are adults and the ninety nine dollar charge is definately a reason a broke college student would not want to participate in this study. If this program came to Kent I would probably participate in it if it was free and confidential. There are still risks in giving up such valuable information about yourself, but It would really interest me to know about my own genetics for more knowledge about my own health. These types of testing could be beneficial if continued and open up many doors about genetics and health that are recently undiscovered, but it can become a nightmare if this testing turns into a method of identification as expressed in the second article. The second article seems like something out of a science fiction movie. Retina scanning seems unneccary. It can make life a little more convienant , but it takes away every bit of privacy an individual holds. I feel the first and second articles use DNA for two completely different reasons and it is very likely that the innocent testing of college students may indeed become someday what is shown in article two. The subject of genetic testing is a hard one to argue because genetic research may benefit the health of humans, yet genetic information used in everday life as matter of identification can become a very serious thing.
ReplyDeleteThe retina scanners and DNA testing are ways for the public to lose their privacy. We already think that the government is watching us and with these tests it makes it seem true. The government is trying to convince the society that’s it’s a great idea and everybody should be willing to try it. In the article “School of Hock”, I don’t think DNA would be a bad idea for students to know their background. With students having the opportunity to perform DNA testing they will be able to find out much more than their hair color. They will be able tofind out their relatives, prove or disprove your family tree, and lastly provide them with information on health problems that they may have. I think it’s good that students have the option of taking the DNA test because some people may not be comfortable with it. If this were to come to Kent State, I would probably participate but only if it was free and confidential. I do not think there’s anything wrong with getting to know more information about yourself. The second article justifies that retina scanners are more convenient and that the only thing you have to worry about carrying is your eyes if the retina scanners are a success. I think that I would opt out of getting my eyes scanned, due to the fact that it’s an invasion of privacy. Today’s technology has spanned out to something we never thought it could be. Being able to not use an ID and just get your eyes scanned is something we would never thought of. To be honest, I am not sure if too many people would opt-in for the retina scanners to take the place of ID’s and other things. As for criminals, I think this is something that is acceptable otherwise I don’t think it is necessary. I think the two articles are different but can be linked together. The DNA testing of students could eventually lead up to the retina scanners appearing at college campuses. DNA testing has good intentions but if it’s being used frequently, it could eventually be something that everyone will be against.
ReplyDeletePrivacy is a luxury that most people currently seem to take for granted. That is, privacy in general terms that hasn’t already been slowly taken away from us without the general public’s knowledge or concern. With both of these articles, my first reaction is that both the technologies are just natural evolutions and progressions to the technology and set boundaries that already exists in our society today. GPS, wiretapping, and microchips are some of the ways our government has already conned us into believing that we are, on an individual level, “safer”. However, the majority of these technologies exist purely on the notion of ‘what if’? Society has scared us into believing that if or when worst comes to worst, this technology will always be on our side.
ReplyDeleteMy first gut reactions after reading these two articles were mixed emotions of fear and disbelief. The first article seems against standard protocol on an educational level, but I suppose it is a way to involve students on a personal level, which brings a deeper meaning to the knowledge process in general. I think that it should be voluntary if a student wants to be considered for DNA testing, and if the student chooses to do so, all records and information that is obtained should be deleted so that it never fall into the wrong hands.
As far as the second article goes, I thought it was very interesting. I’d always thought that as technology progresses, we would see more and more things like this in the future. However, I’d always picture them as more of a optional convenience to customers and the general public, versus their notion that red flags are raised if you choose to be excluded. As far as the security aspect, I actually think that it would be non-invasional to only scan individuals with previous crime records. I don’t think that it is fair to scan individuals that haven’t done anything in order for them to be tracked under a watchful eye. With the consumer route idea of using the scans to target advertisements to certain audiences, it not only sounds invasive but it sounds too good to be true in my personal opinion. In general I think that the price and time that it would take to track every individual is outstanding, even though I have no true concept. I try to tell myself that technology won’t ever evolve to where it is harmful to us as human beings but looking down the road it may be closer in sight than anybody can predict.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought the first article was very interesting. I feel as long as they are not forcing anyone to take the DNA test then there is no reason to make it such a big deal. No one is getting punished for not doing it so why try to stop it. The research can be very knowledgeable. I think if people do participate in it they should not be anonymous though. What is the point of doing the test if they can’t inform someone of their results? If this DNA research came to Kent I might do it. I am a cheap person so I don’t know if I would be willing to spend 100 dollars to do it, but it would be a cool thing to have. It also will open up jobs for people of Kent and maybe give student experience if they participate in these test. It would be nice to know if I had something wrong with me that I would of never known with out taking it. I feel as long as each student has the right to say no then why argue it. It might be beneficial. As for the second article, the thought of someone scanning my retina just to open my front door literally frightens me. Everyone needs their privacy. I understand airports are all about safety and I am aware why they use them, but to start a car or enter a house is going way too far. To put them in stores is even crazier to me. We have the technology of video cameras. Business should be paying someone to do their job. People who work at places like retail stores should be aware of shoplifters. I hope the U.S never agrees to this. It’s completely against America and what we stand for. We all have rights and freedom, and no one should ever have to worry about that getting taken away by some retina scanning machine.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that comes to mind when reading the first article is how intruding thing program would have on people’s rights. People already have too much of their personal information available for other to find out, so now having their own DNA complexity available just adds to the amount of information we Americans are losing our personal. Having our own DNA information displayed is too much information I want to know. This is a dangerous idea and who knows who will get a hold of this information and use it to our disadvantage. Hard working American’s lose their identity( social security) everyday to low lives; having their DNA stolen could be another example of this. If a program like this would come to Kent State, I would not protest against it but I would certainly stay far away from any cheek swabs. The route that were going on has no end. Our personal right’s will soon have no personal, soon all our information will be out in the public and ready to be used against us. The security in Leon, Mexico seems to be the starting point for the real life, “Minority Report.” Soon technology like the retina scanner will be everywhere across our country. Sure this could make our lives more convenient and safer, but who wants to have every living aspects of our lives available to complete strangers who can easily use this information to destroy our lives. Sure it could protect us, but there is a line that is drawn between our rights and our security. This has been seen in the past with the Patriot Act. Both these articles clearly go hand in hand as far as what road our country is moving along. We as American’s our losing our personal right’s little by little for security. Soon any aspect of our lives will be displayed for all to see, and use.
ReplyDeleteTechnology as a whole has stripped privacy and rights in increasing quantities as it has evolved. A phenomenon that is sure to only intensify as the years progress. This is not to say it doesn't have it's benefits, just that often, the theoretical good that can be done with a new discovery is far out weighed by the realistic bad it will do. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient power source in the world, yet it's small amount of waste is the most deadly, and the very technology behind it birthed the atomic bomb. The internet offers websites to keep track of sexual predators but also the largest, completely unbridled forum for sexually perverse exchange, transactions and so forth. In much the same way, the new technologies discussed in these two articles have a great capacity for good, but an overshadowing likelihood for misuse and abuse.
ReplyDeleteIt has astonished me in recent years as I have witnessed the rapid evolution of technology clearly channeled in the direction of science fiction. Look at any science fiction movie from the 70's and 80's based in a futuristic society. Cars are streamlined, some even running on electricity; computers are sleek, often touch screen, and can fit in a person's hand; automated robots sweep floors and vacuum; and above all, everyone is monitored by an all-knowing, power mad government that "know's best" what is right for it's people. Through my eyes, the future is quickly becoming the present.
AS for the two technologies at hand, by themselves it seems of little consequence to our culture. Already available genetic tests being made more widely used probably wont cause the world to end tomorrow. Nor will retinal scanners in airports. It is the trend however, that we should be more concerned about. Our culture has become exceedingly information thirsty, listening to fear-based news on a dozen 24-hour news channels, hearing of their favorite (or least favorite) celebrity's latest arrest or adopted child the hour it is announced, sports channels that discuss issues with the athletes personal lives, even medical records being posted online all are signs of our addiction to the wrong kind of knowledge. Who cares if Lawrence Taylor has a crack addiction? He was paid to hit people carrying a football. Clinton got a blow-job? Big deal, Kennedy was sneaking Marilyn Monroe through the basement passages in the White House to do the same thing and he's an American icon. We've become so obsessed with useless information we lose track of the important stuff, like liberty.
I found both articles very interesting. After reading the first one I was all for it and supportive of the genetic testing. The article stated that the testing would be strictly voluntary and no student would be forced into DNA testing without consent. With the information provided in the article I see this genetic testing as something that could be quite beneficial. Students have the option to opt in and pay the 100$ fee for a DNA testing versus reading a book. The testing would test three genes that mediate lactose tolerance, the flush reaction in response to alcohol, and folate metabolism. The article states that the data provided from the testing would only be available to the student from whom they were gathered and all samples would be destroyed after. Now there’s no guarantee of this promise nor is there any reassurance of who will be able to view these results, but I believe in the end the testing would be used for nothing more than educational purposes. I also believe that many of the students who decide to get tested will find the results to be quite beneficial and interesting. The second article to me was much more interesting, but at the same time much more controversial. In the first article there was no question as to if freedoms or rights were being violated. Students volunteered for the testing and there should be no controversy over it. With retina scanning it’s a whole new game. I believe that these scanners are going to bring many problems and debates. Sure like the article says, you have the option to opt-out and go through different means of security, but who wants to bring that unwanted attention upon themselves. If you refuse to use these scanners you will appear as if you have something to hide. I am a technology junkie and all for the technology behind these scanners. I love seeing how our world is constantly improving technology and coming out with new gadgets, but I do not agree with what our world is coming to. These scanners are a violation of privacy. When and where will it stop? We as U.S. citizens have been losing rights to our privacy over time and will still continue to do so. The government is using the excuse that these scanners will bring better “security” and make things safer. I do not agree with this whatsoever because this country was built on the means of democracy and freedom. Even though the government can track any human being on the face of the world at any point in time I believe these scanners are a huge violation of privacy. There’s not much we can do to stop it either. The government will continue to get away with these things because they will say it’s for “security”. Well honestly, It’s bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the DNA testing on the college campus is a bad thing. I personally would rather have my DNA tested than read a book. The tests are being destroyed after the fact, which would make me be for the whole testing even more. I think that this may improve our society in the lon run in some sort of way. With the students having a choice to either do it or not it makes it not intruding into anyones private life.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think the retina scanning is a bad idea either,I believe it will make our country a much safer place. I am very scared of flying and I feel much more comfortable knowing that everyone has gone through the intense security of retina scanning to get onto the same plane as me. I am willing to have my retina scanned for my safety. I also think that including these scanners in stores and other public places is a great idea, it would make our society a much safer place. Not having to carry my credit card around would be great, I wouldn't have to worry about losing it, or getting it stolen ever. In the long I think this would make people behave better, if someone gets caught shoplifting when they are younger, the retina scanner will be aware of that incident. People will think more about their future and the actions they take if the retina scanners do make their way into our society.
These two articles are linked in the thought of invading the privacy of our lives. As said before I would not mind the government invading my privacy as long as it is effective and keeping me safe in any way.
The majority of humans will never understand technology to the fullest, and that is what makes both of these articles immediately frightening to most. We, as humans, have a tendency to fear what we do not understand and I only comprehend a fraction of technology. The Opt-in genome testing at Berkley is a completely justifiable idea to pursue. Not only would the data be available only to the student, but it would then be destroyed afterwards, leaving no trace of evidence that they were even involved with the procedure. It would also be handled professionally, just like any other typical visit to the doctor’s office. A $99 service fee would be charged against the student too, to avoid any scent of peer pressure. The author, Misha Angirst, makes a good point when she mentions the benefits of ‘forging ahead with personalized medicine and fostering a generation of young people that understand(s) what DNA can and cannot tell us.” I would be more than open for something such as this to come to KSU.
ReplyDeleteThe eye –scanners in Leon, though, I am teetering on my imaginary fence about. I can definitely see how they could help a society keep track of criminals, but it would become one step closer to the Orwellian society that has been feared and predicted for so many years. I do not understand why not ‘opting-in’ would automatically red flag you as a suspect for anything. It is understandable to tag known criminals to discourage them from making the same mistakes, but to be suspect of innocent people who do not want any part of the new program is a ghastly thought.
Instead of generating a mass-hysteria about new technology, perhaps we can embrace it and see it in the light of its possible intentions. On the other hand, maybe we should be weary of these new technologies and deny them before our government can strip us of the little freedoms we have left.
Perhaps we will not know until it is far too late.
The programs that Berkley and Stanford are both currently invested in seem to be great Ideas. I agree with the author when it is said that we need more bold social experiments like these. I believe this because what better way to study genetics and inspire young minds than to offer a course about yourself (or someone else). I also believe that Berkley should most likely present its experiment like Stanford to avoid social heat. This is a great Idea and I hope that more universities take this on, including Kent. What are the fears besides people might mis-interpret their own findings? If the samples will be destroyed then to me its not a big deal. I already think that the laws on genetic research are way to strict, sure a few people could get used or hurt, but I believe that the marginal gain is worth the marginal cost. Not only is this for genetics but many technology related jobs could open up to program the needed equipment.The second part though, I am completely against. Sure what sounds like a good idea for what it is being implemented in now is going to turn into something that will make us all slaves to society. We all know that there are so many Norms and Mores in this world that make us adhere to social standards but now this is just like forcing you to have no choice in your actions. I am not trying to protect criminals or what ever by any means but when you lose the choice to even be able to make a different decision than what people want you to make, thats when we have a problem. The world is way to focused on making things easy, rather than making things right. When a company says you can go against us but you will be counted as suspicious, to me makes the company suspect. This companies ideal is coercion, saying basically you are not allowed to go against us. This is a terrible idea, why cant we just keep this aspect of security the same? the article even said it will eventually possibly not just be for security but in place of a credit card. why do I need that? oh yea I dont. New technology is not a bad idea, but when it forces people into doing something for the sake of their well being is when it becomes a horrible idea. Obviously I am against this I want no part in this leap forward of making big brother more powerful. You could argue that this will not happen but when does any advance in technology stop with its first intention?
ReplyDeleteI found both articles very interesting, though I am conflicted with both. On the one side, I feel like we are losing our privacy and exposing ourselves to the world and government; on the other side, however, I feel like the DNA testing is interesting because we can learn more about ourselves including any diseases we may have in the future and what our family background is. With the retina scanning, I would feel more safe flying and going into certain places, knowing no one can hurt me. If the DNA testing came to Kent State, I would do the study because I do find it very interesting, though I do not like the $99 fee. If they charged less or nothing at all, more students would do it. College kids are broke as is.
ReplyDeleteWith the retina scanning, I think it taking it too far with not needing ID when we go to a bar or have to pay with a credit card when we shop; however, I do agree that it should be used for criminals and it should be in places such as airports and banks. Both of these articles show what the future will be like. It will no longer be what we see movies, it will be our lives.
People should learn now to love the privacy they have because in the future, it will be gone. The problem I had with the retina scanning article was the opting in. I don’t agree with that if people don’t opt in they are automatically red flagged; it’s turning into McCarthyism and the black list. Just because we don’t agree with a certain security measure, doesn’t mean we should be a suspect. Not everyone in America is going to agree with everything the government decides, so does that put a red flag on all of those people?
I think both are a great idea as long as it is for security purposes only.
It's possible that I may be in the minority when it comes to the first article about DNA samples, but I'm pretty open to being tested for things and I don't think this is a Big Brother sort of situation. The author raises a valid point when he says that we as college students (and let's face it, adults too) don't know very much about our DNA or what we're susceptible to. We expect guys in white lab coats to figure things out and when we go to the doctor, they'll let us know. But they aren't mind-readers, but they can read genes. I personally wouldn't have a problem with being tested for any of those, I'm always curious to know what's going on in my genetics. Plus if it raises a flag for something I didn't know I had, I would be grateful that it was detected early. Finally, if this is all voluntary, why should it matter to students anyway? Sure, some could use the alcohol flush test as a wager for drinking more, but I feel like those are the kind if people who were going to get smashed at the kegger that first weekend anyone. They'll just get a cool drunken story to tell their friends. Or maybe, just maybe, it will deter them from drinking. In any case, college kids will do what they want, regardless of what authority or a test tells them.
ReplyDeleteHowever my stance on the second article about retina scanners is different. I believe the author knows what he's talking about, but let's face it, it could be quite a while before the technology comes to the US and is implemented in every facet of society. I'm not necessarily afraid of the government, I think the government should be afraid of it's people (to steal a line from “V for Vendetta”). I have nothing to hide. I live my life, following the laws (though not always agreeing with them), driving to school and back and working at a grocery store. I'm not a criminal or a threat to the American people. It is a bit daunting to think that the government could follow me around and track my every move. But I don't think the government is really concerned about a 20 something year old Photographer. I do like the point that Dan Probola brought up though, that we fear the unknown. I consider myself a mediocre tech or scientific expert. Once numbers start getting thrown into the mix my thought process goes through the basement. There's always going to be the “Big Brother” cloud hanging above our heads, whispering that the government is doing this to cage us in. I think the author is mostly just paranoid of the future, not that it's a bad thing to be Aware of it, of course.
The first article dealing with DNA was not quite what I expected by the title of the article but is somewhat interesting anyways. I don't really fear that schools asking for DNA for genetic testing is wrong especially when it is volunteer. As the author wrote about peer pressure under circumstances that a student did not fully want to give DNA... well frankly I dont care. If you are a college student that can't tell someone "no, I want my dna and you can't have it" then that student is immature and does not need to be in college. If that student can go to that party and get boozed up then they should have responsibility for themselves. I do not see how this article is threatening, since there are plenty of ways to take/find someone's DNA without having to ask.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second article which I found much more interesting, I do not like the idea of scanners in a public setting. In government buildings, airports, or prisons I say yes please use them. These are areas that we need a certain measure of security that is better than whoever is holding a key. I do not like the idea of simply being able to scan groups of people for no reason as they live their life. The author mentions shoplifters being recognized by the software, but this means scanning all of the innocent people as well, which is simply indecent. I believe my mother was spot on when she said that we should just tattoo people's faces and hands with their crimes or make them wear signs around their necks. She was much in favor of the old embarassment style punishment of the stockades, embarass them and let everyone know exactly "who-did-what", as a deterant. I have to agree with her relatively harsh methods of dealing with problems. I think these computer programs show a growing dependence on technology to solve our problems. I have read about putting microchips in children to track them and bionic brain implants to interface with our computers. I find it creepy and sad. I am no hippie by any means but I am someone who believes that you need to take care of yourself and not rely on much else.
The idea of universities taking students’ DNA through cotton swabs in the mouth can be a very controversial and debatable topic. This could stir many problems with affiliates either inside the university or the society living outside the university, in the local community. If universities are forcing students to do this, than I disagree with that. It seems to me that there is already too much control at universities around the nation, and this just appears to me that it is trying to be another form of control over students. Now on the other hand, if the universities are offering this to the students as an optional choice, than I am all for it. It sounds like a cool idea if you are not forced to do it. I would be interested in going getting this done on myself if this was an option, it would be kind of fun to experience I think because this is not something that happens to you any old day on the street. But I digress, as previously stated, if this is becoming a mandatory thing, I am totally against it. It seems as a violation of privacy in a way to me. If you have no reason to cotton swab a student and take their DNA, why would you do it? If you have no cause of action, than it should not be done. However if there is reason to take action, than authority has the overruling power as the superior. I really do not have any problems with retina scanners in airports. I do not really have much to say about this topic because I am not opposed to it in any way since I have no criminal record, or plan to smuggle drugs or knives through the airport ever in my life. I can see why the general public would be against this act, because some might think it is a violation of privacy. Obviously people who do sneak in prohibited items on the regular will be opposed, but this act is better for the public safety of the general public in an out of high-risk areas, so I would have to give a positive nod on this issue.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley and Stanford don’t bother me. Mapping certain genes is fine. Whatever. Go crazy. I don’t really see how any of this particular plan can benefit students, but I also don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong or scary about it. Students do not have to participate. If someone’s going to throw the peer pressure card, then I’m countering with the have a backbone card. On all issues, not just genes. If it’s going to provide statistics or information that the school can use of other projects or discussions, then I say go ahead.
ReplyDeleteThe retina scanning bothers me.
This is the scariest part of that entire article: “And it’s interesting: When you get masses of people opting-in, opting out does not help. Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in.”
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just because I don’t want to be scanned at all times, I am automatically marked. That’s a pretty big threat. What are they going to do, blacklist me? Make it difficult for me to get things? Make it difficult for me to get necessities?
And if the government/some third party/Big Brother is collecting data to make my life easier, what’s stopping the government/some third party/Big Brother from blackmailing me with some hypothetical indiscretion after I piss them off? Nothing.
It comes down to whether you believe man is inherently good or man is born to trouble.
When people are convicted of a crime they serve their time. That doesn’t mean they will automatically commit the same crime. They don’t need to be watched constantly.
If we think this will stop crime, we’re wrong. It will just make criminals get inventive.
As for using my eyes to pay for something, I’d much rather just use my credit card. And I don’t like coupon junk mail and spam as it is, and I DVR things so I don’t have to watch commercials—what makes Big Brother think I want more of that?