Offshoring--The Ugly Truth

Offshoring—The Ugly Truth

In my last blog posting I introduced the idea that offshoring and outsourcing are in fact two different things. This is not a common notion. The more I read, the more I find that there is an ever so subtle difference. It seems as if offshoring is the placement of work overseas whereas outsourcing is contracting a domestically located duty elsewhere for the sake of lower cost. For who find the two synonymous, you are not alone. In fact, you share the same point of view as President Barack Obama.

On June 25, 2012, President Obama made a campaign speech in Massachusetts where he practically mocked Mitt Romney’s advising team for saying they are in fact different. Since Governor Romney is a businessman, President Obama felt it necessary to point out his ignorance (for a lack of better words) to assume that the two are different. Finally, Romney’s adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom clarified that outsourcing occurs all the time; it simply means that a vendor is upholding a certain set of duties, while “’offshoring is the shipment of American jobs overseas’” (Stein 2012). With that said, I am going to have to kindly disagree with the President.

Offshoring has its advantages, generally that of lower wages, lower cost of production, global expansion, and maybe global power if a business is mainstream enough. Through offshoring, many companies reach these goals, all morals and ethics aside. Nike is a popular one that most people have at least heard of. As a worldwide leader in athletic wear, Nike continues to maintain a huge profit margin despite all the human rights obstacles it encounters as well as the labor laws that it infringes upon. In this case, Nike seems invincible because of its stature—essentially it’s too powerful to destroy at this point. Not all businesses have this luxury, if you will. Authors Ravi Aron and Jitendra Singh write on the realities of offshoring and how those goals previously mentioned are not always reached, in fact, offshoring can get ugly sometimes.

      Once a company offshores elsewhere, yes it saves them money for a time being, but sometimes offshoring ends up being a temporary solution to an ongoing responsibility. If the working force of the country being offshored to is smart enough, they will catch on to the ways that they have learned from the “home” country of the business. Long story short, it is a gamble for big businesses. There is always a risk that the newly hired labor force will use those skills for their own benefit, eventually reaching the point of competition amongst the company they once worked for.

Additionally, companies that offshore to a “provider” as Aron and Singh would put it, use very simplified methods of analysis when deciding on such a venture. Some would call this a “cost-benefit analysis”. Rather than conducting in depth research about the culture, labor laws, and policies of the nation to foresee future implications of this decision, it seems that the research centers on the betterment of the company. Little do they know that the providers have the advantage once they are given an important enough responsibility. The authors continue to write that those providers can hold companies “ransom” by upholding outrageous demands and needs (Aron & Singh 2005). These kinds of repercussions do not cross one’s mind when saving money is on top of the agenda. In such cases businesses learn the hard way, but hopefully with more literature on past offshoring failures can prevent future companies from falling into the same pattern.

      In conclusion, I am not condoning nor condemning offshoring. I simply seek to inform readers on this trend by showing the good, bad, and the ugly in hopes of encouraging them to form their own opinion. In all honesty I still do not know where I stand on the issue. I am on the same journey as the rest of you guys. See you next Tuesday!

Works Cited

Aron, R., & Singh, J. V. (2005). Getting Offshoring Right. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 135-143.

Stein, S. (2012, June 25). Obama mocks romney aides for outsourcing v. offshoring defense. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/obama-outsourcing-offshoring-romney_n_1625287.html

Topic 1 - Wiki Post 1 - Group 11 

Court Case - Employee Video Surveillance 

More and more employees use video surveillance in workplaces these days. Employees use surveillance to curtail illegal activities by employees. However, employees may bring action against their employers for video surveillance under federal and state laws. Understanding these protections and how they apply to video surveillance monitoring in the workplace can help employees keep their privacy intact and employer to keep a check on illegal activities at workplace. There are many past and current cases in Supreme Courts reading such dispute. One of the important case regarding the same issue is Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009)No.S147552 a California court case concerning extend to which employer may conduct video surveillance of the employees without violation their privacy rights.

Facts and Background

Hillsides was established in 1913, and later become residential treatment center for children, ranging age of 6 to 18.The organization has many employees who work sometimes work at night too. In July 2002 Hillside’s computer specialized found out that two of the Hillsides computers were used for accessing pornography at night. Hillside’s director John Hitchcock got concerned not only because porn viewing is violating Hillsides computer policy but also because many of the facility’s resident were children who themselves had been exposed to or forced to do pornography. Hence he placed a video camera in office hoping to identify the person doing this. The camera was connected to monitor and recorder in another room. As the motive was to identify the culprit no other member in office were informed about the cameras.
After failing, to identify the perpetrator by installing a concealed camera in the computer lab, In October 2002 Hitchcock concealed a video camera and motion detector in the plaintiffs' shared office, pointing the camera at the computer that had been used to access pornography as he plaintiffs' office had a door that could be locked and exterior windows with blinds. Several coworkers had a key to the door. The door had a "doggie door," without a flap, through which an observer could peek into the office. Hitchcock strictly limited information about his investigation. Hitchcock, Foster and two administrators knew that the video camera had been installed in the plaintiffs' office. At approximately 4:30 in the afternoon on Friday, October 25, 2002, discovered the camera secretly placed in his office. Plaintiffs were extremely upset by the discovery and asked Hitchcock to view the surveillance tape. Plaintiffs were shown a tape containing scenes of their empty office, Hitchcock also mention that they had been planning to remove the camera the very weekend plaintiffs found it, because there had been no pornographic websites accessed from the computer in plaintiffs’ office. The plaintiffs rejected Hitchcock's explanations and apologies after they confronted him about the surveillance and on September 12, 2003 Hernandez the plaintiffs sued Hillsides the defendants for invasion of privacy and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against. [I][II]

Existing Law
In California, an employee can claim for an invasion of privacy based on two distinct but parallel theories. The first is based on the state constitution, which includes The Right to Privacy which was added to the California Constitutionby initiative in 1972.[VII] The second is the common law invasionof privacy tort claim. In Hernandez, the plaintiffs asserted both causes of action both these claims have many common requirements. To prove a claim based on the constitutional privacy right, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the plaintiff had a privacy interest protected by law; 2) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; and 3) the defendant’s conduct constituted a serious invasion of the privacy right. The seriousness of an invasion of privacy is also assessed according to social norms: the invasion must be “an egregious breach” of the norms that underlie the particular privacy right. If the plaintiff successfully makes this three-part showing, the defendant still may be able to show the intrusion was justified.
The comparable common law claim for invasion of privacy requires an intentional intrusion into a private place or into private affairs, in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Social norms determine whether a privacy interest existed in a particular case.[III]


Court Trials and Decision

The case began at Los Angeles County Superior Court; based on all facts, the court found no issue as to any cause of action stated in the complaint, and granted summary judgment in defendants' favor, and dismissed the action. The court emphasized the lack of evidence that plaintiffs "were secretly observed or recorded by way of a hidden camera located in their office.” On March 1, 2006 Judge C. Edward Simpson dismissed granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.But L.A.'s 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed in 2006, saying that plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation to be free from this kind of intrusion in the workplace, notwithstanding evidence that they were never viewed or recorded and that they worked in a shared office to which others had access. Court of Appeal concluded that defendants' conduct was highly offensive but the Court of Appeal also agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs had not presented strong claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.Reversing the court of appeal, the California Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had properly granted summary judgment in Hillsides' favor on the plaintiffs' claims for invasion of privacy. To begin with, the court found that both employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their office even though (a) the office was shared, (b) several co-workers and supervisors had a key to the office, and (c) a “doggy door” at the bottom of the office door had no flap to prevent peeking into the office. despite its finding concerning the private nature of the office, the court held that the employees had no claim because the employer did not act in a manner that would be considered “highly offensive to a reasonable person,” the second essential element of a privacy claim. The court based that conclusion on the following key findings:• Hillsides had a legitimate business reason for installing the video camera;• The camera was activated only at night, when the perpetrator might be present;• The surveillance was directed only at the computer that had been used for unauthorized viewing of pornography;• The surveillance was disclosed only to four individuals; and• The video equipment was locked in a storage closet with limited access. [IV]

Effects of Hernandez v Hillsides case on Standards for Workplace Video Surveillance in California
California Supreme Court's decision in Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. had a significant impact on video surveillance signage in the workplace. The court ruled that while privacy expectations inside a workplace may be diminished, they are not absent. Employees must be notified what is being monitored and why. Signage is required to protect the company from being sued under the Privacy Act.Although the Court’s prior cases support the holding that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in parts of the workplace, the Court made clear that this is not enough to state a claim. Rather, California’s courts must analyze the specific circumstances—including the reasons given by the defendant for its behavior—in deciding whether a claim will lie. Where a defendant has a legitimate reason for its behavior, and where its actions are limited in scope and carefully tailored to address the specific situation at issue, a plaintiff’s claims should be rejected.The case was also heighten in many law article as it raise a big questions like Do your employees have a complete right to privacy within your workplace? Or do you, as a business owner have the right to monitor everything that goes on in your place of business. After this case the U.S Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave similar decision in 2007 in United States v. Ziegler. In that case, a male employee was convicted of accessing child pornography on the Internet, when his employer found evidence of his access on office computers and reported the employee to the authorities. The employer had notified its employees that the computers on the premises were company-owned, were regularly monitored, and were not to be used for personal activities.The California Supreme Court Provided Useful Guidance for Employers Engaging in Video Surveillance and Other Workplace Searches after giving the ruling on the long waited Hernandez v. Hillsides case. Some of the important points in the guideline are as follows:

• Notifying employees and others in the workplace about areas under video surveillance, in order to reduce any expectation of privacy;
• Avoiding the placement of video cameras in locations where video surveillance is prohibited by law (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms, or rooms designated for the changing of clothes);
• Exercising particular caution when installing video cameras in non-public areas of the workplace, such as offices, and consulting with legal counsel;
• Remembering that audio surveillance is subject to different and often greater restrictions than video surveillance, including laws prohibiting the use of electronic amplifying or recording devices to eavesdrop or record a confidential communication.
• Recognizing that the laws governing video surveillance vary significantly by jurisdiction. In many countries, employees have greater privacy rights in the workplace, and local laws must be considered prior to implementing any workplace video surveillance program. [V]

Hernandez v Hillsides Citation

Hernandez v. Hillsides case was citted in many cases some which are Openiano v. Bank of America, AMIT MAHAJAN v. SANGEETA KUMAR, et al, Senger v. Academy of Art University

The Hernandez v. Hillsides and many other similar cases suggest that employees have a complete right of privacy at work place but under certain circumstances even if the employer does intrude upon an employee's privacy in the course of a workplace search or investigation, the employer generally will not be subject to liability as long as the search is legitimate, narrowly tailored and tightly controlled. The cases also suggest that employers should not do any unethical Intrusion of employee’s privacy rights for his own profit or business.

See Also:
Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone CoNelson v. Salem State College
James v. Newspaper Agency Corp
http://www.rc.com/documents/article.pdf
- An Employer’s Guide to Hidden Cameras in the Workplace

References:

I.Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1377, 1389 (2006).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8205896337467505443&q=Hernandez+v.+Hillsides&hl=en&as_sdt=200

II.Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc., S147552 (August 3, 2009)
http://privacyblog.littler.com/uploads/file/Hernandez%20(2).pdf

III. Hernandez V. Hillsides: Evolving Calif. Privacy Law, All Content Copyright 2003-2009, Portfolio Media, Inc.
http://www.alston.com/Files/Publication/bdac9f87-385e-42f5-81a6-939e8b0d4c44/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/320cdfe5-5421-4ced-9550-993edcde8800/Hernandez%20V%20%20Hillsides-%20Evolving%20Calif%20%20Privacy%20Law.pdf

IV. California Supreme Court's Ruling that Hidden Video Surveillance Did Not Violate Employees' Privacy Rights Provides Useful Guidance for Conducting Lawful Investigations
http://privacyblog.littler.com/2009/08/articles/surveillance-2/california-supreme-courts-ruling-that-hidden-video-surveillance-did-not-violate-employees-privacy-rights-provides-useful-guidance-for-conducting-lawful-investigations/

V. California Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Workplace Video Surveillance
http://www.mofo.com/pubs/xpqPublicationDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=7898

VI. Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2006), Cal.App.4th [No. B183713. Second Dist., Div. Three. Sept. 14, 2006.]
http://edpdlaw.com/Hernandez.pdf

VII.Privacy Law Developments in California
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/is/files/2012/02/betzel.pdf

VIII. California Supreme Court Provides Useful Guidance for Employers Engaging in Video Surveillance and Other Workplace Searches
http://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/california-supreme-court-provides-useful-guidance-employers-engaging-v

Topic 1, Team 11: GPS Workplace Surveillance

Introduction

The usage of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices in the workplace has been under scrutiny for at least the last decade. GPS is a locater service that determines the precise location of a device that has the capabilities enabled. It deciphers the location based on signals that are transmitted between satellite dishes and the device with GPS and based on the coordinates reported back, can easily map its position. In the event the device is lost or stolen, GPS is instrumental in its potential recovery and disabling the device. Additionally, GPS is able to detect the speed of travel or route information and is standard on most electronic devices. Naturally, this type of information would be appealing to an employer.

Recently, it is almost standard for employers to issue employees a company cellphone and/or laptop. In some industries, the use of a company vehicle is also the norm. Because GPS is standard on so many devices and vehicles due to technological advancement, employers have been using it to track the location of their employees to assess their productivity and often without their knowledge or permission. The question is: do employers have the right to monitor employees during business hours and beyond because they were issued company equipment? This article will address several court cases concerning GPS monitoring, two of which are regarding the workplace and one a criminal case that will likely impact the way employers handle GPS tracking.

Elgin vs. St. Louis Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 2005

Leon Elgin was a delivery driver for Coca-Cola in St. Louis, MS, due to some money discrepancies, the company informed him that a GPS device would be put in the vehicle he was allowed to use during business and personal hours. He was informed that he was no longer under investigation regarding the missing money but that his vehicle, along with several other delivery drivers, and had been monitored and would continue to be monitored via GPS tracking device. Elgin chose to sue the company, claiming they were violating his right to privacy. (Elgin) (Stills)

The court found in favor of St. Louis Coca-Cola Bottling company, stating they were not impeding Elgin's privacy in their installing a GPS device. The court claimed that the GPS device would only be able to report public knowledge, like where the car was located, and that was not considered a violation of the employees privacy on or off the clock. (Elgin)(Stills)

Cunningham vs New York State Department of Labor (DOL) 2010

Michael Cunningham worked for the Department of Labor in New York for over 30 years. His employer suspected workplace misconduct and proceeded to investigate Cunningham. The employer installed a GPS tracking device to the employee's personal vehicle and tracked Cunningham and his family for over a month. The employer even used the GPS to track Cunningham while he and his family were on vacation out of state. The initial investigation began because the DOL suspected Cunningham of falsifying his time sheets, which, based on the GPS data, was found to be accurate. The investigation concluded with Cunningham being terminated. (Cunningham)

The court found in favor of Cunningham in this case, stating that it was indeed a violation of his privacy to install a tracking device on his vehicle to determine his honesty on time sheets. They claimed he was wrongfully terminated because the methods DOL took to prove he was stealing from the company by reporting false hours were illegally obtained and never should have been the basis for his termination. The court further ruled Cunningham should be reinstated to his position. (Cunningham)

US vs. Jones 2012

This case is not concerning workplace surveillance directly but has the potential to really impact the way employers go about incorporating GPS tracking for employee's. In this case, Jones was suspected of drug trafficking and as part of their investigation, the FBI chose to monitor his car with a GPS tracking device. When the government obtained the evidence they needed to indict him, Jones attempted to have the GPS evidence suppressed based on a violation of privacy. The court allowed the evidence claiming because he was on public streets it was not a violation of his privacy but they did remove the times when he was parked in his private garage. Jones was found guilty of drug trafficking. (Parent)

Jones filed an appeal, based on the GPS evidence obtained, and his conviction was reversed. The court found that it was indeed a violation of his fourth amendment rights, the GPS device installed on his vehicle without a warrant was equivalent to an unlawful search and a violation of his privacy. (Parent)

Conclusion

Each of the cases discussed are a bit different and cannot be evenly compared, but show a possible progression regarding how GPS tracking may be addressed moving forward. There are many more cases over the past decade that have attempted to link GPS tracking as a violation of privacy to no avail. The court's position was always seemingly the same, that surveillance of a person in public is not a violation of privacy. In some cases the courts have ruled that as long as the surveillance is “not highly-offensive, unobtrusive, or for job-related purposes,” then it is well within the employers right (On Your Tracks). “Highly-offensive” is subjective and difficult to accurately measure.

The Jones case has the ability to significantly impact how employers approach their own GPS tracking. If the government is required to obtain a warrant in order to legally track the whereabouts of a suspect then a employer may reasonably be held to the same or similar standards, with or without a company issued vehicle or device. They may not be required to file for a warrant but should consider explicit documentation signed by the employee giving them permission to track them to avoid possible litigation due to a violation of rights.

Works Cited

"Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor (Challenging warrantless GPS tracking of state

employee's personal car) ." New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties

Union of New York State. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nyclu.org/case/cunningham-v-new-york-state-department-of-labor-challenging-warrantless-gps-tracking-of-state-e>.

Elgin v. ST. LOUIS COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., No. 4: 05CV970-DJS (E.D. Mo. Nov. 14, 2005).

Parent, Jennifer L.. "I Know Where You Were Last Night - Employers Using GPS To Monitor

Employees - Employment and HR - United States." Articles on USA, Law, Accountancy,

Management Consultancy Issues. Business NH Magazine, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/216114/employee+rights+labour+relations/I+Know+Where+You+Were+Last+Night+Employers

"On Your Tracks: GPS Tracking in the Workplace." EPIC.org. Workrights.org, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

<epic.org/privacy/workplace/gps-traking.pdf>.

Stills, Kyle R.. "Employers with Eyes in the Back of Their Heads: The Use of GPS Devices in the

Workplace." Labor & Employment Law Section. North Carolina Bar Association, n.d. Web. 28 Apr.

2013. <http://laborandemploymentlaw.ncbar.org/newsletters/april2011laboremployment/gpsintheworkplace>.

"Privacy Today: A Review of Current Issues." Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights

Clearinghouse, 1 Mar. 2001. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

<https://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Privacy-IssuesList.htm#wirelesscomm>.

Current RFID State Laws and Their Effects

With the invention of RFID (radio frequency identification) tags, one may wonder if there’s a limit to how this technology can be used in today’s world. RFID chips can be implanted into almost anything and can transmit important information to another source. RFIDs have created plenty of controversy with concerned individuals who worry that RFIDs can potentially violate their privacy either by tracking their every move or by stealing their personal information. The controversy created by RFIDs has forced some state legislatures to enact new laws that define what RFID tags can and cannot do. These laws vary greatly, depending on the state.

Some state laws make RFIDs optional while others prevent RFID chips from being used in specific situations. For example, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and North Dakota all passed laws preventing RFID tags from being required. In 2009, Arkansas enacted a statute that prohibits driver’s licenses and other forms of IDs from containing RFID tags. That same year, Virginia passed a piece of legislation that states that their Department of Transportation won’t comply with federal laws that require divers to have RFID chips on them.

Other laws are primarily concerned with preventing unauthorized access to personal information that is stored in RFID chips. For example, both California and Nevada passed laws that prohibit reading an RFID chip without the owner’s consent. Washington State passed a similar measure in 2009 that makes RFID scanning illegal unless it is a business or government agency using RFIDs under specific conditions where the information obtained is anonymous. Some pieces of legislation try to prevent unauthorized access by strengthening RFID security measures. Washington, Texas, Minnesota and Michigan have passed laws that increase the overall security in RFID chips.

Other state laws were enacted to prevent unwarranted RFID tracking in specific situations. In 2009, Rhode Island prohibited the RFID tracking of students on school grounds or transportation services. New Hampshire passed a law that prevents drivers from being tracked on highways.

RFID technology is new and its uses are quickly expanding. The process of enacting new laws is a time-consuming process, so it is difficult to catch up to and regulate new technology. While some states have implemented new statutes, many others have not, and the current laws in place will probably need to be expanded in the future to deal with new cases of RFID use and other possible loopholes. It will be very interesting to see how this technology will be regulated in the future and whether or not new legislation will be strict and more widespread.

Sources:

National Conference of State Legislatures

Offshoring US Programmer Jobs

Offshoring is not a new threat to American jobs. Typically, manufacturing and call center jobs were being shipped overseas.  However, skilled jobs in high-paying fields such as accounting and computer programming have been moving offshore.  These jobs used to seem secure compared to low-skill jobs.  As the number of jobs being offshored continues to rise, should Americans be concerned? 

 One major reason why companies offshore jobs is because it lowers production costs.  Land, resources, and labor costs can all be decreased by offshoring.  There is a significant gap between the wages of computer programmers in the United States versus other countries (see Table 1).  Additionally, companies can save money on costs such as insurance and other benefits.  

Table 1 – Computer Programmer Wages Around the World
Country	Average Yearly Computer Programmer Wage
United States	$60,000 - $80,000
Israel	$15,000 – $38,000
Ireland	$23,000 - $34,000
Canada	$28,174
India	$5,880 - $11,000
China	$8,952
Source: Garner, http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/3Q04Garn.pdf

The recent offshoring of computer programming jobs shows that some developing-country workers are gradually acquiring the human capital needed to be competitive in tasks requiring higher levels of skill and education. The number of highly educated workers has expanded in India and other developing countries, increasing the skills available for many IT tasks, such as routine programming and back-office operations. 

As other countries have started to deregulate some industries and liberalize their restrictions on international services trade, developing countries have adopted new technologies at a faster rate. As a result, telecommunications and transportation costs have tended to fall. Such factors have made some foreign countries much more attractive as a potential location for offshoring by U.S. companies.

Business process jobs that are being offshored are mostly white-collar, information-based jobs, such as billing and accounting, computer programming, and customer service jobs.  The reemployment prospects of recently displaced IT workers may be relatively good compared with displaced manufacturing workers, because they tend to be younger and better educated. Reemployment may still require costly job search and long-term earnings losses for some computer programmers whose specific skills are no longer needed domestically.  However, these individuals often possess more general computer skills that may improve their job prospects.

Some observers have also linked service-sector offshoring to U.S. immigration policy. One concern is that temporary foreign workers in the IT industry acquired skills and business contacts during their U.S. stay that facilitated offshoring when those workers returned to their home countries. When computer programmers and other technology workers were in short supply in the late 1990s, U.S. firms often temporarily hired skilled workers with H-1B visas. Increased temporary immigration in the late 1990s may have held down the wages of some skilled U.S. workers.

As offshoring continues to rise, policymakers should likely reevaluate current public policy surrounding the issues associated with it. 

Source:  http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/3Q04Garn.pdf

Net Neutrality

Reality of Net Neutrality

What is Net Neutrality?

Over the last couple of years, the term “Net Neutrality” came into a portion of technological and political conversations. The term is used to represent an ideological standpoint, for proponents of free and open internet. The reason that the term “Net Neutrality” is currently relevant, is because of large Internet Service Providers (ISP) desire to sell, effectively, access to websites. ISPs want the ability to sell connection speeds to other large companies or simply place their own advertisements into other heavily trafficked websites.

What is the issue?

From a simple access perspective, the main issue is that the internet, as a collective body of knowledge or applications, is trying to be controlled by large ISPs. Currently, the problem is, “How do people effectively stop large corporations from controlling access?” If the answer is to let the government step in, then the government controls the internet (to some degree). Therefore, there are two main issues: The internet being controlled by corporations - potentially having monopolies or the internet being controlled by the government - to prevent the corporations from having control.

What I think:

The ideological standpoint of “Net Neutrality” is somewhat simple and easy to grasp. However, much like the philosophical standpoint of either libertarianism or classical liberalism, how “Net Neutrality” pans out in reality is very complicated. Furthermore, from my perspective, the big problem is that the proponents of “Net Neutrality” are very outspoken - but weak in numbers. For example, “Net Neutrality” is not a typical topic for conversation in a suburban blue collar home - but, Google is a big proponent and spokesman for “Net Neutrality”. Implicitly, Google being in your corner, for any sort of opinion, means you have a very strong backing. But more importantly, Google is, in my opinion, the pinnacle when it comes to companies that utilize the capabilities of open access to the internet.

From the background of, “Net Neutrality” is the ideological standpoint of free and open internet and “Net Neutrality” has control issues, whether governmental control and regulation, or ISPs who are wanting to control, or inject advertisements into heavily trafficked websites, my opinion becomes rather simple. In the same way that when GoDaddy came out as supporting SOPA they were heavily boycotted enough to change their opinion - the primary way to enact “Net Neutrality” - is through the wallets of the large corporations by mass boycotting.

The other opinion, that I in large part disagree with, is “Net Neutrality”, supported merely by government regulations. I think the backing, for this opinion, should not be the fickle and easily swayed government. The information alone of congressmen and congresswomen, not having an understanding of the internet but creating and proposing bills, from my perspective, means that they are just trying to achieve popular vote.

In my future blog posts, I will talk further about my opinion, opinions suggested by others and legal/political ramifications that arise from these opinions.

In conclusion, the final note I want to leave you with is, “Net Neutrality” is good, government and corporation control is bad.

Cheers,

Brandon

Sources and Inspiration:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/12/accc_net_neutrality/

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support/

  

Topic Exploration Group #5: The Promise and Failings of Screen Scraping

http://lethain.com/an-introduction-to-compassionate-screenscraping/

      The link I have placed above explains in a bit more detail what screen scraping is, what goes into screen scraping, how to write a script that scrapes data, and the impact such scripts can have. As explained in the article, screen scraping is the process of using automated scripts to extract the data contained on web-pages, so that data can be used in the script owner’s site. The article walks the reader through how to create a basic scraper script in Python.

      Unfortunately, such scripts are not perfect and screen scrapers have a number of problems. Mainly, they can severely slow down or even crash some sites. Since scrapers are running constantly to collect data, they send a number of requests to a site just like a regular user with a browser would. But, because they are scripts, they can send a large number of these requests, much more than can be generated by regular humans. Trying to handle all the requests can bog down or even crash some servers. There are a number of methods a script writer can employ to ensure that the script is not crashing the site it is trying to scrape from, as explained in the article above, but that does not completely alleviate the problem of scrapers eating up bandwidth on the server side. Such changes just make it so that they eat up less.

      Screen scraping strikes me as a dangerous practice. It certainly has its perks, but the drawbacks make me very nervous. Not just that a poor script can impact the other site negatively; a poor script will impact the site it is supposed to serve negatively as well. If the site that is being scraped from crashes, the script cannot get its data, or worse, it could even send back bad data. Both would have a negative impact on the reputation of the site that gets data from scrapers. Websites are essentially services and if a service is spotty, users will go elsewhere. After extended periods of spotty service on the side of the site being scraped from, the website being served by scrapers could start hemorrhaging users. In my mind, if one offers a service one must make sure that the service works as often as possible and it doesn’t seem like screen scrapers will help that. No matter how helpful the data they provide is, there is still the risk of a site crash and loss of data.

      So, what are the thoughts of others on this matter? Are screen scrapers worth the trouble? What do you think is more important for a site to survive: good data or good service? Are you of the opinion that as long as only well programmed screen scrapers are used, the risk is worth the rewards?

-Noel Hansen