IBM: Environmentally Responsible Leadership by Example

1.     

Environmentally-centric philosophies persist throughout American history dating back to Thoreau and Emerson who lived and wrote regarding man’s altruistic responsibility towards conserving nature. The present “green movement” today however, owes, in part, its origins to the awakening experienced by many after reading Rachel Caron’s seminal work Silent Spring, published in 1962. Beyond the individual philosophy and communal attempts at proselyting, there also came a recognition that everyone, including government and business had a social and moral responsibility to the environment.

In 1970, Pres. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency thereby establishing a regulatory body aimed at correcting a history of poor environmental stewardship. Push back against progressive programs is inevitable and industry, in general, will always resist imposed regulatory efforts, typically deeming such efforts to be unnecessary and reactionary. Yet, some businesses have chosen a proactive course and, in such a manner, creative their own regulatory policy beyond the dictates and capabilities of inefficient bureaucrats.  International Business Machines (IBM) stands prominently as such an example.

IBM’s current policy of environmental sustainability encompasses four areas comprised by environmental strategies, green branding, compliance management, and cost-efficient sustainability (Butner & Gregor, 2009).  Such a current course of action stems from IBM’s embracing of the fledgling “green movement” under the helm of Thomas J. Watson Jr in the late 1960s. One of their first enterprises established a hazardous waste management program, not just for themselves but also as a condition of business for its contractors (Stair & Reynolds, 2014). This foresight facilitated IBM to not just remain in regulatory compliance to but place themselves ahead of the politically-reactive wave of legislation that endured throughout the 1970 and 1980s.

In 1998, IBM suggested its supply chain contributors should implement international green initiatives. This suggestion has evolved from a suggested point of consideration to a mandate for those choosing to do business with IBM. In fact, IBM now requires their supply chain providers to “define and deploy an environmental management system (EMS), measure existing environmental impacts and establish goals to improve performance, publicly disclose their metrics and results, and “cascade” these requirements to any suppliers that are material to IBM’s products” (Winston, 2012)

Baring the fact that “the end goal is to protect and enrich the brand” (Butner & Gregor, 2009), IBM’s actions ripple well beyond the point of impact. From contractual mandates with supporting operations where IBM leverages compliances down the supply chain to their ongoing focused efforts to “reduce energy use, conserve water resources…and combat climate change”, other major tech players, such as HP and Dell, have followed suit, introducing product return and recycling programs, remanufacturing used goods, and pursuing their own energy efficient operations. IBM’s impact beyond their doors continued in 2004 with the launching of the Electronics Industry Code of Conduct, a policy whose very defining was predicted upon IBM’s Supplier Conduct Principles policy (Winston, 2012).

IBM early adopted a fiscally dangerous position of putting profits second. According to Thomas J. Watson Jr., “Corporations prosper only to the extent that they satisfy human needs. Profit is only the scoring system. The end is better living for us all.” His forward-thinking ideology illuminated responsibility beyond the board room and factories. In addition to Thomas J. Watson Sr.’s Basic Belief, Watson Jr. established a mission statement that purported corporate success was endemic of corporate responsibility. Over five decades later, IBM’s campaign of responsibility and stewardship remains the “tip of the spear” behind which others follow.

Reference List

Butner, K., & Gregor, J. J. (2009). Green and Beyond: Getting Smarter About the Environment. Somers: IBM Global Services. Retrieved from http://www.iaap-aggregates.org/sustainability/IBM-Environment.pdf

Stair, R. M., & Reynolds, G. W. (2014). Fundamentals of Information Systems (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Winston, A. (2012). IBM's Green Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/07/ibms-green-supply-chain.html

Kids and Coding

The premise of introducing computer science into early childhood education is far from a new idea. Radia Joy Perlman, working alongside Seymour Papert, began studying the cognitive impact of programing on children in 1974 using TORTIS ("Toddler's Own Recursive Turtle Interpreter System"). Posterior studies centered on the programming language LOGO. In 1984, two Kent State University researchers, utilizing LOGO, undertook a study that aimed at assessing “the effects of learning computer programming on children’s cognitive style…, metacognitive ability, cognitive development…, and ability to describe direction” (Clements & Gullo, 1984). The assertion of all of the studies engaged is to attempt to define, assess and quantify a conceptual notion referred to as educational transference or “learning transfer – the idea that learning in one context will automatically transfer across to others” (Buckingham, 2015).

Numerous more studies have come, gone, and continue to evolve. I would be remiss by not noting that “any benefits derived…can be to interactive experiences with computers…rather than to the programming per se” (Clements & Gullo, 1984), yet, as far as studies have concluded, “there is no published research reporting potential negative effects of the use of programming environments in cognitive and/or social development of children” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013). As such, I agree with Naughton’s premise that “tomorrow’s educated person will know how to program a computer” (Stair & Reynolds, 2014) considering that successive testing of children has produced replicable results documenting how “programming may affect cognitive style”. (Clements & Gullo, 1984). Additionally, these studies produce evidence that “supports the…value…in learning mathematics, in the improvement of thinking skills as well as in the development of problem solving strategies”. (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013).

John Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University, remains a vocal champion of introducing computer science into early childhood education. As he purports, computer science has the inherent benefit of providing children with both an understanding of their networked world while additionally inducing “computational thinking, and it’s about…thinking recursively…and deploying heuristic reasoning, iteration and search to discover solutions to complex problems” (Naughton, 2012). However, the simple notion remains more complicated that just implementing such a course of action as “the availability of software programming environments is not enough…Experimentally validated teaching/learning approaches, documented best practices, learning resources, curriculum standards, professional development and support for teachers are also need” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013).

 Factually, and economically, speaking, the main deterrent thwarting the addition of computer science into elementary curricula “is not the availability of developmentally appropriate computer programming environments but rather the development of appropriately designed learning activities and supporting material” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013). Furthermore, “learning activities involving programming and targeted at children must be carefully designed so that they are meaningful and challenging…but also achievable” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013) in order to maintain engagement.

Reference List

Buckingham, D. (2015). Why Children Should not be Taught to Code. Retrieved from dividbuckingham.net: https://davidbuckingham.net/2015/07/13/why-children-should-not-be-taught-to-code/

Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children's Cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Clements/publication/232539181_Effects_of_Computer_Programming_on_Young_Children's_Cognition/links/0c96053626d4ec684a000000.pdf

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem Solving by 5-6 Years Old Kindergarten Children in a Computer Programming Environment: A Case Study. Computers & Education, 63. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38944358/2013_CE_FESSAKIS_GOULI_MAVROUDI_vF.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1478642061&Signature=4TufxIK%2BjwuRpCPVzEsKrM02OQ0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DProblem_so

Naughton, J. (2012). Why All Our Kids Should be Taught how to Code. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/mar/31/why-kids-should-be-taught-code

Stair, R. M., & Reynolds, G. W. (2014). Fundamentals of Information Systems (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Scammers The Rise Of Cyber Crime In Britain Documentary 2015

Fascinating documentary regarding cyber-predation in Great Britain and how all levels of government, as well as NGOs, are working together to raise awareness and trying to proactively fight the a never-ending fight.

Next Generation Identification

Since early 2011, in an effort to increase resources available to law enforcement (LE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has incrementally rolled out their Next Generation Identification (NGI) system which not only enhances the preexisting Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System but expands the biometric data-capture function exponentially. According to the FBI, NGI advancements will “increase the range and quality of its identification and investigative capabilities (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.)” through components such as the Advanced Fingerprint Identification Technology, Repository for Individuals of Special Concern, Latent and Palm Prints, Rap Back, Facial Recognition, and Iris Scan (still currently being beta-tested). NGI additionally enables multi-national collaboration, an especially important feature in today’s war on terror.

FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Assistant Director Thomas E. Bush III purports NGI is not a data collection system but a “database that stores and aggregates information sent to it…from law enforcement agencies. (qtd. Smith, 2008)” yet Privacy advocates suggests otherwise, especially with regards to NGI’s facial recognition capabilities. While the accuracy of fingerprint analysis via NGI has improved from 92% to 99.6 % (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.), the FBI only guarantees that facial recognition software will result in an 85% accuracy rate within a list of 50 candidates generated and only “when the true candidate exists” (qtd. Lynch, 2014). The minimum recommended resolution is .75 megapixels, a shockingly low threshold when compared against the newer iPhones which possess 8-megapixel resolution (Lynch, 2014). (Even Google Glass, which banned the use of facial recognition applications, possess a 5-megapixel camera! (Warman, 2013))

Unfortunately, much of America’s video surveillance infrastructure utilizes technology that does “meet the necessary resolution standards to make accurate facial recognition” (Walker, 2014). Furthermore, a German field study in facial recognition software in 2006 demonstrated only a 60% daytime accuracy rate and a dismal 10% nighttime rate (Smith, 2008). The FBI insists that NGI enables a zero percent false positive feedback because the system does not generate positive identifications but investigative leads. Yet, a database which contains both criminal and non-criminal (i.e. background check for employment) data, capable up processing up to 52 million photo queries a day, has an error rate of almost 8 million people.

Even more unnerving than the lack of accuracy remains a systemic failure to establish working guidelines. Documents released to Electronic Frontier Foundation as a result of a freedom of information lawsuit illuminate that “the FBI and Congress have thus far failed to enact meaningful restrictions on what types of data can be submitted to the system, who can access the data, and how the data can be used” (Lynch, 2014). Many deemed this as unacceptable particularly given that the annual financial obligation necessary to support NGI is suspected of being approximately one billion dollars (Smith, 2008). Nonetheless, the FBI can mitigate concerns over privacy encroachment through transparency in both policy and practice.

The following proposals can alleviate, if not then placate, concerns over privacy intrusions as well as instill the public with a sincere attempt by LE to minimize mistaken identities:

·         instituting a comprehensive policy, based upon significant field testing of enhanced capabilities, that includes standards required to accept data (i.e. higher camera resolution, minimum Galton Points, etc.), the full scope of data complied, methods of data acquisition, accessibility requirements that include limits that cannot be exceeded without a warrant, flow of information, data usage applications, and a recourse for data removal (conditional);

·         the establishment of multiple databases that separate the non-criminal, criminal, and terror suspect information;

·         Non-introduction of criminal data without criminal conviction (except terror investigations);

·         Alignment with both the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act;

·         Congressional oversight that involves semi-annual briefings; and

·         System accessibility preclude any attempts for information from any non-verifiable and/or non-active LE entities.

Reference List

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). Next Generation Identification (NGI). Retrieved from fbi.gov: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/ngi

Lynch, J. (2014). FBI Plans to Have 52 Million Photos in its NGI Face Recognition Database by Next Year. Retrieved from Electronic Frontier Foundation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/fbi-plans-have-52-million-photos-its-ngi-face-recognition-database-next-year

Smith, J. L. (2008). The FBI's Next Generation Identification Database. Retrieved from Hendon Publishing.

Walker, L. (2014). FBI Announces Its Facial Recognition System is Ready to Go. Retrieved from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-announces-its-facial-recognition-system-ready-go-270955

Warman, M. (2013). The Creepiest Google Glass Feature Has Been Banned: No Facial Recognition Apps Allowed. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-facial-rec-apps-banned-2013-6

I See Social Media Everywhere

Social media, and its resultant by-product of social networking, seamlessly integrated themselves into our lives in as much that both concepts have become synonymous. Nevertheless, there resides a difference even if that difference is miniscule. Painting with broad strokes, social media can simply be defined as “web-based communication tools that enable people to interact with each other by both sharing and consuming information” (Nations, n.d.). The difference between social media and social networking then stems directly from the words preceding “social” whereby social media refers to a mediated form of interactive communications via non-traditional mediums (although those non-traditional mediums are becoming the standard) and social networking, sub-categorically, denotes the employment of social media to address an audience in an attempt to establish a relationship.

The global dominating force of social media networking remains Facebook, with its 1.13 billion monthly users (Facebook, n.d.). The most successful non-U.S. based social media networking platforms, defined by both active user accounts and new monthly subscriptions, are, in part, based on the successful model established by Facebook. While Facebook possesses a global virtual supremacy, regional competition continues to challenge that status.

The three largest non-U.S.-based social media networks - Ozone, VK, and Odnoklassniki (French & Shaw, 2016) - demonstrate the status quo challenge stemming from regional upstarts. In China, Qzone, with its 652 million users (Statista, 2016), enables individuals to “blogs, keep diaries, send photos, listen to music, and watch videos…However, most Qzone accessories are not free; only after buying the "Canary Yellow Diamond" can users access every service without paying extra” (Wikipedia, 2016).  VK, properly known as V Kontakte, claims 100 million users (Statista, 2016) and is purported to be “the largest European online social networking service… allow(ing) users to message each other publicly or privately, to create groups, public pages and events, share and tag images, audio and video, and to play browser-based games” (Wikipedia, 2016). Odnoklassnki describes itself as a “social network service for classmates and old friends…popular in Russia and former Soviet Republics” (Wikipedia, 2016).

Culturally-specific social media networks are having an impact in connecting people as well.  For example, MyMFB, or My Muslim Friends Book, is a Muslim alternative to Facebook aimed at connecting the faith’s 1.5 billion plus followers into a single platform (Milanovic, 2015). Facenama, is the ninth most popular website in Iran but, even though Facebook is banned, 58% of Iranians still utilize the American-based service (Jafari, 2015). Another trend worth noting that breaks from “networking” is the aggressive growth of instant messaging applications such WhatsApp, QQ, and WeChat. Individuals certainly reap numerous benefits incipient of this instantaneous connection-driven movement but all of this interaction also comes with a cost to the user.

According to the Society for Human Resource Management, some of the advantages made available via social media networking include open communication, business expansion targeting both consumers and potential employees, and a minimization of advertising capital (Society for Human Resource Mangement, 2012). In addition to global connectivity, social networking enhances educational undertakings, raises awareness for causes, and even assists law enforcement in the pursuit of security objectives. Conversely, some of the disadvantages include the malicious compromise of information, loss of individual productivity, and general misuse (Society for Human Resource Mangement, 2012). Social media networks have negatively produced cyberbullying, health problems including addictive behavior, enabled violations of personal relationship, and even sensationalized unhealthy lifestyles. Invasion of privacy lingers at the forefront of consequential concerns.

Most Americans place incursions into personal privacy as their paramount apprehension. From a commercial perspective, 61% of Americans strongly disagree with the notion that increased access to personal information increases the efficiency of online services (Madden, 2014)). Simply put, people feel reticent when engaging in online endeavors even if only from a generational perspective. Certain digital footprints, particularly personal identifiable information, should be carefully guarded by both the user and the medium receiving the input. Passwords/PINS, social security numbers, and credit card numbers should never be shared. Ultimately, just like the real world, the virtual world offers many pleasures and distractions. By exercising moderation and employing basic risk management principles you will maximize your experience.

Reference List

Facebook. (n.d.). Company Info. Retrieved from Facebook Newsroom: http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

French, S., & Shaw, J. M. (2016). The No. 1 Social Network by Country isn’t Always Facebook. Retrieved from MarketWatch: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-no-1-social-network-in-every-country-in-the-world-2016-02-18

Jafari, H. (2015). Even Our President Is More Social Than You! Retrieved from Techrasa.com: http://techrasa.com/2015/08/30/iran-even-president-digs-social-media/

Madden, M. (2014). Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/

Milanovic, R. (2015). The World's 21 Most Important Social Media Sites and Apps in 2015. Retrieved from Social Media Today: http://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-networks/2015-04-13/worlds-21-most-important-social-media-sites-and-apps-2015

Nations, D. (n.d.). What Is Social Media? Explaining the Big Trend. Retrieved from About.com: http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/social-media.htm

Society for Human Resource Mangement. (2012). Social Media: What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networking Sites? What Should We Include in a Policy? Retrieved from SHRM.org: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/socialnetworkingsitespolicy.aspx

Statista. (2016). Leading Social Networks Worldwide as of September 2016, Ranked by Number of Active Users (in Millions). Retrieved from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

Wikipedia. (2016). Odnoklassniki. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odnoklassniki

Wikipedia. (2016). Qzone. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qzone

Wikipedia. (2016). VK (social networking). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_(social_networking)