Can a machine violate moral boundaries? In a world of rapidly advancing technology, this seemingly odd question is much more relevant than we might think. Ethical use of technology is an ambiguous and subjective topic, but the need to define morality in regards to technology becomes more dire as new devices and programs are developed. For example, in smart speakers such as the Amazon Echo or Google Home devices, their microphones are always listening to you, and who’s to say that information is not being recorded? Is it a tragedy that Jeff Bezos might find out what kind of cereal I eat because I mentioned it once while in the vicinity of Alexa? No. Do I want to receive a targeted advertisement for that specific brand of cereal the next day? Also no. While much of the information smart speakers take in is completely harmless, it brings into question how much privacy the owner actually retains, and to what extent the private company should be allowed to access said information. 

​

In a more concrete issue than privacy, what about the effects of new technology in the job market? If, for example, a robot is developed that can mass produce consumable products far faster and with a higher quality than a human worker, should the manufacturing company allow the change from human labor to robot labor to be made? From an economical standpoint, the robot is the obvious choice; it produces more items at a higher rate and quality without requiring a salary. However, robot labor eliminates job opportunities for many workers, meaning the company benefits tremendously at the expense of the working class.

So why ask all of these ambiguous questions if no answer seems right? Regardless of what it is, a decision must be made, even if it is to do nothing. Personally, I believe we should ask more questions. The world functions without our pondering, but at what cost? We must assess situations before responding, but the speed of modern technological progression eliminates our time to question and respond. If we skip past the Terms of Service and agree blindly, will the overlooked information harm us? We must think before accepting questionable advancements. We must slow companies down and ask them specifically what their intentions are and what we have agreed for them to be able to do. We must protect job opportunities before they disappear faster than others open. We must fight against unjust developments before they become buried by new devices that raise more overlooked and disregarded questions.