In Nick D'Alto's article, Making Mona Lisa Smile, the value for technology is absurd, because in certain situations everyone should not be exposed to the emotions of others. For example, emotions are extremely personal and sometimes it is not technically appropriate to showcase every emotion you are feeling. A student or teacher could be going through something personal, that needs to be left out of the workplace and school. Success at school or work in general depends on how you engage in those specific tasks at hand, so the emotions the computer is claiming you are having should not interfere with specific things outside of your personal life. Detecting emotions should be left out of serious, and professional environments such as work or school. Lastly, the computer is only trained to detect the movement of the muscles in your face. But your face may not always match the feeling of emotion inside, so this may not be the most appropriate device to truly rely on.

The importance of keeping emotions personal, and not oversharing with people around you is extremely important. Most students are usually adolescents and they sometimes have a hard time expressing and controlling their emotions. So having a device eager to showcase their feelings can be dangerous and insensitive. Eckman has already begun to classify specific emotions including; "anger, fear, disgust, and sadness," (D'Alto, Paragraph 3). The negative emotions should not be shared! A computer should not illustrate how you are feeling on the inside to others. This can awaken a lot of frustrated, and haphazard behavior among teens if something is constantly around proclaimming it understands how everyone is feeling. D'Alto also states, "associated each with characteristic movements of the facial muscles." (Paragraph 3). The muscles in the face should not be studied by a computer, and they should not be able to invade the privacy of the muscle movement in someones face. Also, some may argue that their face does not always match what they are feeling, so that leaves alot of room for confusion, and flaws on the systems part. It's untraditional, and orthodox, and an invasion of mental privacy.

Everyone is different, whether life is amazing or terrible, someone should not be able to be read or determine how you are feeling by what a computer says about their face. Some teachers or students could be dealing some serious, and personal things that should not find their way into the workplace or school. But, if this device is constantly procclaiming a student or teacher is sad or upset about something personal it is completely unneccessary. Students should not know the personal lives of their teachers or vise versa. This is an ambigous invasion of privacy, and could potentially even amount to a crime or disservice to some people. D'Alto questions the reader, "Imagine a computer that knows when you're happy or sad." (D'Alto, Paragraph 6). This only has limited benefits and could cause immense problems in relation to others knowing personal things relating to your emotions. The specific boundaries it crosses especially if you are not well acquainted with the people constantly around you is alarming. D'Alto claims again, "Can your lab partner recognize which one?" (D'Alto, Paragraph 7). There should be absolutely no valid reason, why someone you may not know should be able to, and have the capacity to read your emotions from looking at you. In schools, sometimes in relation to this specific example, students are not acquainted with their lab partners or the people around them. So this would be like giving a stranger a clear look, and picture into another persons mind! It would be like being allowed to read the mind of others around you. This specific example is horrible in attempt to promote their product, and scares the consumers with the thought of others starring into their souls.

Technology has never been a reliable thing, it has never lived up to its name and full potential when people truly want it to. The thought of a computer having this amount of control is excessive, and unrealistic. In Paragraph 7, D'Alto states, "Your home PC can't handle the complex algorithms used to decode Mona Lisa's smile," (D'Alto, Paragraph 7). If our PC's cannot handle the Mona Lisa, how will they have the capacity to decode our real life, actively changing faces? Can the creators of this system not see their flaws? D'Alto continues to suggest, "His new computer software stores similar anatomical information as electric code." (D'Alto, Paragraph 5). This passage is inferring to the reader that the only logical way a computer can read information is through and electrical code. Humans do not produce emotions through an electrical code, so it is not logical to expect their emotions to be read to through an emotional code.

All in all, the idea was ambitious, but it defintely was not original or rationally thought out. The thought of a computer reading into personal emotions, attempting to decode issues that are too personal to be brought into school and work, and essentially incorrectly interpret emotions is absurd. This whole idea invades the privacy of the people in society, and is a very touchy subject that should not be programmed into a computer.