

Towards Ethical Hacking - DanielBMarkham
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2010/10/towards-ethical.php

======
duncanj
I think it's good, at a basic level, to refuse to do things that shock your
morality, even just a little bit. I was once told our company was going to be
pitching to do work for one of those companies that sneak charges onto your
credit card and then claim that you asked for it. I said, "You'll be doing
that project without me." It's a risk, that you might be considered to be not
a team player, but I think it makes you feel better in the long run.

~~~
jdp23
Totally agree, and kudos to you for saying no. When I was at Microsoft, I
refused to work on things related to Digital Rights Management, which I find
abhorrent. Of course everybody has to make their own decisions about just
where the line is (some people would say I had already crossed over just by
working for Microsoft) but in the end you have to live with yourself so don't
do things that compromise your integrity, however you see it.

------
PilotPirx
Nice article. Reminded me of Norbert Wieners "God & Golem", where he uses the
term "gadget worshipers" for people thinking, that "everything that can be
done (and makes money) should be done"

Though sometimes the decision may be difficult "One mans poison is another
mans medicine" can become a problem. If I write a game many people may like it
and it may help them to relax from work and just have a good time once in a
while. Another person may become addicted to it.

You can't act always to Kants rule, that everything you do should be able to
become a universal law, since some things may be of great help to many people
and still destroy others...

~~~
DanielBMarkham
You bring up a great point -- acceptable losses.

This gets into utilitarianism, what makes people better overall? It's the next
logical step in the discussion. I didn't have time to go there this morning.
Maybe I can follow up with it in a future article.

~~~
Tichy
I guess at least while people are picking Superberries, they don't kill
anyone.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes. It is much better. Better to simply disable them and leave them alive and
breathing than killing them. Much cleaner -- not only does it remove them from
productivity, it also forces society to drag them along. It's like those
weapons that leave folks alive but just blinded or disabled -- they are much
more humane.

------
ax0n
This is not about what I thought it would be about, but it's still good.

