Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

But the question was not why the ISP would conform to CALEA instead of breaking it; it was why you as a programmer would take on the job of providing a snooping system, instead of some other job that does not need a lot of explanation about why it's actually not really so bad. There are reasonable answers to this, but I think it's a fair question.

(I don't agree that 'we' should pursue criminals (or suspects) using all legal means.)




So your argument is that I should not be a part of this system? Because you don't agree with it?

As a person interested in PRIVACY and LAW and INTENRET TECHNOLOGY, who would you think I'd rather have working on this type of system? Someone else? Or myself: a person who knows what his motivations are, who knows what the laws are, who knows what the implications for others are, and who wants to see things done properly.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather it was ME. Believe me, you're lucky to have a guy like me pushing back against law enforcement when their requests get over-broad.

Remember that good people are part of this system and use their judgement to make sure abuses dont occur. I trust my judgement.

Given how much worship Richard Feynman gets around these parts, I'm wondering how people reconcile that sentiment with the fact that he worked on the development of the atomic bomb. FWIW, he seemed to be pretty OK with his role.

-----


In order:

As I said, there are reasonable answers, and I'm ignorant of your life, but if you want my view: you should not be part of that system, not because I disagree with it, but because it's wrong. I acknowledge that I may be wrong to think so. "Oh, you think so?" is a distraction from any actual points at issue.

If you've pushed back against particular acts of snooping, then thank you for that. I did not know you're personally involved in particular acts; that's a different moral question than writing an automated system. Note that "better you have ME" is what you'd expect Nazi collaborators to say. You're not a Nazi collaborator, but it shows the at-best ambiguous advantages of this sort of involvement.

Most people trust their own judgement. According to Dunning/Kruger that's weak evidence of a problem rather than positive evidence you're doing good.

In Feynman's autobio he said he regretted keeping at work on the bomb after the Nazis went down. They were all so invested by that point it didn't even occur to them to quit. IIRC that was part of why he chose to turn down work for the feds in general over the rest of his career.

-----


I'd rather have good people involved in "evil" systems, to at least try to balance them, than have evil people involved in "evil" systems where there's nothing but external agencies to provide balance.

And whatever the system is I'd much rather have competent people working on it.

-----


Couldn't disagree more. Every good person should avoid working with evil systems. We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession.

-----


We should also excommunicate any people who do work with evil from our circle as best we can so they can't grow as well in their profession.

And by doing that, you ensure they will continue to "work with evil systems" because they will never be able to change jobs.

-----


So what? What's your proposal: do nothing because that's the high road, right? Right now doing evil pays pretty good. So long as there is financial incentive to do it and absolutely no downside, why would anyone stop?

-----


LOL. I'm assuming you're the authority on what constitutes "evil" right?

You are essentially advocating a fascist viewpoint: either you agree with us, or we crush you.

-----


You do realize that the first line of my comment was a quote from the parent?

-----


Sorry. My response was to the parent.

-----


LOL. I'm assuming you're the authority on what constitutes "evil" right?

You are essentially advocating a fascist viewpoint: either you agree with us, or we crush you.

-----


Your comment is absurd. Every country has laws and if you break those laws you will be "crushed". Is the very law itself "a fascist viewpoint"? Please put more thought into your commenting as responding to this sort of nonsense is tedious.

-----


I'd ask you to go back and consider the definition of a "just" law.

You just suggested that people who work on "evil" systems be "excommunicated". Exactly how do you do that in the context of a functioning legal system without the involvement of a substantial majority of the people who would have to live under a system.

To me, it sounds like your argument is that the laws of the USA dont meet your liking, even though those laws are developed as a result of a democratic process. You're arguing against your own point, which sounds like nonsensical thinking to me.

-----


You were basically saying that holding people accountable is "fascist". We are in a situation where bad people want to do immoral things and pay well for it. There's no downside. The government isn't going to make a downside because they are the bad people so it's up to us. If no one does anything we're going to find our internet locked down and every aspect of our lives being monitored.

-----


And /again/ I'd point you to the words you used in your argument that depend SOLELY on human judgement:

accountable

immoral

bad people

All of these words mean nothing until someone assigns them meaning. Your meaning might be different from another persons. I've already come up with my meanings of who "immoral", "bad people" are and I'm comfortable with the mechanisms for "accountability". And I vote. And my vote counts just as much as yours does.

So where does that leave us?

-----


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

-----


Exactly. What people wouldn't do in the name of bureaucracy.

-----




Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: