This cannot be overstated. Americans are no better than the rest of the world. If anything, being the masters of mass surveillance makes us worse. We're creating the big brother blueprint.
I would look to treaties that we have signed to see what we currently legally state as human rights Treaties in Force . Specifically this treaty: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . Just make sure to check if your country is one of the countries that have agreed to the treaty and that the government who signed it is still in power.
: Treaties in Force - http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm
: ICCPR - http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
"People not in America are equal to people in America" has never been an animating principle of American society. The U.S. has a long and storied history of e.g. intervening in Latin America to keep it a brushfire-free back yard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_St...
It's quite clear that the Constitution simply recognized customary rights that existed, but that shouldn't be taken as a recognition of universal rights common to all people. Especially in light of all the countervailing evidence in the form of unequal treatment of nearly everyone who wasn't a white English male landowner. That evidence is inconsistent with the recognition of universal natural rights, but entirely consistent with the recognition of customary rights, which since the magna carta had applied to white English male landowners.
I took UC Davis's graduate Intro to Cryptography class from him. It was fun to see how much of crypto history he has been involved with.
Interestingly (given the subject matter of this post) he is also well known on campus for teaching a very good Technology Ethics class. (Sample material here.)
I never thought about this. Maybe it would be a good idea to add such clause to applications I release. It wouldn't be compatible with GPL of course, but then again... not sure which one I care about more.
Not to say which one is more important, but GPL (at least v2, haven't really studied v3 yet) is quite clear in its definitions and limitations. You'd do a good job defining "military" equally clearly and usefully for use in such licenses, but that might be quite a lot of work.
Incidentally, "do no evil" is not a very good license exactly for the lack of a definition of evil.
I was basically coerced into joining, because if you pay $X to join, registration for IEEE conferences goes down by a much, much greater number.
Presumably, they have it set up this way because they ultimately make more money by selling your information to marketers (which they do).
So I would say that if the IEEE has a Code of Conduct, it completely lacks all legitimacy.
I hope some important IEEE people take note of this situation and correct it. Otherwise, I hope a more ethical organiziation arises that relegates IEEE to the dustbin.
It's like the way the notion of Conflict of Interest has been marginalized as illustrated by no-bid contracts awarded to corporations which have strong ties to high level government employees.
It's like hiring a former Monsanto lobbyist to be the head of the FDA. It is objectionable.
Just because some (mostly) Saudi nationals allegedly hijacked some airplanes 12 years ago that doesn't mean we have to discard our ideals in the name of some fictional "war" on an ideology.
"It is contrary to corporate responsibility for a company to
assist in the creation of artifacts, such as server farms,
routers, or analytic engines, intended for mass surveillance."
but they stopped looking perhaps...
If you look at the link to Crunchbase's profile for Paladin Fund - that company seems to be funding all the DOD contracting tech services companies....
Edit: Also - look at every investment In-Q-Tel has made.
I agree. All of us developers have obligations that are higher than achieving personal wealth, or being a family breadwinner. We are the literate elite of our times. This status gives us the potential for great monetary benefit doing something we like, but it also comes with its social responsibilities.
If enough of us do we can choke off the oxygen supply to these organisations, especially if we make it an unattractive career prospect for undergrads.
Thank you professor Rogaway.
As a "non-US-person", I found myself particularly moved by this line.
It was made very clear to me when I joined that they did not want to employ anybody who had ever had anything to do with hacking or writing malware, and that any hint of this would be grounds for immediate dismissal.
It was also made very clear that any such individuals would be black-balled by the industry as a whole.
I can only presume that this scheme would cover cases of hacking or espionage by government employees, or other such abuses of trust.
Whilst I acknowledge comments that raise the spectre of McCarthy-esque witch-hunts, and I share the concerns, I do think that it would be entirely appropriate for this scheme to extend to other technology companies that bank on a trustworthy reputation, and who need to prove beyond doubt that they have not been infiltrated by individuals with a history of abusing privacy and subverting technology for malicious purposes.
To an extent, this is already covered by the codes of conduct required by institutions such as the ACM, IEEE, IET, BCS and so on. I wonder if they will step up to the plate and enforce their codes of conduct (and if necessary, update them in light of recent developments).
Also, employers do not normally require their programmers to be members of these institutions, and the level of membership is very low. I wonder if this should change, or if we should set up a new institution for this specific purpose?
"Okay", says the president. "I guess if it's the only way then I'm sure the people will understand it's in their best interest" slight chuckle escapes his lips at the end.
When it should have gone something like this.
"Bullshit! I will not sacrifice the freedoms that are the foundations of America, simply to make your job easier on you. If you can't do the job without destroying the very freedoms you should be protecting, I'll damn well find someone who can!"
Director of NSA: while stuttering "Well actually we could work together with the CIA and FBI as well as foreign intelligence to garner the necessary intel that would give us actual probable cause to start monitoring someone by legal means with a warrant and everything."
You're right. Like most crimes, it would have been better if it hadn't been committed. I was thinking specifically about UCD's response, which I still think was reasonable, and timely. Pike lost his job, that's about all that the Uni has the power to do to him, and about all they ought to have the power to do to him. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that the DA didn't charge Pike with official oppression, or something (I'm not a DA, so I don't know what charges would be appropriate or winnable.) But police brutality is a serious problem everywhere in the US, not just the UCD campus. It is difficult to get police to find fault in the behavior of police, and also difficult to get DA's to charge police with a crime. Maybe we should expect more from UCD, but I think the responsibility lies elsewhere. I don't like it when organizations (such as UCD) are able to bring substantial pressure on law enforcement organizations for direct action. I also think it is worth mentioning that less than a year passed between the incident and the settlement, which is crazy fast. UCD could have opted for the ever popular wait-them-out strategy, in which case we'd all forget about it before anything useful happened.
Would we be so upset with Obama if the response to the NSA revelations was the firing of the NSA leadership, a solid investigation of wrongdoings, firing of those found to have been guilty of abusing their powers, and reparations to those wrongfully convicted under evidence unlawfully gathered by the NSA?
30 days later I got an email from the Chancellor. There was no mention of the pepper spraying -- she was instead asking for money. Looking myself for the results of the investigation, it found her largely at fault for gross mismanagement of the situation. So she asked for money instead.
There are major major donors to the University, the kind of people who have buildings named after them. I had heard that these people demanded the resignation of the chancellor, along with the academic senate and most of the students. She's still there, asking for donations.
You should instead have inferred my disapproval of UCD cheerleading.
Nevertheless I regret mentioning Rogaway. Upon re-reading his statement I see he footnotes his affiliation with UCD but makes no claim to represent.
Wait, what? I recently read Mark Musa's translation of the Commedia, and that doesn't make any sense at all. The hottest places in hell are reserved for various forms of fraud, IIRC.
The only link I can find about the quote with more information is:
"In the Inferno, Dante and his guide Virgil, on their way to Hell, pass by a group of dead souls outside the entrance to Hell. These individuals, when alive, remained neutral at a time of great moral decision. Virgil explains to Dante that these souls cannot enter either Heaven or Hell because they did not choose one side or another."
As I recall, those are the only souls whom Dante doesn't identify and have a little chat with.
But would you really claim that the person who does nothing is _worse_ than the one who actually perpetrated crime?