8 ms·
A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
- tonetheman 7y agoProgrammers/technologist often work for those who only work money... ethics generally do not work in such places...
- matz1 7y agoWell that is still ethics. It largely my ethics too. Works for me. It might be different than yours but still.
- zwkrt 7y agoI actually had the exact same thought on different lines. A software code of ethics will be toothless without a financial code of ethics. But a financial CoE is antithetical to finance's goals. Edit: to be clear that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one!
- close04 7y agoA code of ethics is backed by law at least for the most part (sometimes ethical and legal principles might even clash). And here is the biggest difference. For doctors or lawyers unethical behavior leads to losing the license to practice. There's no such thing for coding.
- minkzilla 7y agoDo you believe there should be?
- close04 7y agoIn principle (because the technicalities are way too complex to address here and now) there's no reason specific fields in programming couldn't require a license, like a clearance needed to work with sensitive data. Coding is more and more used to build the backbone of future society. It's about time we recognize the criticality of the whole industry (not just the coders themselves). Having no ethics code for this is not very different from accepting when soldiers invoke the "superior orders" defense. It may very well turn out that it simply can't be applied to this field but to get there you have to at least consider it first.
- tyingq 7y agoLawyers also often work for those who only care about money. Ethics are still important in those cases.
- Apreche 7y agoExactly this. If we create hardware and software ethically, that product will not make enough money. Capitalism is almost entirely add odds with ethical engineering practices. Think about it. Imagine Facebook not doing anything evil. Never selling your data without your permission. Never spying on you. Putting lots of restrictions on advertisements to make sure they are all ok. Banning all the bad users. Reporting analytics accurately. Etc. How would Facebook make any money? The only ethical sources of income would be to sell non evil ads (if you believe there even is such a thing) or to charge users money to have accounts like Netflix. Non-evil ads are not very effective, and with accurate analytics, they will not fetch a high price. What other ethical business model is there? If operating ethically, they would be lucky to cover their operating costs. Giving any kind of ROI to investors would be impossible. The same applies to every Silicon Valley operation. Google, Twitter, etc. If they operate ethically and morally, they can't make enough money. Of course, if the power were mine, I would force them to behave ethically anyway. I don't care if they all shut down. Gonna eat me some rich people.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoYou say it as if these companies shutting down would be a bad thing. These products exploit their users in ways the users and society at large does not yet understand. If a product cant be profitable without abusing its power, it shouldn't exist.
- cbnotfromthere 7y agoSo basically you're advocating for stopping adults from voluntarily engaging into a victimless activity.
- seibelj 7y agoDoctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...
- maxxxxx 7y agoSome people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.
- Kalium 7y agoSuch people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences. There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.
- matz1 7y agoYou define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.
- maxxxxx 7y agoI am usually not averse against regulation but one advantage of tech is that it's still the Wild West where it's possible to innovate quickly and change things. Lawyers and doctors are in much more controlled environment where not much innovation is happening. I am also not sure how to determine what's ethical or not. I much prefer laws like GDPR where there is a set of rules everyone has to follow.
- briandear 7y agoMedicine is innovating a lot more than some ride-sharing, restaurant rating, social-local photo sharing app startup.
- maxxxxx 7y agoNo. I work in medical and progress is much slower. In a lot of tech you can try something and get immediate feedback. In medical you have to wait for years and spend a ton of money.
- effnorwood 7y agoWorks well
- Kalium 7y agoI can't speak for others on this, but I do have one: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics Like medical and legal professionals, it is concerned with professional ethics. Many people would be surprised to find their personal ethics are not present.
- zwkrt 7y ago'Contribute to society and to human well being'. So your personal ethics are only not present if you wear giant blinders around this statement. So many software devs hold positions that they could probably not defend ethically in casual conversation, it's an epidemic!
- Kalium 7y agoMy apologies, I can see I've been unclear. Many people expect ethical codes to expressly and explicitly include their personal ethical framework in clear detail, that they might use it to hold others to account. A reference to what someone personally considers to be a contribution to society and humanity might not rise to this standard.
- Bartweiss 7y agoEvery single time I've seen a public call for a code of tech ethics, the call is justified by discussing professional standards, but quickly switches to calling for legal entrenchment of the author's personal ethics. On the blogs of notable programmers, best practices for security sit next to demands for closed-shop union membership. In comments sections (like this one), avoiding malicious dark patterns comes alongside demands that no programmer work for the US military. In the news, respecting user data is paired with enormously controversial positions on censorship and encryption. This is far from the only reason codes of tech ethics have yet to gather major attention, but I think it would suffice even if the others disappear. Professional codes like the ACM's are valuable, but attempts to popularize and enforce them are derailed by attempts to add in specific personal ethics.
- overthemoon 7y ago
- wgj 7y agoI agree with the idea, and so does the IEEE. https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members, and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1) to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; 2) to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist; 3) to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data; 4) to reject bribery in all its forms; 5) to improve the understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems; 6) to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations; 7) to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others; 8) to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; 9) to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; 10) to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.
- WalterSear 7y agoI can't wait till software development is as ethical as the medical and legal industries.
- mothsonasloth 7y agoSo, prone to negligence and high fees?
- Bartweiss 7y agoPoint well taken, but that's underselling the problem by a lot. The American Psychological Association has a clear, strong code of ethics, but worked to help the CIA design torture programs. Not just 'psychologists' but the APA itself. Codes of professional ethics seem to offer some defense against total indifference to malpractice and incompetence, as with civil engineering restrictions. People holding out for them to do more, especially around conscious decisions like political work, seem to seriously overestimate what they've achieved in the past.
- WalterSear 7y agoOn a good day.
- elliekelly 7y agoThis is coming. It won't be long before PwC is auditing more code than they are financial statements.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoDoctor and lawyer ethical codes work because there is a state sanctioned licensing authority. If you try to practice law or medicine without a license, you will be arrested. Because of that, the ethical codes have teeth, as the medical board or bar can strip you of your license and thus the ability to practice for ethical violations. There is so such equivalent to the medical board or bar for programmers. Anybody who has the inclination can program. Because of that, any ethical codes will be just words. In fact, companies may actually pay more for people willing to violate these codes. While I think ethical codes are good, I don’t think they are worth having a licensing authority. I am happy that anyone with the ability is allowed to program and that I don’t need a state license.
- Jtsummers 7y agohttps://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html These seem like good starting points to me.
- randomdata 7y agoThe problem is that unless there is a licensing body that enforces adherence the ethics, they will be ignored. Doctors and lawyers have such licensing requirements, tech does not. The question is not what the ethics should say, but whether or not tech should require licensing to be involved in it.
- Jtsummers 7y agoThen establish something comparable to the PE concept for software engineers, and require it for certain categories of software (aviation and medical software already have to get certified, have a Professional Software Engineer on the hook too, and then extend this to other types of software systems like certain financial, legal, or personal data systems).
- mountainofdeath 7y ago+1 I've long advocated for a higher degree of professionalism and credentialing to establish a minimum bar of competence. Unfortunately, people who only work on yet-another-Rails-SaaS thing complain that excludes those that are not formally credentialed. Even then, try asking a customer of said SaaS product if they would trust something not built with a high degree of professionalism.
- sesteel 7y agoEthics was a required 2 credit course in my university computer science studies. It isn't some new idea, but I guess it isn't an industry standard yet. I'd agree anywhere the opportunity to do harm exists there should be clear ethical standards established.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- qnsi 7y agoI studied business and we also had ethics classes. But nobody really took it seriously. I think there is a strong ethos in medical industry, and think it would be good to see it in startup culture. I think this is a point of this article.
- minkzilla 7y agoAt my university every major has a specific ethics class as well as taking a general ethics class. The classes were a joke. All we talked about in Computer Science Ethics was gender/race imbalance in the field. An important issue no doubt, but when with Facebook stuff going on, creating weapons, EU privacy laws, and a bunch of other topics out there it was extremely frustrating being in the class.
- ReptileMan 7y agoNo we shouldn't. Obey your personal codes and follow the laws. Tech is fun. Let's keep it that way.
- enraged_camel 7y agoSo we shouldn't have a code of ethics because it would make tech "less fun"? That's actually a good demonstration of why we do need a code of ethics.
- briandear 7y agoA code of ethics is meaningless for “tech” (whatever that is.) Medicine and law have licensing. Violating professional ethics can result in a loss of licensing. In “tech” there isn’t such licensing, thus a code of ethics is just a platitude. There is nothing stopping you from writing your own code and following it. As far as a code for all of tech, who would write such a thing? And how would it be enforced? And who would be obligated to follow it? Just people that write code? Or what about designers? And if designers have to follow the code, that would mean that they can be “kicked out” for non compliance, which means they have to be “allowed in.” So how does that work? Professional licensing for designers now too? A four-year degree along with a test on the Bauhaus and Human Interface Guidelines? As far as licensing, that would make tech less fun. What would be the licensing requirements? Would it be like a coding interview with ridiculous whiteboard algorithm examples? Would you have to pass a test on front end frameworks? How about a test on Kubernetes? Would you have to have a degree in “tech?” Steve Wozniak wouldn’t have been eligible to work on Apple I. How about the Wright Brothers? They worked in a bike shop, how were they qualified to invent airplanes with engines? A proper authority ought to have shut them down promptly because clearly they weren’t qualified to be working on flying machines! The Bicycle Mechanics Code of Professional Ethics expressly prohibits working outside of the scope of your training and licensure right? Howard Hughes wasn’t a professional engineer, yet somehow he helped design the fastest airplane at the time. You want ethics? Then act ethically. But the last thing we need is a gatekeeper organization deciding who is worthy or not to invent the future.
- qroshan 7y agoFor every ethical software developer, there are 10 who will work for Cambridge Analytica and there is nothing you can do about it. It's a fools errand; at most serving the purpose of 'feeling good about yourself' rather than any societal impact
- lordnacho 7y agoThere are also doctors who help criminal gangs steal kidneys. That doesn't mean there's no point in bothering to have them all swear an oath in medical school.
- cbhl 7y agoHere's what I don't want: I don't want ethics exams and accreditation requirements to constrain software development to people with traditional software backgrounds. The cost of a traditional college education in the United States is easily five or six figures, and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.). I want there to be more YCs, more Startup Schools, more Lambda Schools, and I want them open to immigrants and non-US-citizens, too. I also don't want ethics exams to constrain supply. A lot of software withers on the vine because there's no "business case" for it, but if there was a way to divorce the need to put dinner on the table from how much people (or advertisers, or...) are willing to pay for software, then there's a lot of software that is yet to be written that could make the world better (say, enabling the creation of more art and music, or something).
- redbluegreen 7y agoThe same could be said for doctors and lawyers though, and I don't think we complain too much about having less unethical doctors.
- mieseratte 7y ago> and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.) This is false. Poor, rural whites can and do face the exact same sets of challenges as those from an impoverished black backgrounds, perhaps with the exception of naming but even then I saw a headline last week with a girl named, no joke, Crystal Methany.
- shawnz 7y agoThe parent never said that there are no white people who face socioeconomic challenges. But whiteness itself does not create any socioeconomic disadvantage.
- mieseratte 7y agoHere is what the parent wrote: > and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.) My contention is that the exact same socioeconomic forces exist across racial lines. There may be historical factors that vary by racial group, or sub-groups therein, but the problems are universal.
- 7402 7y agoSee ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/ https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/ Here are the main points: 1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES. As an ACM member I will 1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being. 1.2 Avoid harm to others. 1.3 Be honest and trustworthy. 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate. 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. 1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property. 1.7 Respect the privacy of others. 1.8 Honor confidentiality. 2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. As an ACM computing professional I will 2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work. 2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence. 2.3 Know and respect existing laws pertaining to professional work. 2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review. 2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible risks. 2.6 Honor contracts, agreements, and assigned responsibilities. 2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its consequences. 2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to do so. 3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES. As an ACM member and an organizational leader, I will 3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities. 3.2 Manage personnel and resources to design and build information systems that enhance the quality of working life. 3.3 Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses of an organization’s computing and communication resources. 3.4 Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a system have their needs clearly articulated during the assessment and design of requirements; later the system must be validated to meet requirements. 3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the dignity of users and others affected by a computing system. 3.6 Create opportunities for members of the organization to learn the principles and limitations of computer systems. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. As an ACM member I will 4.1 Uphold and promote the principles of this Code. 4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with membership in the ACM.
- vorpalhex 7y agoThis is kind of grossly simplified though, isn't it? > 1.2 Avoid harm to others So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage? > 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights? > 1.8 Honor confidentiality. What about whistleblowing?
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoYes, technologists should. However, that does not prevent those who would violate those ethics. Laws are in place to do this. Facebook is just trying to shift the blame to its employees. Gross.
- TheCoelacanth 7y agoYes, we don't have a major problem with technologists behaving unethically. We have one with corporate decision makers behaving unethically.
- krisrm 7y agoI don't disagree that perhaps software developers should be on board with a code of ethics, but this is a false dichotomy between the decisions of doctors/lawyers when providing services, and the decisions of technology companies on the whole. Companies that exist to make profit, in this case generally by monetizing user data in some (often questionable) form. It seems to me like the ethical responsibility bit lies more with the directorship and management of these companies, and not the Joe Bloe software dev that's working on making emojis display correctly in IE.
- Bartweiss 7y agoI frequently see people dismiss this with "programmers have an obligation to think about the possible uses of their work". That's not false, but I think it seriously underestimates the depth of the problem. The simplest difference between professions with clear ethical codes (doctors, lawyers, civil engineers) and ones without is that professions with strong codes provide outcomes. A doctor treats a specific patient, a lawyer litigates a case, a civil engineer builds a specific bridge. Even indirect work like medical research has specific recipients and a fairly clear course for future use. Programmers, like chemists or machinists, frequently create tools. Alfred Nobel famously created his prize in atonement for the destruction caused by his invention, but he invented and marketed dynamite for use in mining and construction, where it provided real benefit to humanity. Edward Teller spent the second half of his life championing civilian uses for nuclear power and atomic bombs, having seen the world reshaped by fear of a weapon he hoped would be demonstrated to prevent future wars. The beauty of professional codes in medicine and law is that they achieve moral good without taking heavily-disputed moral stances; if doctors do no harm and refuse instructions to do so, harm will generally be prevented. A chemist studying nitrates or a programmer designing GPS guidance has no such guarantees; the same work is very likely to create both good and bad in uncertain amounts, depending on where it's put to use.
- mountainofdeath 7y agoThe case I like to bring up was the Volkswagen emission scandal. The executives where pointing fingers at "well shucks, these engineer's must have done it and not told anyone". Having a strong sense of ethics would be to stand up and say "I can't do that lest I risk my license so fire me".
- ptah 7y agothis won't help with corporate malfeasance at all.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoI see people in technology doing border-line dishonest and unethical things all the time. They're called marketing, sales, and product management. I've rarely known them to go by the name of software developer - in fact they're usually the ones to dig their feet in against misrepresenting things or doing stuff that violates privacy or user expectations, etc.
- glbrew 7y agoIronically technologists seem to have higher ethical standards than doctors and lawyers. Hell, the entire US medical system revolves around financial assault of the infirm.
- kazagistar 7y agoMedical system vs medical professionals are very different. You can't solve systemic issues with individualized responsibility. It's not that doctors are bad, it's privatized healthcare that is causing the problem, and requires systemic solutions (since it's clear the same problems don't exist under other systems). What's really happening here is that Facebook wants to push for blaming individuals, because it let's them keep doing whatever unethical things they want to, since they know that individual responsibility is toothless in the face of such a massive system like itself.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- floren 7y agoI participated in the Order of the Engineer ceremony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer) when I finished my degree, and I think it wouldn't hurt for more people to do so. I have met very few people wear the ring on a regular basis.
- azinman2 7y agoWhat’s silly here is that things that are harmful only happen with hindsight and scale. I don’t think anyone at FB understood what Cambridge Analytica would turn into, because it came from a program of trying to help advance researchers. When things are new, you assume the best for them. Only once time passes do you understand all the unexpected ways people can abuse it.
- drinane 7y agoThe challenge here is technologists have shunned labor organization to my knowledge which is what I understand controls the cited fields. Different economic model applies to most people in technology compared to law and medicine. Smells like a buzzword article. Maybe the cloud companies could implement a code and create barriers to deploy "unethical" code... that might work.
- deanalevitt 7y agoI might have missed it when scanning the article, but nowhere did it mention how the formal ethical codes for docs and lawyers are backed up by licenses and review panels and exams. Are they proposing the same regulation before allowing someone to build an app? Would they call for the same for journalists too? Arguably, the media has an equal need for ethical oversight, but we generally prefer the media to be free of partisan interference. I believe journalists and technologists are better off without state or federal licensing to enforce ethical codes.
- wooptoo 7y agoWe do have an ethical code. "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering" book sums it up nicely. The ethical codes such as those of ACM or IEEE are good examples.
- klagermkii 7y agoI don't think you can compare the relationship of a company to customers, to that of a one-to-one relationship of a doctor or a lawyer. The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm. I think of something like legal or medical confidentiality, which can involve their clients doing pretty horrible things but it being the "ethical" thing to not reveal that. If one takes this same thing to a Facebook scenario, does the developer who works for Facebook then have the obligation to protect the confidentiality of Facebook even if they're doing awful things? Would it be any different where a lawyer is working for a horrible client, trying to use the law to do things that are a net-negative for society, but ethics would put their obligation towards their direct client rather than society at large. If one then wants to write a piece about ethics, one should start with examples of fields with ethical codes that have a structure closer to the relationship of users/Facebook/developers.
- elliekelly 7y ago> The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm. This is very similar to structure I operated under as a corporate attorney at a bank but also as the Chief Information Security Officer. I owed a duty to the bank, as my "client," and also to the bank's clients, whose information I was charged with protecting. You are indeed correct that it's a difficult and uncomfortable situation to manage. I always tried to be a "zealous advocate" for the bank in all matters except those related to privacy and I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a net-negative for society. I did ultimately leave because of a disagreement over how to respond to (or in their case, chose to ignore) an ongoing breach of customer accounts. All of that being said, I don't think it's an impossible ask with a bit of help from the government. I also served as the AML Officer and in that capacity I had the absolute final say on all matters related to money laundering thanks to the PATRIOT Act. The only way to override my decision would be a board vote. I never had any "disagreements" about how to handle an AML situation because my decisions were final while my decisions as CISO were merely a recommendation that management could (and did) ignore in order to save time, money, and bad PR.
- mindcrash 7y agoNot needed, we hackers - more or less - already have one for about 35 years: 1) Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative! 2) All information should be free. 3) Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. 4) Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position. 5) You can create art and beauty on a computer. 6) Computers can change your life for the better. 7) Don't litter other people's data. 8) Make public data available, protect private data. Originally penned down by Steven Levy in "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" and slightly modified by the CCC after that. Source: https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics
- Bartweiss 7y agoThe medical code of ethics dates back, at least in sentiment, to Hippocrates. Legal codes of ethics draw on Daniel Webster, Thomas More, and so on back to Rome. If programming is going adopt a more heavyweight code of ethics, I don't want it to be in response to the news stories of the day - I'd much rather see us start with the admirable history of the field. The whole image of amoral, selfish programming implies that we either lost sight of or failed to publicize the strong ethical stances which have been around for decades.
- 52-6F-62 7y agoI really enjoyed that book in particular, and generally appreciate that code, but I've always questioned the definition of information in this context. There must be a line somewhere between authority and expertise—also information and intellectual property. It's more that I don't think I understand, even though I've probably read [most of] the same books. Where does a journalistic piece of writing fall? Certainly, and often, the results of an investigative piece of writing would be considered quite valuable information. Does that mean it should be free? If so, how should that work be funded in the future. Most efforts outside of selling the final product have failed disastrously. Most people want it for free—free as in free like rainfall. I suppose some software may fall under a similar question. On authority—who gets to speak to a subject? Decentralizing "facts" has put us in the position where empirical evidence is actively opposed on baseless grounds, with decentralizing the ability to compound nonsensical ramblings and dress them up as if they are of equal value as something hypothesized, experimented on, iterated, and proven within the confines of our scientific process. Those are two more practical and immediate questions, but a sibling comment also raised a salient point. I like a lot of the points they make, but also think some of them are naive as they came before the normalizing of internet and computers. Curious to hear from others on this one.
- yellowstuff 7y agoProfessional ethics is not the right approach to fixing the problem with user data. As the Equifax hack shows, the problem is not limited to the tech industry, and it's a problem of incentives at the corporate level, not the individual contributor level. We need corporate regulation. User data is an asset, because you use it to make money, and it is a liability, because it can be stolen and misused. Companies currently get all of the benefit but very little of the risk. If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully.
- elliekelly 7y ago> If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully. Interesting thought, how would you imagine this would work in practice? Insurance against what? In the event of loss, who would make a payment to who? There are "cybersecurity" insurance policies available to companies now but they really only cover the cost of mailing notification letters to impacted people and sometimes the cost of credit monitoring for a year. They're way overpriced and usually not at all worth it. I suspect that isn't really what you had in mind though?
- thfuran 7y agoPresumably the insurance (or company who failed to get insurance) would pay the affected users.
- yellowstuff 7y agoThe insurance payouts for a breach could go to the affected users or to the government, I don't think it would matter much. The important part is that companies need to pay to retain user data. The insurance would have to be mandatory for large companies.
- elliekelly 7y agoI agree there needs to be a cost to companies who lose user data but I fear insurance would be a way to compensate users for the loss without incentivizing corporations to mitigate the risk.
- yarrel 7y agoLet's write a code of executive ethics instead. All this ressentiment at tech workers needs to be channeled into something actually productive.
- rglover 7y agoJust don't be a piece of shit. If you need a list of rules to do that, lord have mercy on your soul.
- Sevrene 7y agoDifferent people view being a piece of shit differently. It's good to codify standards no?
- L-boog 7y agoSomething I've been thinking about lately, which is partially related to this subject, is which tech companies (not involved in direct weapons development) are responsible for the most employee deaths? Apple - known for their involvement in Foxconn suicides (not direct involvement however). Amazon - known for several deaths of warehouse employees and at least one person who jumped off a corporate building. Facebook - Their users have used the platform to commit mass shootings and suicides but I don't think they have caused the death of any of their own employees. Google - I don't think I'd point fault at them for the Youtube shooter, but it is something to note. Uber - they've had a few employee suicides linked to their work life Microsoft - also linked to several suicides. I'm sure there's a lot more and this is only something I've briefly looked at recently while working on some other things. The biggest takeaway so far, is that Amazon appears to be the leader in killing their employees.
- gaze 7y agoWhy would tech workers go the way of medical professionals and structural engineers and all these instead of going the way of financial engineers?
- Glyptodon 7y agoThe ACM tried to revise its code of ethics not long ago. The process a bit rough because there are very very different interests and perspectives within the organization, not to mention difference in norms between nations (like China). They did try, though. They went just far enough that it's almost possible to suggest that one couldn't adhere to the current code and still work for Google, Facebook, or China in any engineering capacity. But I still don't really expect them to start penalizing members, as the ACM seems to see itself a lot more as an academic/research group than professional org.
- reallydude 7y ago> unjustified physical or mental injury I don't subscribe to "mental injury" as a quantifiable or philosophical harm. There is no way to protect against interpretation or experience, that necessitates increasingly complex and ineffective measures to adapt to subjective and possibly aberrant, mental states. This will always devolve into a discussion of normality, which is immoral at the core. > 2.6 Perform work only in areas of competence. This perhaps, can be salvaged. I would not agree to this as-is. How anyone measures competence is too open, given the state of software development.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/DpMS0 http://archive.is/DpMS0