5 ms·

If there's any justice in the world every person who participates in this sort of work will be shamed and ostracized in the future.

by m3rc 7y ago

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I am wondering why aren’t protests staged in front of these companies’ offices. If they have any in the US or the EU, doing it in saudi arabia, china, etc. means certain death.
- reidjs 7y ago
  I live in the Bay and even here physical protests aren’t taken very seriously, just kids trying to skip school and lonely elderly folks who are bored. The money’s too good, the tools will still be built and used protest or no.
  - ossworkerrights 7y ago
    A sad state of affairs to be honest.
mulmen 7y ago
Leaving them no option but to continue building surveillance software? Rather than hope for a chance to make someone else miserable I’d rather people just weren’t building this stuff to begin with.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  It doesn't matter if they can't hire good talent. The guys running these businesses believe they're "just making tools for the good guys" (actual interview quote from a psychotic surveillance company I turned down a while back). We want to make sure they can only recruit the dumbest codemonkeys and spaghetti chefs that money can buy so their products go nowhere.
the_cat_kittles 7y ago
expecting anyone to get in trouble... LOL
ngngngng 7y ago
There's exceptionally few things I wouldn't do for enough money to retire and take care of my family comfortably for the rest of our lives. I assume a lot of people think like that.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Ideally, there’d be a number of other things you could do that would work as well.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > I assume a lot of people think like that. That's what all people who think like that assume.
BickNowstrom 7y ago
Government surveillance is a good thing. Change my mind. Its stated goal is to catch baddies and protect a country. Business surveillance is a bad thing. Its stated goal is to monetize user data and surveil everyone on the internet. So basically everyone on hackernews that worked for a modern data-driven consumer-target company participates in adversarial data gathering. Even if you just gave your data to a FANG company, in exchange for comfortable features, you helped them more effectively spy on people like you. So shame on you!
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Its stated goal is to catch baddies and protect a country. I don’t think it actually does this as well as the government would like you to believe.
- devit 7y ago
  The actual effect might not correspond to the stated goal. For instance, it may be applied to "protect the people currently in power in the country" instead of "protect the [people living in the] country". Business surveillance might be less problematic because laws and government are supposed to make businesses acting for their own interest not be a problem (or be less of a problem), while the same mechanism for governments (constitution and supreme courts) is less restrictive.
  - thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
    Laws do not always stop businesses in search of profit. There are many laws (e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley, Dodd–Frank, etc.) that were created to prevent unscrupulous acts in search of greater profits. Business surveillance and government surveillance can be equally problematic if the people behind it have bad motives.
  - BickNowstrom 7y ago
    We give the police a monopoly on violence to fulfill its goal of to protect and serve. While there exists potential for misuse, this does not justify taking away that monopoly. I am further under the impression that way more checks and balances are in place to make sure that government surveillance does not overstep its boundaries, where businesses don't really care, especially if the profit justifies the fines or stricter regulation. Government surveillance is not a problem, it is a solution, and it helps save lives. Facebook tracking me without a profile and knowing that I am gay or religious is a problem, because the judge/courts is a room of unethical engineers drinking Red Bull.
daenz 7y ago
Shame and ostracization only works when the person cares about being accepted by you.
briandear 7y ago
Is there any possibility that some of this “snooping” actually keeps us safer? Ostracizing these people is not unlike ostracizing police. Even though police have abused power from time to time, I bet there isn’t a single one of us that wouldn’t call the police if our child has been kidnapped.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Is there any possibility that some of this “snooping” actually keeps us safer? Even if it does, is it worth violating rights in the process?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  Honestly, if my child was kidnapped and the ransom was affordable... it makes sense to just pay it and avoid the police. Less chance of collateral damage in the pursuit of justice and all that

If there's any justice in the world every person who participates in this sort of work will be shamed and ostracized in the future.

by m3rc 7y ago

If there's any justice in the world every person who participates in this sort of work will be shamed and ostracized in the future.

ossworkerrights 7y ago

I am wondering why aren’t protests staged in front of these companies’ offices. If they have any in the US or the EU, doing it in saudi arabia, china, etc. means certain death.

reidjs 7y ago
I live in the Bay and even here physical protests aren’t taken very seriously, just kids trying to skip school and lonely elderly folks who are bored. The money’s too good, the tools will still be built and used protest or no.
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  A sad state of affairs to be honest.

mulmen 7y ago

Leaving them no option but to continue building surveillance software? Rather than hope for a chance to make someone else miserable I’d rather people just weren’t building this stuff to begin with.

AWildC182 7y ago
It doesn't matter if they can't hire good talent. The guys running these businesses believe they're "just making tools for the good guys" (actual interview quote from a psychotic surveillance company I turned down a while back). We want to make sure they can only recruit the dumbest codemonkeys and spaghetti chefs that money can buy so their products go nowhere.

the_cat_kittles 7y ago

expecting anyone to get in trouble... LOL

ngngngng 7y ago

There's exceptionally few things I wouldn't do for enough money to retire and take care of my family comfortably for the rest of our lives. I assume a lot of people think like that.

saagarjha 7y ago
Ideally, there’d be a number of other things you could do that would work as well.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
> I assume a lot of people think like that. That's what all people who think like that assume.

BickNowstrom 7y ago

Government surveillance is a good thing. Change my mind. Its stated goal is to catch baddies and protect a country. Business surveillance is a bad thing. Its stated goal is to monetize user data and surveil everyone on the internet. So basically everyone on hackernews that worked for a modern data-driven consumer-target company participates in adversarial data gathering. Even if you just gave your data to a FANG company, in exchange for comfortable features, you helped them more effectively spy on people like you. So shame on you!

saagarjha 7y ago
> Its stated goal is to catch baddies and protect a country. I don’t think it actually does this as well as the government would like you to believe.
devit 7y ago
The actual effect might not correspond to the stated goal. For instance, it may be applied to "protect the people currently in power in the country" instead of "protect the [people living in the] country". Business surveillance might be less problematic because laws and government are supposed to make businesses acting for their own interest not be a problem (or be less of a problem), while the same mechanism for governments (constitution and supreme courts) is less restrictive.
- thesuperbigfrog 7y ago
  Laws do not always stop businesses in search of profit. There are many laws (e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley, Dodd–Frank, etc.) that were created to prevent unscrupulous acts in search of greater profits. Business surveillance and government surveillance can be equally problematic if the people behind it have bad motives.
- BickNowstrom 7y ago
  We give the police a monopoly on violence to fulfill its goal of to protect and serve. While there exists potential for misuse, this does not justify taking away that monopoly. I am further under the impression that way more checks and balances are in place to make sure that government surveillance does not overstep its boundaries, where businesses don't really care, especially if the profit justifies the fines or stricter regulation. Government surveillance is not a problem, it is a solution, and it helps save lives. Facebook tracking me without a profile and knowing that I am gay or religious is a problem, because the judge/courts is a room of unethical engineers drinking Red Bull.

daenz 7y ago

Shame and ostracization only works when the person cares about being accepted by you.

briandear 7y ago

Is there any possibility that some of this “snooping” actually keeps us safer? Ostracizing these people is not unlike ostracizing police. Even though police have abused power from time to time, I bet there isn’t a single one of us that wouldn’t call the police if our child has been kidnapped.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Is there any possibility that some of this “snooping” actually keeps us safer? Even if it does, is it worth violating rights in the process?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xkcd-sucks 7y ago
Honestly, if my child was kidnapped and the ransom was affordable... it makes sense to just pay it and avoid the police. Less chance of collateral damage in the pursuit of justice and all that