12 ms·

I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if

I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement." I think as engineers, we have a certain degree of responsibility for how our work is used. To say your work is apolitical when you're in the business of spying on people is quite the statement, especially if "people" is basically everybody. (I am aware that the speaker is probably not an engineer and it wasn't an engineering recruiting program, but the same can be said about their field, I'd assume.)

meowface 13y ago
Quite true. The policy makers and intelligence directors can't have huge spying apparatuses if they have no engineers willing to build them.
angersock 13y ago
"Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.
- doktrin 13y ago
  Nitpick : the above almost makes it look as if von Braun made that statement, which he didn't. It's from a satirical song by Tom Lehrer.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Quite right. Lehrer had some fantastic lyrics to his credit.
md224 13y ago
Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should. I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P
- maxcan 13y ago
  Don't hire Newman. But we knew that already..
- baconner 13y ago
  This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not. Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-... There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts. Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.
DannyBee 13y ago
I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt. I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney. This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.
- robbiemitchell 13y ago
  Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again? Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1]. I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system. [1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.
    - robbiemitchell 13y ago

meowface 13y ago

Quite true. The policy makers and intelligence directors can't have huge spying apparatuses if they have no engineers willing to build them.

angersock 13y ago

"Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.

doktrin 13y ago
Nitpick : the above almost makes it look as if von Braun made that statement, which he didn't. It's from a satirical song by Tom Lehrer.
- angersock 13y ago
  Quite right. Lehrer had some fantastic lyrics to his credit.

md224 13y ago

Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should. I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P

maxcan 13y ago
Don't hire Newman. But we knew that already..
baconner 13y ago
This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not. Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-... There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts. Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.

DannyBee 13y ago

I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt. I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney. This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.

robbiemitchell 13y ago
Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again? Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1]. I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system. [1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.
  - robbiemitchell 13y ago