Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 326 posts

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#301

Post by zigzigzag »

zodPod wrote: post #129
olalonde wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but there are also a lot of tech workers who do not regard building such a database as unethical. A common fallacy on HN is to assume people who hold differing views necessarily do so egoistically, which is sometimes true but not always.

Yeah it's entirely possible that there are a small percentage of tech workers who would fully support this type of move. I too have noticed HN users seem to just assume everyone shares their views.

That's not "HN users", that's a trait that has cropped up repeatedly in 2016: surely that's the lesson of the year, a widespread groupthink that "surely most people are like us and are disgusted by $THING" and then meltdowns when it turns out not to be true.

What makes you think it'd be a small percentage? I didn't notice the NSA having trouble attracting very bright staff, apparently it's the opposite: they were able to get their pick of the best despite uncompetitive salaries. And the NSA has spent years taking part in targeted assassination programs of innocent people who weren't in US jurisdiction, had no charges levied against them and never had any sort of trial. They were just drone striked.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#302

Post by dagw »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #112
woofyman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying isn't a constitutionally protected right. Voting is though. Should you be able to vote without registering?

Flying actually falls in a gray area... Considering you are "taxed" in essence for the TSA, to move between states... freedom of movement between states and all...

The TSA is, in principle, something voters have 'chosen' to put into place and could remove if they wished. Also there is no difference in the TSA 'tax' if you fly between states or within a state, so as such in has nothing to do with interstate travel.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#303

Post by zigzigzag »

idlewords wrote: post #223
ori_b wrote: post #165

How many are willing to get arrested over this? How many CEOs are willing to get their company shut down over this? I suspect that this is largely posturing, and when push comes to shove people will comply.

1200 people are willing to quit over this. Let's start there.

No. 1200 people said they might (it isn't binding) but only if the conditions of the pledge are violated. The pledge is written in such a way that almost anything could be deemed as not violating it, if the signer wanted that.

This is the direct equivalent of "I'll move to Canada if Foo gets elected". Move-to-Canada declarations are actually much tighter than this pledge as they tend to be triggered by simple, undeniable conditions. But how many people who publicly proclaimed they'd do it actually do?

The solution to "the administration wants to build a database of Muslims" is not to sign worthless pledges. It's to enter politics and put the argument to conservative voters that they're wrong and should change their mind.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#304

Post by dagw »

woofyman wrote: post #97
this-dang-guy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue "A citizen should _never_ have to register with the government" should really be the entire statement. Things like aid and whatnot should really be isolated and broken off to prevent mass collection dbs.

Not even for voting?

You don't have to vote.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#305

Post by throwanem »

AlexandrB wrote: post #286
throwanem wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never been quite sure that the ethical question here is as firmly settled as the organizations cited first in that article consider it to be. Is it ethical to refuse to participate in lethal injection, knowing that the result will be an execution instead performed by electric chair, or gas chamber, or hanging, or firing squad? Each of these methods is employed as an alternative to lethal injection by at least on…

Lethal injection is not humane[1]. There's evidence that the person being executed suffers tremendously but can't express it due to the use of paralytics as part of the "cocktail". I'd rather get the guillotine. [1] http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/leth...

That sounds at least as much like a reason to replace the (IMO unnecessarily overcomplicated) "cocktail" as it does a reason to replace the method.

I've never particularly understood why they use anything other than a large overdose of some strong opiate like morphine or fentanyl.

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#306

Post by WickyNilliams »

zigzigzag wrote: post #300
tptacek wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a joke about HN, right? Hey. I'm getting some mileage out of this on Twitter and you're getting a little jumped on, but: if you're not joking, this is good news. It's kind of great news. It means all you have to do is learn a bit about the labor movement to see a whole new dimension of possibilities for intervening against a system we're widely concerned about.

Labour unions are backed by force of law, and campaigned primarily to get their members more money or benefits, not stop "unethical" behaviour (they invariably claim they're motivated by safety or conditions or whatever, but in practice it almost never is).

You could regard underpaying employees as unethical behaviour in itself. Not entirely unrelated

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#307

Post by rmc »

tptacek wrote: post #281
ryandrake wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, labor unions. Brain no longer working, thanks for leading me by the nose to it. So we need to get software engineers, who as a group tend to be openly hostile to the idea of unions, to embrace collective bargaining.

Not all unions are about salary and shop rules. Look at the history of Polish Solidarity!

In the 1980s, Irish workers in a large supermarket refused to handle South African goods because of apartheid

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/how-11-striking...

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#308

Post by rmc »

zigzigzag wrote: post #300
tptacek wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a joke about HN, right? Hey. I'm getting some mileage out of this on Twitter and you're getting a little jumped on, but: if you're not joking, this is good news. It's kind of great news. It means all you have to do is learn a bit about the labor movement to see a whole new dimension of possibilities for intervening against a system we're widely concerned about.

Labour unions are backed by force of law, and campaigned primarily to get their members more money or benefits, not stop "unethical" behaviour (they invariably claim they're motivated by safety or conditions or whatever, but in practice it almost never is).

Counter-example: In the 1980s, Irish workers in a large supermarket refused to handle South African goods because of apartheid

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/how-11-striking...

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#309

Post by tptacek »

zigzigzag wrote: post #300
tptacek wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a joke about HN, right? Hey. I'm getting some mileage out of this on Twitter and you're getting a little jumped on, but: if you're not joking, this is good news. It's kind of great news. It means all you have to do is learn a bit about the labor movement to see a whole new dimension of possibilities for intervening against a system we're widely concerned about.

Labour unions are backed by force of law, and campaigned primarily to get their members more money or benefits, not stop "unethical" behaviour (they invariably claim they're motivated by safety or conditions or whatever, but in practice it almost never is).

You mean besides Polish Solidarity?

Re: Tech workers pledge to never build a database of Muslims

#310

Post by wink »

idlewords wrote: post #288
ryandrake wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, labor unions. Brain no longer working, thanks for leading me by the nose to it. So we need to get software engineers, who as a group tend to be openly hostile to the idea of unions, to embrace collective bargaining.

I don't think software engineers were so much hostile as indifferent. And now we're wandering into an area where people want to take a stand against their own management, but are worried about doing it alone for fear of retribution. This is exactly what labor law is designed to help do, and I can assure you people are interested.

I think it also depends hugely on the country.

I can only talk about Germany, and in general I'd say unions here have limited to moderate power, depending on the field they operate in. (e.g. you always hear news about strikes from the metal-related union (IG Metall) or the train drivers, or pilots/air personnel.)

Now, the thing is that there's also one very broadly defined one for "services" (ver.di) which used to have mostly shop assistants, hairdressers, people with desk jobs, etc.pp. But recently (let's say since the 90s) also more and more IT people and especially software developers. And I can't give you specific details, but I've heard and read so many stories about what they want is quite contrary to what people in these jobs want. Maybe (probably?) because we're better off anyway? Maybe because hardly any people in software here are paid via the regulated union tariffs (is that the correct word I'm using? The rate of pay that the union agreed to with the bigger companies. Often involves politicians, but sometimes only for mediation when there's no progress on talks) but via direct negotiations with your company.

TLDR: can only speak for Germany, but the union seems to be not representative of the people for this field of work

Post reply on HN