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

Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#201

Post by anigbrowl »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #164
navigatesol wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now every engineer is personally responsible for corporate decisions. This is the entire point. If the "corporate decision" involves doing bad things, and then you go ahead and implement those bad things as an engineer...you deserve to be held responsible for your part in it.

Because making the crowbar is part of the crime? No, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Many young engineers can't see societal potential in what they do. They see solving the technical problem and completing the task. Senior engineers with a lot more experience have insight into "why" but that's often the point when they're given responsibility to guide others. The "should we do this?" question rests on the sh…

My spouse is an engineer and we often talk about the engineering ethics module where students were taught to think about such things using examples like the Ford Pinto, the O-rings on the space shuttle etc.

If you had worked at Ford and designed, say, the steering wheel or transmission of the Pinto, you might well be excused for not appreciating the flaws in its design. But if you were one of the engineers that was asked to put the gas tank up near the rear fender where it was much likelier to rupture in the event of a wholly foreseeable collision, then you had a responsibility to consider and push back against cost-saving measures that were likely to jeopardize riders' safety.

In general, if a manager is telling you not to worry about something, it's shady.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#202

Post by anigbrowl »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #170
timwaagh wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually 'my boss told me to build it' is an excuse. if you dont build it, you breach contract. you get fired or possibly sued for damages or breach of contract (as a contractor or external consultant). The job market isn't exactly great for recently fired engineers either. Nobody is above the law, and it is more than likely that some unlucky 'git-blamed' junior is going to face such a case some day instead of the bo…

Agreed. I dislike how every time we push for the "hot market for programmers" meme that only exists in the SV-like bubbles. Everywhere else around the world, it's just a regular job people do to put food on the table. Should we boycott people who work in the defense industry as well?

Yes

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#203

Post by anigbrowl »

osrec wrote: post #178
skrebbel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop pushing the blame upstairs. If you knowingly build software that hurts people, you share the blame. The job market for programmers has never been better. "My boss told me to do it" is not an excuse. I, for one, hope more engineers involved in fraud (eg VW), privacy breaches (eg Facebook) etc get tried and punished. It might help make programmers realize that yes, your work actually affects real humans and yes, y…

Sometimes you can be checkmated in your job and personal life. It's not that easy to quit a 150k job and find another when you've got a family and a mortgage. In those situations, your only option is to follow orders. In my experience, it really is the managers who often are to blame for a lot of evil practices. To generalise, I'd say 80% of engineers are rarely evil, but 80% of managers are rarely not evil.

Of course I don't want people to have their families starve...but if you have a $150k job you're really very well off notwithstanding the financial obligations you may have taken on that would make it hard to quit. If it's really a problem, then start looking for ways to delay the project or leak the truth. It's important to protect your family, but also to be able to look them in the eye later on.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#204

Post by anigbrowl »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #117
skrebbel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop pushing the blame upstairs. If you knowingly build software that hurts people, you share the blame. The job market for programmers has never been better. "My boss told me to do it" is not an excuse. I, for one, hope more engineers involved in fraud (eg VW), privacy breaches (eg Facebook) etc get tried and punished. It might help make programmers realize that yes, your work actually affects real humans and yes, y…

>>> Stop pushing the blame upstairs. If you knowingly build software that hurts people, you share the blame. The job market for programmers has never been better. "My boss told me to do it" is not an excuse. It is an excuse. If my livelihood depends on it, my children's health insurance depends on it (especially if you have kids that need continuous care), my kids university tuition depends on it, etc, etc... So, per…

If you don't care about anything beyond your convenience then why should I care about what happens to you?

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#205

Post by blackflame7000 »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #167
blackflame7000 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, so you see, additional regulation is not required.

The same way that harming people intentionally via software engineering is not regulated now, negligent harm isn't regulated either. I'm not expressing my support either way because this is a complex issue I haven't explored nearly enough - I'm just pointing out that current laws have stipulations for unintentional action or inaction as well. Claiming ignorance, incompetence or other factors that might lead to uninte…

There isn't a single software engineer alive that hasn't made a negligible error. It's like penalizing doctors if their patient dies. The halting problem specifically prohibits a programmer from ever even knowing if they are without negligence or simply one iteration away from complete negligence. (ie integer overflow that occurred because the system was used longer than the original developer intended).

Also, I would wager that about 75% of bugs come from the seems of integrations where two peoples duties overlap. In that case who's fault is it if they both built half a bridge that doesn't line up?

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#206

Post by Supermancho »

enraged_camel wrote: post #138
tluyben2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very realistic for people who need to put food on the table and where the evil vs non evil is not that clear. Especially if you work on a very small cog in the machine, which most engineers do ofcourse. Where do you draw the line? Maybe your company makes software that is nice but it is sold to companies using it for evil? I think this is too vague and not solvable by engineers unless in clear cut cases like you…

>>Not very realistic for people who need to put food on the table and where the evil vs non evil is not that clear. Evil vs. non-evil being not that clear is not a problem. That's why we have the court system: to sort those types of things out. As for "needing to put food on the table", how far are you willing to take that logic? It seems you could use it to justify virtually any behavior, as long as you get paid doi…

> Evil vs. non-evil being not that clear is not a problem.

Evil isnt the same as immoral, excepting a subjective interpretation of equivalence. Whats worse is a lack of standardization (or even distinction) between terminology to describe behaviors (eg pernicious, evil, immoral, corrupt, dangerous, et al). What is evil to you is certainly not the same as what is evil to me...much less how a legal doctrine is worded. It is a HUGE problem that people dont agree on what constitutes undesired action.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#207

Post by jhall1468 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #198
jhall1468 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment you open that door you have created the ultimate scapegoat in every corporate decision. Now every engineer is personally responsible for corporate decisions. It's easy when you look at VW and Facebook, but the more nuanced these things get, the more that what your advocating for is that programmers have to be lawyers as well. This horrible precedent and pushes the blame for everything downstairs. Meanwhile…

No. Programmers don't have to be lawyers but they do have to make ethical decisions and be willing to enforce them (by walking away from money offers to do something that violates their principles). Sure, executives will always try to push the blame downstairs. That's why you should be willing to sell them out if necessary.

There is an enormous difference between making ethical decisions and being prosecuted which this advocated for.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#208

Post by jhall1468 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #199
jhall1468 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that by the fact that you only talked about punishing engineers. And I'm not misreading your comment on purpose, trust me I had to read it 4 times just to make sure I wasn't crazy and I was actually reading what I thought I was: someone advocating that bottom of the food chain employees be criminally liable for code they write. You are making an us-vs-them argument, to be sure. Your "us" is consumers and your…

The top comment referenced a line in the article criticizing both 'engineers and tech titans' and then only addressed the first half with a 'poor me' argument, which seems to have distorted this entire thread. I'm not a lawyer. I expect if I'm being asked to do something, it's been vetted by our corporate legal team. I should not be expected to know every aspect of criminal and civil law to protect myself from my emp…

I made no mention of my personal ethics. I said vetted legally. Rest assured your principles almost certainly do not align exactly with the law. You may do something illegal without the knowledge you have. You may have contributed to some illegal because you weren't privy to the sum of the parts.

Which is exactly why this is such a horrible idea.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#209

Post by jhall1468 »

bigchewy wrote: post #140
jhall1468 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that by the fact that you only talked about punishing engineers. And I'm not misreading your comment on purpose, trust me I had to read it 4 times just to make sure I wasn't crazy and I was actually reading what I thought I was: someone advocating that bottom of the food chain employees be criminally liable for code they write. You are making an us-vs-them argument, to be sure. Your "us" is consumers and your…

if you read it 4x and don't see his point, consider reading it another 4 times. you seem to be advocating that certain employees, "bottom of the food chain" in your parlance, aren't culpable for their actions whereas the parent was saying everyone is culpable for their actions

If that was your take away from what I said, I'd guess you could read my comment infinite times and fail to understand it.

Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech

#210

Post by archie2 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #122
archie2 wrote: post #113

Make no mistake, this is just MS calling for regulatory capture so they have few people to compete with their products. They are in it for their profits, not the good of mankind.

Any time I see a statement put out by any of the tech incumbents, I ask myself, "How does this statement benefit the company?" And usually, there is a clear path to an answer. It's for profits, it's never for the public good. These are companies after all. If they're asking to regulated, it means buying a seat at the table, creating the illusion of regulation, with none of the downsides imposed by actual regulation.

From the 80s until the 90s Microsoft never lobbied the government, and they dominated. They got hauled in front of congress and were chastised for not lobbying, then a year later were hit with their infamous antitrust suit. The government bullied Microsoft into paying them off - just like the damned Mafia, except it's legal. Now we see Microsoft begging the government to basically do this AGAIN. It's sick, corrupt and a perversion of capitalism and democracy.
Post reply on HN