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

The White Hat's Dilemma

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#51

Post by chipsy »

My favored moral framework for most situations is the noblesse oblige: If, by chance or by choice, you have the privilege of affecting a lot of people, you now have the responsibility of supporting the most marginalized members of that group, regardless of whatever prejudice against them you may have had.

This is, in a lot of cases, a nearly impossible obligation to completely fulfill, but in application, it leads to both a closer examination of privilege and to moral decisions and outcomes that are progressive.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#52

Post by icebraining »

mr_spothawk wrote: post #35
throwaway3902 wrote: post #8

I used to work for Blizzard. The Chinese government requested that we modify the WoW client so that they could intercept all chat. As far as I know, no-one said anything, including me - and Blizzard, of course, was more than happy to comply, given the size of the market and the risk of being forbidden to do business there. There were plenty of other MMOGs happy to play ball and eat that cake. I didn't say anything. I…

Fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it: First, thanks for coming clean. You're a human being who's made a really bad decision. You should feel terrible for this. "They" are not merely your possible friends, or your relative's relatives, or your neighbors' cousins... "They" are other human beings who might someday decide to stand up for their human rights. "They" are millions of people you sold out for easy "dinner" & "ren…

What did you hope to accomplish with this post? "Here's someone who did something bad, who can't undo it, and who feels bad enough to come clean - let's rub it in so as to discourage others from doing so"?

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#53

Post by Skalman »

icebraining wrote: post #52
mr_spothawk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it: First, thanks for coming clean. You're a human being who's made a really bad decision. You should feel terrible for this. "They" are not merely your possible friends, or your relative's relatives, or your neighbors' cousins... "They" are other human beings who might someday decide to stand up for their human rights. "They" are millions of people you sold out for easy "dinner" & "ren…

What did you hope to accomplish with this post? "Here's someone who did something bad, who can't undo it, and who feels bad enough to come clean - let's rub it in so as to discourage others from doing so"?

I'd say that a clear goal of that post is to emphasize that it was a choice. To me Spothawk is rubbing in the fact that it was a decision.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#54

Post by arh68 »

javajosh wrote: post #18
marquis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I might have been branded as a coward If you have an ethical choice to make, consider the reaction of your esteemed colleagues (get counsel if you feel you can), not that of the mainstream news. The general support for those such as Snowden and Manning among my peers would prove that indeed they are held in high regard among those to whom it matters. The decision you made was your decision and you should not curse y…

I think it would be great if someone with money in Silicon Valley were to make public statements along the lines of, "If you blow the whistle, and it's legit, you won't have to worry about your career. We want people who are driven to do the right thing. We want to hire heroes." If Google really wants to make a statement about being not-evil, make Snowden a generous offer for employment while he's in Russia.

It'd be good, but words like that need to come from the Attorney General or a Circuit Court to have any weight.

The most I would expect any company to do is donate matching funds to a legal defense.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#55

Post by dasil003 »

tptacek wrote: post #20

Here's an alternative vantage point, my vantage point, one I think makes these kinds of ethical quandaries easier to navigate: * I'm not a "white hat" or a "black hat" * I'm not deliberately involved in any kind of "cyber" conflict * I don't do what I do because I'm battling the forces of evil, or organized crime, or anything else Instead: I do engineering. The same way a contract driver developer does, or a Rails de…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the ethically questionable work will not be the most serious from an engineering perspective and thus less interesting for a hard-core security engineer. If that's your position then I think it needs to be fleshed out more than just saying you can amorally and categorically reject contracts from Narus or the US Govt. What is fundamentally uninteresting about their systems? I'm sure a lot of engineers working on PRISM et al found it to be very technically challenging and rewarding work.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#56

Post by Sven7 »

blake8086 wrote: post #34
tptacek wrote: post #20

Here's an alternative vantage point, my vantage point, one I think makes these kinds of ethical quandaries easier to navigate: * I'm not a "white hat" or a "black hat" * I'm not deliberately involved in any kind of "cyber" conflict * I don't do what I do because I'm battling the forces of evil, or organized crime, or anything else Instead: I do engineering. The same way a contract driver developer does, or a Rails de…

What answers would you give to the questions he posed? How would you hope other people would answer them?

Engineers need to learn the art of building social and political capital. Also patience. Just the finances, scientific mindset and a moral conscience doesn't get you real change. I have seen too many bright people "rant and run" when confronted with morally ambiguous/uncomfortable situations. The only way to deal with this, if you really believe in something, is to stick around and convince others in the group, one by one, over the long term. There are no shortcuts or hacks to this process.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#57

Post by amirmc »

Skalman wrote: post #53
icebraining wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you hope to accomplish with this post? "Here's someone who did something bad, who can't undo it, and who feels bad enough to come clean - let's rub it in so as to discourage others from doing so"?

I'd say that a clear goal of that post is to emphasize that it was a choice . To me Spothawk is rubbing in the fact that it was a decision.

And it's a lot of people's 'decision' to bury their heads in the sand about the implications of Snowden's leaks. In that light, why isn't it also directed at everyone who doesn't care, rather than one guy who does?

Edit: What about the employer's choices to go ahead with it? No anger directed that way? This guy should have fallen on his sword but his company gets a pass?

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#58

Post by walshemj »

secalex wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #20

Here's an alternative vantage point, my vantage point, one I think makes these kinds of ethical quandaries easier to navigate: * I'm not a "white hat" or a "black hat" * I'm not deliberately involved in any kind of "cyber" conflict * I don't do what I do because I'm battling the forces of evil, or organized crime, or anything else Instead: I do engineering. The same way a contract driver developer does, or a Rails de…

Tom, I missed you at Defcon for multiple reasons, not the least being the opportunity to get your feedback on the talk as delivered. Maybe we can run a pan-NCC internal conference this fall and see what everybody else is working on. Chicago is nice and central between SF and Manchester. A big part of the talk was my theory that our industry can no longer claim neutrality; like medicine or law, our actions have become…

well professional engineers and technicians already have this

in the UK (engineering council)

"All professional engineers and technicians are bound by the Codes of Conduct of their professional engineering institutions. "

and in the US from the NSPE

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Perform services only in areas of their competence. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees. Avoid deceptive acts. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#59

Post by tluyben2 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #46
throwaway3902 wrote: post #8

I used to work for Blizzard. The Chinese government requested that we modify the WoW client so that they could intercept all chat. As far as I know, no-one said anything, including me - and Blizzard, of course, was more than happy to comply, given the size of the market and the risk of being forbidden to do business there. There were plenty of other MMOGs happy to play ball and eat that cake. I didn't say anything. I…

But much like with the US government spying, China's laws permit them to spy. It was all legal. So what's the big deal? ;)

I know/hope you are kidding, but I still feel the need to respond.

That whatever is legal or not can still go against your own feel of right or wrong. Who cares if something is legal somewhere and you don't agree with it. There are probably many examples of things legal in countries you visit which your moral compass would prevent you from taking part in. My personal annoyance being bullfighting in Spain (where I live 4 months of the year).

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#60

Post by mr_spothawk »

amirmc wrote: post #57
Skalman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that a clear goal of that post is to emphasize that it was a choice . To me Spothawk is rubbing in the fact that it was a decision.

And it's a lot of people's 'decision' to bury their heads in the sand about the implications of Snowden's leaks. In that light, why isn't it also directed at everyone who doesn't care, rather than one guy who does? Edit: What about the employer's choices to go ahead with it? No anger directed that way? This guy should have fallen on his sword but his company gets a pass?

Yeah, every person in the chain needs to wake the f* up.

Please don't mistake my lack of attention to Blizzard's complicity as a 'pass'.

I actively campaign against folks who would bury their heads in the sand. In the past decade I have spent huge effort (preaching?) to convince my peers not to accept work in these Military Industrial jobs and to leave them if they're already there. I've had quite a bit of success in that regard, and I would encourage (as I tried in my response) that others would help educate their peers as well.

Post reply on HN