There are plenty of people who don't work at these companies for these reasons. There could be more of those people. But there will still be enough who are willing to do it for the right price or who actually support the morality and ethics of doing it, that it will still get built even if the vast majority of the tech industry conscientiously objected.
Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
111–120 of 225 posts
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
This! I think what I'm going to start doing is to not take any computer professional seriously unless they are an ACM or IEEE member (or similar org in your country). EDIT: Getting downvoted, clearly not a popular opinion. Are people here not interested in having a strong corporate-independent organization to push the industry forward?
Contributions to the EFF (or maybe ACLU) might be a better predictor of responsible professionalism, than membership in ACM and IEEE Computer Society.
EFF, FSF, ACLU are all great organizations. ACM is unique here though because it's specifically a professional organization meant to push the industry forward. EFF, FSF, and ACLU are great and should be supported but aren't as broad as ACM.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#113I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.
What is the problem again?
You used google while signed in and now the world knows you like barbies?
Serious question, because I do not feel violated.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's true that getting "up and running" with a simple project is only a matter of getting a working laptop and internet connection (and a bootcamp if one is available to you), getting into the position where you could build (or not build) a system capable of broadly violating human rights on behalf of an oppressive government is not an opportunity most workers have. If you're interested in the sort of union tha…
> It would be great if we could have one big union that fights for the rights of all workers, and if you think so too you should look into joining the IWW. Given how often the interests of various workers can and do conflict, this strikes me as an idea possessed of a wonderful opportunity to come into greater alignment with reality. As are those who advocate it. I always ask would-be tech union organizers the same qu…
If your understanding of unions begins and ends in terms of what's "in it for me" then I'd urge you to rephrase the question: "what's in it for us?" And then expand "us" to the people you care about. As it turns out, quite a lot. In the original article, we're potentially talking about the safety and privacy of hundreds of millions.
In more day-to-day union campaigns, you'd be organizing so that your coworkers can have a place to work where they're not harassed, underpaid, or bullied by systems out of their control to create technology that harms people. Admittedly in the US it's not much leverage we have, but you could rest assured that if you were victim of an injustice by your boss, they'd have your back too.
It's about taking back just a little bit of control over what you use your skills to work on, and how. Some people would rather take orders from their boss until they die, but especially in software there seems to a collective desire for more accountability from the bottom up, and maybe a union is what that will look like.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contributions to the EFF (or maybe ACLU) might be a better predictor of responsible professionalism, than membership in ACM and IEEE Computer Society.
EFF, FSF, ACLU are all great organizations. ACM is unique here though because it's specifically a professional organization meant to push the industry forward. EFF, FSF, and ACLU are great and should be supported but aren't as broad as ACM.
If the ACM is really pushing professionalism and ethics now, that's great.
I've actually been a member or contributed to all the organizations either of us mentioned, and EFF has seemed to me likely a better predictor, but that's just a guess.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#116For my part, I'm just not interested in working at facebook or google or certain other companies because I disagree with their practices. Luckily, I'm far enough along in my career that I don't need to take just any job, even if it is limiting to be a privacy conscious data scientist. I do worry that people like me just staying out of these places leads to an echo chamber, and change from within is great. I wonder wh…
Yeah, it's hard to be a conscientious objector when you never put yourself into the position of working for a company whose goals you need to object to.
Huh, I would have said it's easy to. Would you mind expanding on that?
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#117I've long thought that tech needs like.. a guild or trade union, or a professional association of some kind. The problem though, is that it's so easy to get into, so there's no easy way to "police" ourselves, because tech has been democratized so well-- Anyone can do a code boot-camp and be up and running within weeks. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes it harder to hold developers to a code of ethics or anyt…
Just because there's a professional organization that pushes a set of ethics, does not mean they will be anything resembling the type of ethics you are envisioning. Building tools, your ethics generally get framed with regards to your client - not the subjects your tools will be used on.
Traditional engineerings have longstanding concepts of ethics, plenty of professional organizations, and even professional licensure. This does not stop mechanical engineers from adding to USG's weapons disparity or civil engineers from constructing more profit-center cages.
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#118I think the imposition of this burden on engineers is the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards. Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors. They're not the problem. Other institutions need to do their part.
I imagine that even if tech has a strong history of conscientious objectors, you could argue the industry needs more because:
* Tech is incredibly, incredibly important and powerful, in its implications and effects on politics, society, geopolitics, everything
* It seems plausible there's far more going on than anyone knows about
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#119[deleted]
Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alberta too. The regulation is coming on very gradually since they're confused about how to define and regulate the title/practice. The regulation won't necessarily help anything but to outlaw a lot of smart people from being able to write certain software. It will put us further behind the USA in our ability to create tech companies that matter (or that can compete with offshoring) and lead to higher unemployment as…
> The regulation won't necessarily help anything but to outlaw a lot of smart people from being able to write certain software. It will put us further behind the USA in our ability to create tech companies that matter (or that can compete with offshoring) Has any of that happened with engineers in Canada? We still have plenty of engineers. A lot of this comes off as any industry wanting to hold onto the engineer titl…
[deleted]