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

Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 225 posts

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#121

Post by eeZah7Ux »

mc32 wrote: post #16

I think this is s bit naive. Americans and EU citizens could conceivably follow some protocol such that what they produce will not go against certain principles (if we even presume no such thing as dual use tech), but that would do little to stifle and control developers outside this sphere. Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc., aren’t about to handicap themselves and have some realization, oh, you know what g…

"If I don't do such bad thing somebody else will" is an obvious logical fallacy.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#122

Post by ohyes »

robertAngst wrote: post #113
ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I 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.

Assume that a hypothetical future government that you find yourself living under is not good.

Assume furthermore that a future hypothetical company is equally not good and the two collude to do not good things together.

Now assume you’re motivated to do something about it. Sucks for you, they have already predicted that and cleansed you because they know everything you’ve ever read and it was a high probability that you’d be against them.

Consider another situation where hypothetical evil overlords know exactly what buttons press in order to influence you to act a certain way. They press them regularly. You dance as expected.

Both circumstances undermine your personal autonomy and right to self determination. Furthermore they undermine the humanity that we share where our society is no longer controlled by the needs of humans, but instead arbitrary algorithms coded for whatever mundanely evil purpose.

And that’s the point (that you’ve more or less hit on), this is evil, but also so boring that it is actually a threat to society because no one will care enough to do anything.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#124

Post by wDcBKgt66V8WDs »

robertAngst wrote: post #113
ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I 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.

Did you even read this or are you trolling?

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#125

Post by zimpenfish »

ABCLAW wrote: post #27

I 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.

> the result of our belief that our legislators are too incompetent or unwilling to act in the fact of clear moral hazards

Such a belief is justified because they have a strong history of being both.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#126

Post by int_19h »

olalonde wrote: post #49

This article is premised on the idea that basically everything the Chinese government does is unethical, which is debatable. For one, the Chinese government is largely supported by its population. There might actually be engineers working on Dragonfly who do not believe the project is unethical. It's not that black and white...

Being largely supported by its population is not a valid justification for human rights abuses. Consider Japan during WW2 for a concrete example of how far this can go.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#127

Post by mr_toad »

obenn wrote: post #87
jammygit wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has a professional software engineering organization, at least in some provinces. That said, they talk a lot about ethics but then award first place at a local engineering competition to a team that tracks people's position and movements without them knowing using their cell signals (for use in airports), so maybe it doesn't do any good. Great technical work by them mind you.

The Candian Association For IT Professionals (cips.ca) administers the only nationally recognized IT designation, called the I.S.P (think of it like a P.Eng for computer scientists). Their goal is to make this a requirement for the handling of certain types of sensitive data, as one needs to swear by a code of ethics in order to become a bearer.

A lot of sensitive data processing isn’t done by engineers or developers, it’s done by data scientists, statisticians and economists. How do they plan to handle that?

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#128

Post by 1e-9 »

Encouraging dissent is a small piece of what is needed. Developers must certainly consider the moral and ethical consequences of their work, but most situations are not going to be black and white, and no matter how diabolical a project might be, there is always a way to rationalize it. What is most needed is widespread public debate among those who understand the technologies in order to form consensus on appropriate directions of development. Any consensus then needs to be effectively communicated to the public and to policy makers. This helps everyone, including developers, make better decisions about what they should or should not support. Forums such as HN and various blogs can foster debate, but there seems to be a need for a more consolidated approach that someone needs to establish. As far as communicating consensus goes, I think that nonprofit organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation can be a good conduit, but they need more widespread support from the technical community.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#129

Post by mc32 »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #121
mc32 wrote: post #16

I think this is s bit naive. Americans and EU citizens could conceivably follow some protocol such that what they produce will not go against certain principles (if we even presume no such thing as dual use tech), but that would do little to stifle and control developers outside this sphere. Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc., aren’t about to handicap themselves and have some realization, oh, you know what g…

"If I don't do such bad thing somebody else will" is an obvious logical fallacy.

So you’re saying the export control policies with regard to encryption were good. Interesting.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#130

Post by int_19h »

mc32 wrote: post #16

I think this is s bit naive. Americans and EU citizens could conceivably follow some protocol such that what they produce will not go against certain principles (if we even presume no such thing as dual use tech), but that would do little to stifle and control developers outside this sphere. Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc., aren’t about to handicap themselves and have some realization, oh, you know what g…

I get the point you're making, and it's valid... but "Vladimir, Jinping, Jeong-Un, Narendra, etc" is a bit offensive. One's ethnic background, and even citizenship, does not define one's morality. Take a look at the list of names on http://neveragain.tech/ - it's not all Americans and Europeans.
Post reply on HN