A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
121–130 of 140 posts
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm. This is very similar to structure I operated under as a corporate attorney at a bank but also as the Chief Information Security Officer. I owed a duty to the ba…
> I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a net-negative for society Curious to find out more about this, and how you felt about it while you were doing it, if you're willing to talk about it.
Oddly enough I loved working for a hedge fund. The attorneys at the SEC and the attorneys who worked for the funds' clients were all brilliant. I could "zealously advocate" but it was an equal match. The SEC (though overworked) know what they're doing and often have industry experience so they understand how the business operates.
When I moved to investment banking, where the state regulators play a bigger role (with a much smaller budget) and the clients are wealthy families instead of investment funds, that's when it started to feel dirty. State regulators are... at best woefully ineffective and at worst completely clueless as to how the industry operates (they tend to be career government people).
Not meaning to offend anyone's politics but I often told my friends that I was Kelly Anne Conway putting forth an argument that was really kind of a stretch. I felt obligated to advocate but I also felt the regulators and auditors really should have objected or tried to negotiate but they almost never pushed back. Sometimes because they just didn't care but more often because they didn't know any better.
At the hedge fund, a "win" was collaborative and strategic and felt like I had earned it. At the bank a "win" felt a lot like bullying.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
>All information should be free. >protect private data. How do you reconcile these? Data is information. Or is this another free vs Free (Kostenlos vs Frei) situation?
Using the first part of the "protect private data" line Make public data available.
So then why are Facebook/Youtube getting criticized for not censoring the New Zealand shooter broadcast fast enough?
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully. Interesting thought, how would you imagine this would work in practice? Insurance against what? In the event of loss, who would make a payment to who? There are "cybersecurity" insurance policies available to companies now but they really only cover the cost of mailing notification le…
The insurance payouts for a breach could go to the affected users or to the government, I don't think it would matter much. The important part is that companies need to pay to retain user data. The insurance would have to be mandatory for large companies.
I agree there needs to be a cost to companies who lose user data but I fear insurance would be a way to compensate users for the loss without incentivizing corporations to mitigate the risk.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#125Yes, technologists should. However, that does not prevent those who would violate those ethics. Laws are in place to do this. Facebook is just trying to shift the blame to its employees. Gross.
Yes, we don't have a major problem with technologists behaving unethically. We have one with corporate decision makers behaving unethically.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#126See ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/ Here are the main points: 1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES. As an ACM member I will 1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being. 1.2 Avoid harm to others. 1.3 Be honest and trustworthy. 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate. 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.…
This is kind of grossly simplified though, isn't it? > 1.2 Avoid harm to others So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage? > 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights? > 1.8 Honor confidentiality. What about whistleblowing?
> So no Sci-Hub?
The ACM are a major academic publisher.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, here is my problem. The parent post claimed that blacks, specifically, face classes of problems that no other group does when attempting university and that this is problematic because it may exclude non-traditional routes to learning "ethics" which in turn may exclude them from software jobs. My point of contention is that, in this day and age, these problems apply equally and to single out a race is wrong. I'm…
> The parent post claimed that blacks, specifically, face classes of problems that no other group does when attempting university Right, they face the specific socioeconomic problem of being disproportionately likely to be affected by poverty. It's true that white people can also be affected by poverty and that would make it harder for them to be successful in university just the same, but a white person is not made…
> that they are in a disadvantaged position which makes them disproportionately affected by class barriers.
My point is that today's disadvantages, regardless of how they came to be, are not racial but socioeconomic and we need to address those concerns.
> disproportionately affected by class barriers
Again, you are inserting arguments and points that I never argued nor intended to argue. Parent claimed there exist current class barriers for blacks that exist for no one else in regards to universities. Unless some law exists on the books that I've somehow never heard of, this is categorically false.
> the parent never claimed that other races aren't affected by poverty.
Given that the parent comment quite literally says that the problems faced by blacks do not apply to any others, I wholesale disagree with your assertion.
> White people do not face systemic class barriers
Class barriers are by-definition about class, not race. You are either ignorant, or poorly trolling.
> The conversation wasn't really about race until you made it so.
That is, perhaps, a valid criticism at some level. At the same time I bristle at comments that something that would have been a problematic barrier for me somehow wouldn't be solely because of race. Socioeconomic problems are by-definition socioeconomic. That they may be problematic at differing rates makes them no less of a general problem, so at what point why even involve race in the conversation? Because it will get some subset even more riled up? Crying wolf is a bad thing.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The parent post claimed that blacks, specifically, face classes of problems that no other group does when attempting university Right, they face the specific socioeconomic problem of being disproportionately likely to be affected by poverty. It's true that white people can also be affected by poverty and that would make it harder for them to be successful in university just the same, but a white person is not made…
> that they are in a disadvantaged position which makes them disproportionately affected by class barriers. My point is that today's disadvantages, regardless of how they came to be, are not racial but socioeconomic and we need to address those concerns. > disproportionately affected by class barriers Again, you are inserting arguments and points that I never argued nor intended to argue. Parent claimed there exist c…
I don't really know how to explain my point in any different or clearer words, but I'll give it one more try. Please read the whole thing and try to give it the most generous possible interpretation you can.
The parent did not claim that poverty is not faced by white people. What the parent actually claimed that systemic forces that create poverty are not faced by white people.
That is a specific issue which only non-white people face. As a consequence, the people facing that issue are disproportionately likely to be further affected by class-specific issues like high cost education.
They did not say that poverty or high-cost education is exclusively a race issue. They did not say that only people who face such systemic forces can experience poverty, or suffer due to high cost education. Obviously, anyone can experience poverty and anyone can suffer due to high-cost education. But it's worth considering that high-cost education especially affects black and hispanic people, because those people face systemic forces which push them toward poverty, whereas white people do not face those systemic forces. So if you care about racial equity, you should care about low-cost education. That's it. That's the entirety of the claim being made here.
That doesn't mean high-cost education only affects black/hispanic people. It doesn't mean that only black people deserve affordable education. It doesn't mean that only black people can be held back from success due to socioeconomic reasons. It doesn't mean that we only need to be considering the impact that high cost education has on black people. Nobody here is making any of those claims. All they are saying is that there is a specific barrier which non-white people face, and that barrier is being disproportionately affected by poverty for systemic reasons. No white person faces that specific barrier, period. They might face other barriers that have the same effect of preventing them from being successful in higher education, such as poverty in a general sense, and we should be considering those barriers too, but they just do not happen to face this specific barrier of being pushed into poverty by systemic forces.
Nowhere did the parent claim that those systemic forces are the only possible barrier to success in higher education, or even that it's the most substantial or important barrier. It just happens to be one specific barrier worth looking at, and this one specific barrier happens to only faced by non-white people. There are other barriers to success in higher education which white people do face, and they never claimed otherwise. They were just making an emotional appeal to the specific racial nature of this one particular barrier. White people may still face the barrier of poverty in a general sense, as well as others in addition to that, just not the specific barrier of being systemically pushed into poverty.
> Class barriers are by-definition about class, not race.
Sorry, what I meant here is racial barriers preventing people from escaping the lower class. Not barriers that apply to a specific class.
> That they may be problematic at differing rates makes them no less of a general problem, so at what point why even involve race in the conversation? Because it will get some subset even more riled up?
Why is it a bad thing to show the specific ways in which issues like poverty can affect our own personal communities, families, friends etc? Having that emotional connection to the problem might help people to see it in its full light.
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet the civilians who do not become collateral damage because the missile that was supposed to hit a military base did so due to good guidance software instead of missing and hitting their town would disagree. When a situation has escalated to the point that someone is launching missiles, it has usually reached the point where destroying the target is more important to them then the risk of collateral damage. If th…
How about getting rid of those bloodthirsty decision makers, and in the meantime not supporting their violent rampaging.
While I appreciate your sentiment, and would describe myself as a pacifist as well, I am unable to say that self-defense is unethical. However, even in 10th grade, when we first entered Afghanistan, I found the concept of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq appalling, unjustifiable, expensive, unproductive, and without a way out. Nearly two decades later and that all seems to be true.
That said, I wouldn't find myself saying "don't retaliate" if there was an actual force striking the country.
Being unable to categorically rule out self defense, springing from/combined with, being unable to control others means that we may need to defend ourselves, and if we must, we should be capable.
I don't know if I could work for the military, directly or as a contractor, but I'm not ready to say that every member in uniform and every contractor is amoral for doing so.
Anyway, my point is even if you convinced your entire country to never take up offensive arms, would you be able to also convince everyone else to as well? Would you be willing to tell your countrymen not to take up defensive arms?
Re: A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative to guided missiles isn’t peace, it’s carpet bombing.
The planes needed to drop those bombs have software too.
It's perfectly possible to build very devistating weapons without computers. For example Little Boy & Enola Gay; and Fat Man and Bockscar. The Uranium, Plutonium, and Hydrogen bombs we're built without and do not contain computer. Ditto for the P38, B29, F104, &c.
Software makes our world go round, but it's not a necessity.