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

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#201

Post by ionised »

saagarjha wrote: post #34
throw2016 wrote: post #30

Discussions about ethical, privacy, surveillance issues often get hand waved and diluted here. See yesterday's thread on Google's retaliation as an example. We need a diversity of communities that can represent the the software industry in more dimensions than the VC funded side of things, growth hacking and the singular focus on success that are often in heavy conflict with any kind of value dimension and ultimately…

> Discussions about ethical, privacy, surveillance issues get hand waved and diluted here. Do they? I tend to find that Hacker News often has a lot of discussion of ethics, especially with respect to technology.

On HN I see lot of hand-waving away of ethics and a lot of defence of straightforward greed.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#202

Post by jlg23 »

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.

In the discourse that followed WW2 we put the same burden on soldiers and we still today prosecute German soldiers who worked in concentration camps (see [1], for a book keeper sentenced to prison time in 2015; not actually involved in killings).

Who, if not we, the engineers who really understand the implications of our actions, should stand up?

[1] https://www.rt.com/news/421101-auschwitz-accountant-guard-di...

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#203

Post by themacguffinman »

rjf72 wrote: post #194
jondubois wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the problem is that the masses do not have shared values anymore. There are no moral ideals to aim towards. Without values there is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.

But we do all have shared values. In fact, I think we all agree on most of everything. Imagine there was a button you could press where each and every person would suddenly receive at least a nice house, a bit of land to call their own, and a pleasant good paying job. There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button. Another button to get rid of all crime? Yip, gonna be pushed. Ano…

> The only thing we disagree on is the best route to get there.

So we agree on most of everything, except this massive, critical thing?

Even aside from that, your examples of shared values also don't strike me as universally agreeable. I find many of these apparently agreeable things just poorly defined. It's much more obvious why these issues are so divisive when you dig a little deeper.

What exactly would getting rid of all crime mean? Because people disagree on what should be considered a crime.

Getting rid of poverty? Well, what kind of poverty do you mean? Because poverty in many ways is relative. Getting rid of all poverty implies getting rid of all wealth inequality. Is that really something you believe everyone agrees on?

Everyone owning their own land? I'd be surprised if everyone agreed on private land ownership. Everyone has a nice house? What kind of house? I'm not sure everyone wants to live in a suburbia.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#204

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

mr_toad wrote: post #127
obenn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Statisticians and social scientists already have ethical codes and are trained in research ethics throughout their academic careers.

Speaking as a social scientist, i was shocked at how little of this made it into industry.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#205

Post by PavlovsCat »

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.

> Tech has a very strong history of conscientious objectors.

Oh? I know of Joseph Weizenbaum, who else?

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#206

Post by whalabi »

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #175
whalabi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree with your main thesis, but also: It's time that we start teaching kids at school about technology. And I mean actual technology , not how to make a pretty slides presentation on Powerpoint/libreOffice. I mean the importance of your data, how companies exploit it, what is a CPU, what is RAM, what is an operating system, what is security, cryptography, domain names, how ISPs work, etc.

Agree, kinda.

E.g. rather than how domain names work, I'd rather people learn about privacy in the internet era.

Rather than say, RAM, I'd rather people learn about how social media is addictive and why, etc.

All of the above would be good too :)

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#207

Post by matt4077 »

mspecter wrote: post #137
matt4077 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a somewhat stupid example, because nobody endangers their own life just because they have health insurance. Smoking instead of reckless driving may make it (slightly) more understandable.

Sure, though, to be pedantic, a common example of moral hazard is the increased likelihood of driving recklessly in the presence of mandatory seat belts. See https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf

That’s not a moral hazard. The word doesn’t even appear in the paper. It’s just an example of somewhat efficiently choosing a different point on the risk/reward continuum when the payoffs change.

A moral hazard is choosing a selfish course of action with negative external effects.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#208

Post by thomascgalvin »

rjf72 wrote: post #194
jondubois wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the problem is that the masses do not have shared values anymore. There are no moral ideals to aim towards. Without values there is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.

But we do all have shared values. In fact, I think we all agree on most of everything. Imagine there was a button you could press where each and every person would suddenly receive at least a nice house, a bit of land to call their own, and a pleasant good paying job. There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button. Another button to get rid of all crime? Yip, gonna be pushed. Ano…

> There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button.

You have vastly more faith in humanity than I do.

There is an entire class of people who define their success based on how much more they have than everyone else. It isn't enough for these people to be successful, healthy, and financially stable; it is necessary, for their happiness, that other people not have these things.

Many of the problems we currently face have, if not solutions, proven mitigations. These mitigations are complete non-starters in America, though, because a significant minority of people have been convinced that "those people" haven't earned it.

> It makes people fear and hate one another and further drive this perception that we have no shared values.

A more important issue is the fact that our legislatures are structured to have exactly zero concern for our shared values. If we take your cheap little pistols example (which is entirely accurate, as far as I can tell), we have one of those clear mitigations: universal background checks. This mitigation enjoys somewhere around 90% public support. It will never, ever pass as long as the NRA is allowed to terrorize politicians into voting against the public good.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#209

Post by Retra »

int_19h wrote: post #132
Retra wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no point in taking a stand if it means relinquishing responsibility. You'd rather have weapons in the hands of pacifists than warmongers, but that won't happen if pacifists "conscientiously object" and throw down their arms; police brutality isn't eliminated by making it a job that appeals only to bullies; and software development doesn't become ethical by asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit. What…

I don't see "asking everyone with a sense of ethics to quit" software development , though. I'm seeing a call to refuse working on things that are unethical. Most software engineering does not involve working on projects that have immediate side effects that significantly impact human rights and freedoms. To build on your police analogy, this is about asking police officers to refuse to enforce policies such as "stop…

You can't ask individuals to make that decision; they'll just be replaced with ones who are willing. Leadership needs to agree with you. You can't ask people to work at a place while undermining their companies' business plans.

Re: Tech Needs More Conscientious Objectors

#210

Post by jondubois »

rjf72 wrote: post #194
jondubois wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the problem is that the masses do not have shared values anymore. There are no moral ideals to aim towards. Without values there is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.

But we do all have shared values. In fact, I think we all agree on most of everything. Imagine there was a button you could press where each and every person would suddenly receive at least a nice house, a bit of land to call their own, and a pleasant good paying job. There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button. Another button to get rid of all crime? Yip, gonna be pushed. Ano…

>> Imagine there was a button you could press where each and every person would suddenly receive at least a nice house, a bit of land to call their own, and a pleasant good paying job. There's not a single person, regardless of ideology, that wouldn't press this button.

No I would not push that button. I think everyone should have a roof over their head, but only value-producing people should have a nice house. Also, I think that the reward should be based purely on value production of the individual, without any regard for ownership of capital (the means of production). Also, individuals should not be rewarded for capturing the value created by others (I.e. entrepreneurship). There should be a clear distinction between activities which create value versus the ones which capture value. We need a system which enables creators instead of entrepreneurs. By the way, the word 'entrepreneur' is French and it literally means 'someone who takes what is between'; not someone who creates value.

>> Another button to get rid of all crime? Yip, gonna be pushed.

If we had a decent system, I would agree. But in the current system, I think that crime might as well just be legalized. The definition of crime is extremely unclear. There are so many white-collar activities which are not considered crimes by the legal system but whose consequences are actually far worse for society than all the blue collar crimes added up together - In fact, you could argue that blue collar crime would not exist if it weren't for white collar operators rigging the game and effectively forcing poor people into a life of blue collar crime.

>> Another to get rid of all poverty?

Sure, but people need to be educated in order to be able to lead a socially conscientious life outside of poverty. If you lifted everyone out of poverty with the push of a button, they'd eat the conscientious middle class for breakfast the next day.

Post reply on HN