Here we have what I think is a display of an intelligent mind specialized in one area, funded by a state institution, and weak at resolving moral conflicts. Computer scientists (and any self-respecting scientists) HAVE to separate their ethics from the interests of state institutions. Phrases in the paper resembling something like "where the cryptographer has a duty to serve the public and keep their self-interest in check" indicate this.
I've read a paper recently on designing systems to have security exceptions for law enforcement and calling them "exception requirements" or something to that effect. This is the sort of thing a good study of ethics can help to resolve.
The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
61–70 of 96 posts
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#62Here we have what I think is a display of an intelligent mind specialized in one area, funded by a state institution, and weak at resolving moral conflicts. Computer scientists (and any self-respecting scientists) HAVE to separate their ethics from the interests of state institutions. Phrases in the paper resembling something like "where the cryptographer has a duty to serve the public and keep their self-interest in…
Computer scientists (and any self-respecting scientists) HAVE to separate their ethics from the interests of state institutions.
In my opinion, cryptographers and computer scientists have ignored morally questioning their work for too long. Reality is now catching up on this, with techniques for surveillance. The paper argues this for cryptography, in my view this is even more generally applicable.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#63They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
Morality is subjective at the edges. We all share a common morality, otherwise our society would not function. Most of the common morality is captured by laws.
I completely agree with you that law enforcement officers will see it that way. I posit that that is a matter of limited perspective. They see backdoors as a means to catch criminals, and do not consider the implications for surveillance, democracy and freedom at all.
This paper is not aimed at them, it is aimed at the cryptographers, who could hopefully more easily understand that perspective.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#64Cyber-security in general is political. This guy is a cryptographer - so it is natural that he formulated this for his own area - but it is too narrow.
Hackers are now routinely the foot soldiers of the cyber-war of everyone against everyone - we need to think more about our own rules instead of following orders.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#65It is the responsibility of the inventor to think ahead as far as possible about how an invention may do good and/or harm.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel very strongly that people should decide what they think is right and fight for it. > I feel no need to convince other people that my morality is superior to theirs. Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Fighting for your morality is convincing others of its superiority. Those two things are the same thing.
> Fighting for your morality is convincing others of its superiority. Unless your morality includes letting others come to their own conclusions about what is right. In that case, trying to convince others that they should let others pick their own morals would be self-contradictory.
In what sense are you fighting for your morality, then? It isn't contradictory to hold that view, but if you hold that view, then inherently you would not fight for it.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel very strongly that people should decide what they think is right and fight for it. > I feel no need to convince other people that my morality is superior to theirs. Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Fighting for your morality is convincing others of its superiority. Those two things are the same thing.
They're not entirely the same thing. For example, if you think people have a right to privacy, one way to fight for it is to write cryptographic software, so everybody who already agrees with you can protect themselves. That doesn't require you to convince anyone who disagrees.
That isn't fighting for your morality, though. That's just making crypto software.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#68From the abstract: Cryptography rearranges power: it configures who can do what, from what. I'd argue that the reverse is really the issue that needs more attention. Online systems that do not provide strong cryptography rearrange power, as compared to their offline equivalents. It was not feasible to scan all phone calls for keywords in 1970, since that required effort from humans to do the patching and listening. T…
+100 What powerful tool is I incrementalism that the whole population has forgotten that we used to be private individuals. The unification of the human race by the Internet now threatens the relevance of overgrown governments and banks. That's why they fight us.
I wouldn't say they do it because they feel threatened—how often do bureaucrats genuinely feel threatened? Most likely they are just legitimately trying to do their jobs, and the natural tendency will be to seek any power available that seems relevant to that task. Does any individual or organization ever voluntarily cede power?
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#69They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. Genuine question: What do people who believe this use as their reason for refraining from harming others for personal gain? I understand that simple intuitive preferences against seeing others suffer will often work, but what do you do about instances where either the rewards of screwing someone over are very great or where your intuition tells you that you would get a lot of…
As I get older I've come to believe less and less that morality is subjective. I believe the NAP or non-aggression principle is as close to objective, universally-preferable morality as it gets. Certainly some people have other senses of morality, but they cannot be universally-preferable.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#70They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. Genuine question: What do people who believe this use as their reason for refraining from harming others for personal gain? I understand that simple intuitive preferences against seeing others suffer will often work, but what do you do about instances where either the rewards of screwing someone over are very great or where your intuition tells you that you would get a lot of…
Because people are not pure rational creatures. Most decisions are governed by emotion, and most people have empathy, so harming others directly is abhorrent. The rest is post-hoc justification.