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

Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

blog.pragmaticengineer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 369 posts

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#71

Post by dooglius »

amelius wrote: post #27
sltr wrote: post #3

Software developers should sign a code of ethics, like other professions do and then cite it when asked to do unscrupulous things. This would work for activities that aren't illegal but still unethical, like defaulting user privacy choices to open/public. Citing professional organizations like ACM or IEEE would deter retaliation.

Yes, the Hippocratic Oath works quite well even if it has no legal underpinnings, so why not use the same idea for developers? Indeed ACM and IEEE could draft one.

Why do you believe it works? I don't particularly get the sense it has any effect whatsoever, particularly in cases where doctors are pressured to do harm. (There's also a lot of ambiguity left in what constitutes "harm")

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#72

Post by graemep »

bsenftner wrote: post #38
pjc50 wrote: post #32

> Frank was a student loan startup founded by Charlie Javice in 2016. In 2019, Javice was featured on the Forbes “30 under 30” There was a joke going around Twitter about "30 under 30 doing 30 to life", because the startups involved were getting more and more outlandish to the extent that bystanders suspected that fraud was going on. Became a Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/06/forbes-3…

I've been doing this tech nonsense at moderately high levels for over 45 years now, and over the years I've had business dealings with members of these "30 under 30" lists, and every single fucking time it's a conman, a grifter. I don't even bother with heavily marketed individuals nor their flagships anymore. They are nonsense.

It reminds me of one of two people (at the same time and place in my life) I was introduced to because they shared national origin (i.e. nationality at birth, or parents nationality) with me.

One later got into the Sunday Times rich list (the under 40 section, IIRC) during the dot com bubble, by the simple expedient of lying. He claimed to be working on encryption software that was hugely valuable and said it was valued in billions. He actually owned a smallish local computer shop. He later fled the country claiming MI5 were persecuting him for developing such good encryption software.

TO be fair, he seems to have fooled financial institutions too. He bought a Ferarri (presumably on credit) and Amex gave him a black card (which he tastefully put a picture of on the company website). It did not take a lot to see through the fraud, the actual business was decribed on the website.

The other person I got introduced to around the same time for the same reason turned out to be a member of a terrorist organisation. Not banned here at the time, but still not someone I particularly wanted to meet.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#73

Post by abxyz »

pjc50 wrote: post #54
abxyz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK libel law routinely covers up all sorts of things which the public would benefit from having revealed, simply by the threat of an expensive lawsuit. It makes investigative journalism really uneconomic. No. The deference people have to the law as some sort of all knowing all powerful magic spell that can be cast to force silence at any time is to blame. Libel is publishing something you know to be untrue. The tru…

https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-tw... > The costs in this case were significant, with Vardy being ordered to pay a substantial proportion of Rooney’s legal fees. Initially, the court ordered Vardy to pay £1.5 million in costs, earlier this month, it was revealed that Vardy had been ordered to pay an additional £100,000, bringing the total to £1.6 million. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noe…

You are (wilfully?) misrepresenting these cases. The defence in each of these cases chose to employ very expensive legal teams, the cost in these cases is a reflection of choices made by the defendant, not the cost of defending against a claim of libel. As an individual defendant in a libel case, there would be no obligation to incur such costs.

Noel Clarke's legal team were working on a no-win no-fee basis (before they saw the writing on the wall and dropped him as a client, leading him to represent himself). The Guardian had no obligation to spend over £6 million on their defence, it was a choice they made. Indeed, one could argue that The Guardian chose to spend so much to send a message to those that consider baseless libel legal action in future, that The Guardian is willing to spend any amount of money to defend itself.

If you are an individual who posts the truth online, and you are sued for libel, you can spend very little on mounting a defence (you may even choose to represent yourself for free). Whether the litigant spends thousands, millions or billions on their action against you is immaterial as it is their cost, not yours.

As for Jack Monroe vs. Hopkins, Jack Monroe is a fraud. Justice did not prevail, although Hopkins losing her house was a nice treat.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#74

Post by abxyz »

closewith wrote: post #65
pjc50 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.msrs.co.uk/the-libel-labyrinth-navigating-the-tw... > The costs in this case were significant, with Vardy being ordered to pay a substantial proportion of Rooney’s legal fees. Initially, the court ordered Vardy to pay £1.5 million in costs, earlier this month, it was revealed that Vardy had been ordered to pay an additional £100,000, bringing the total to £1.6 million. https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/news/noe…

Yes, I once made a bug report based to a client's supplier (overly permissive API endpoint was leading user data) and became the subject of the a spurious defamation letter. It was obviously unwinnable on the supplier's part, never went past solicitor's letters, and still cost high four figures to defend. Nothing like some of the real horror stories, but still a significant chilling effect.

> ...and still cost high four figures to defend

You do not need to "defend" against a "spurious defamation letter". The (very profitable) business of sending legal letters is based on the misunderstanding of the law that is perpetuated online. Legal letters are to law firms what bandwidth is to cloud hosting providers: free money.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#75

Post by krageon »

abxyz wrote: post #74
closewith wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I once made a bug report based to a client's supplier (overly permissive API endpoint was leading user data) and became the subject of the a spurious defamation letter. It was obviously unwinnable on the supplier's part, never went past solicitor's letters, and still cost high four figures to defend. Nothing like some of the real horror stories, but still a significant chilling effect.

> ...and still cost high four figures to defend You do not need to "defend" against a "spurious defamation letter". The (very profitable) business of sending legal letters is based on the misunderstanding of the law that is perpetuated online. Legal letters are to law firms what bandwidth is to cloud hosting providers: free money.

Bandwidth isn't free to a cloud hosting provider in any real sense of the word. It's not priced in relation to cost, but it definitely does cost

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#76

Post by krageon »

potato3732842 wrote: post #13
comrade1234 wrote: post #6

I was working with someone on a large government project. At the beginning I told him that we cannot pad our hours at the end of the year to run the contract out and then make up for it with extra hours in the next year like we do with business clients because it is illegal and further because it's a $1M+ contract could lead to prison. Of course I found out that he was going into our billing software and adding hours…

You had record of your correspondance with the lawyer. All you had to do was report it to the liaison and keep punching the clock. Unless you were getting paid more because of the overages the enforcers dgaf about you.

They do care - they care because they have an inflated impression of their own importance and you seem guilty, so you must be.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#77

Post by nerdsniper »

scott_w wrote: post #64
flir wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary That's probably a good starting point for a dive into that question.

I remember a lot of fuss being made about these but, as time goes on, I'm very sceptical they can work. Looking at the Afghan data leak reported earlier this year: courts can make it practically difficult for most of the organisation to even know they're subject to court orders! The person updating the website asks "have we received a court order?" and the person under injunction must answer "not me." The website aut…

I'd think the CEO would know, would they not? And the CEO could tell the person updating the website: "Let's go ahead and remove the canary, we don't need it anymore." --> "OMG, did we get secretly subpoena'd?" ---> "No, not yet, but I just don't want to run the warrant canary anymore."

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#78

Post by closewith »

abxyz wrote: post #74
closewith wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I once made a bug report based to a client's supplier (overly permissive API endpoint was leading user data) and became the subject of the a spurious defamation letter. It was obviously unwinnable on the supplier's part, never went past solicitor's letters, and still cost high four figures to defend. Nothing like some of the real horror stories, but still a significant chilling effect.

> ...and still cost high four figures to defend You do not need to "defend" against a "spurious defamation letter". The (very profitable) business of sending legal letters is based on the misunderstanding of the law that is perpetuated online. Legal letters are to law firms what bandwidth is to cloud hosting providers: free money.

In the UK, under the UK Civil Procedure Rules, you are expected to engage in the Pre-Action Protocol and provide a substantive response within 14 days, and failure to do so can effect you credibility and standing in court. So you do not have to respond, but not doing so risks sanction from the court for non-engagement.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#79

Post by wink »

somenameforme wrote: post #63
mattlondon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it sound clear sure. But then the article has been edited. I would not have been surprised if the 5 million user thing was couched as some sort of "we need to generate some realistic test data to load test our systems - please create 5 million accounts very similar to these paying ones, remember this is testing so they need to be as realistic and believable as possible ". If I got that request (perh…

Even if somebody gave no pretext, I don't think that, in and of itself, is illegal. Though it could be used for illegal things. For instance early on Reddit actively created fake accounts, fake votes, fake comments, and all other sorts of stuff in the process of trying to reach critical mass. I really doubt that was illegal. OTOH if somebody sent a message saying, 'Hey we need to increase our apparent paying users in…

I think there is a big difference between faking 10k users and then going to investors at 1m users years later (it's a morally dubious kickstart) or in this case for the sake of the sale/investment going to 1400%.

Re: Asked to do something illegal at work? Here's what these software engineers did

#80

Post by em-bee »

surgical_fire wrote: post #30
OskarS wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that you have a moral and ethical responsibility to say no when your manager asks you to do something illegal, even if it does cost you your job. The law is the law, and there is no excuse for breaking it. Your manager is certainly culpable, but if you act against the law, you are culpable as well. The exception is if you fear literal physical violence against you or others, or are being blackmailed or…

"losing your job", for a lot of people, is extremely effective coercion. We are not talking about luxury here. A lot of people depend on their salary to pay rent and put food on the table. This is even more pressing if you have a family that depends on you, if you are in need of healthcare, etc. What your post fails to recognize is that in the current system, labor is already a form of coercion. You need to work beca…

If you can avoid those even when unemployed

that would be all developed countries except the united states

Post reply on HN