3 ms·

I don't mean to say that all code has to be bug free; certainly, I hope the life-safety critical code is. But I think we, as hackers and software engineers, ne

I don't mean to say that all code has to be bug free; certainly, I hope the life-safety critical code is. But I think we, as hackers and software engineers, need to consider the ramifications that bugs can have, and then making the decision based on that balance of risk. Take an anonymous currency system, for example. Handwave away whether or not that it's actually possible to build one -- let's say you have a way to create electronic, untraceable money, and let's go one step further and say that there's no personal risk to doing so (e.g., it creates no criminal or civil liability to doing so, and costs nothing). Do you build that, or not?

WildUtah 11y ago
"Take an anonymous currency system, for example....Do you build that, or not?" Obviously you do. I don't understand why that would be a question.
- hlieberman 11y ago
  Even knowing it's likely to be used for buying and selling drugs, child porn, and assassinations? I personally believe that, even given those potential ramifications, the benefits outweigh the costs -- but my personal balance of those is not everyone's.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Yes, because it will also be used by marginalized groups to buy groceries, by sex workers who would otherwise be stuck paying huge commissions to pimps, to help hide who is buying anti-goverment printings. Every tool can be used for evil - Your drill is just as capable of drilling through someone's skull as wood.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      This is garbage and you know it. You're choosing to be deliberately blind to an accurate assessment of the consequences. If we took the article at its word, you would be put to death. Proposals for codes of ethics are about this exact issue - you don't get to build something that provides capability, then put up your hands and say you "didn't know what it was for" when it's used for something bad.
      - GauntletWizard 11y ago
        There is a major distinction between enforcing anti-fraud in advertising capabilities of your construction, and ensuring your construction is not used by anyone for malicious purposes. To claim otherwise is fraudulent.
kabdib 11y ago
I've thought about this one a lot: Yes. Definitely. "What about child porn?" We have that already; not having anonymous cash won't stop it. "What about tax fraud?" Pressuring governments to re-think corrupt, unbalanced tax systems might be a very great good. And so on. I have no question that it would be ultimately better to have this than not, although governments (forever forgetting who is really in charge) don't like it.

WildUtah 11y ago

"Take an anonymous currency system, for example....Do you build that, or not?" Obviously you do. I don't understand why that would be a question.

hlieberman 11y ago
Even knowing it's likely to be used for buying and selling drugs, child porn, and assassinations? I personally believe that, even given those potential ramifications, the benefits outweigh the costs -- but my personal balance of those is not everyone's.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Yes, because it will also be used by marginalized groups to buy groceries, by sex workers who would otherwise be stuck paying huge commissions to pimps, to help hide who is buying anti-goverment printings. Every tool can be used for evil - Your drill is just as capable of drilling through someone's skull as wood.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    This is garbage and you know it. You're choosing to be deliberately blind to an accurate assessment of the consequences. If we took the article at its word, you would be put to death. Proposals for codes of ethics are about this exact issue - you don't get to build something that provides capability, then put up your hands and say you "didn't know what it was for" when it's used for something bad.
    - GauntletWizard 11y ago
      There is a major distinction between enforcing anti-fraud in advertising capabilities of your construction, and ensuring your construction is not used by anyone for malicious purposes. To claim otherwise is fraudulent.

kabdib 11y ago

I've thought about this one a lot: Yes. Definitely. "What about child porn?" We have that already; not having anonymous cash won't stop it. "What about tax fraud?" Pressuring governments to re-think corrupt, unbalanced tax systems might be a very great good. And so on. I have no question that it would be ultimately better to have this than not, although governments (forever forgetting who is really in charge) don't like it.