4 ms·

I'm inclined to agree. I'd like to see more active ostracisation against software developers that have worked for organisations like the NSA and GCHQ. If we can

I'm inclined to agree. I'd like to see more active ostracisation against software developers that have worked for organisations like the NSA and GCHQ. If we can make it a career ending job, it will dramatically reduce their ability to recruit. However, I'd also like to see general software development think more closely about the role it has in normalising these things. Next time you start to create an account system for your project, ask yourself whether you really need it. Could you engineer around it, perhaps by letting the user store their data, or using a stored key to identify them? Let's go beyond don't store what you can't protect, and aim for don't store what you don't strictly need.

rhino369 11y ago
How is Google or Facebook any better? They are spy agencies for advertising purposes instead of national security. Or companies that deploy ad sense or otherwise depend on companies like Google or Facebook.
- Cakez0r 11y ago
  People have a choice (at least to some extent) about the data they share with Google and Facebook. There is no such choice about the information that governments scoop up.
- blub 11y ago
  Exactly. Between themselves, Google & Facebook have access to a disturbingly large amount of the private information and the thoughts of billions of persons. Pictures, emails, messages, social graphs, you name it. And now Microsoft decided they also want a piece of the pie. The kicker? I see people still defend Google all the time, nowadays with bullshit arguments like "I am tired of this you are the product meme" and still excuse Facebook because they need it to keep in touch with others. And they found startups based on advertising and tracking, they work for them and generally support analytics as an inalienable right of software development.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Because one problem at a time. Instead of throwing up ones hands because some other thing is bad, too.
  - Sir_Substance 11y ago
    >Because one problem at a time. Pretty much. I don't use Facebook at all, and give in to Google only on technical searches (Which DDG still isn't good at), mapping and when forced to by work (GCE etc.), so you're preaching to the choir, but lets not try for an overnight coup here.
mattlutze 11y ago
But... NSA, GCHQ, BSI/BND, etc. aren't the "bad guy" in theory. It's within a nation's interest to, within the extent of law and respect for human rights, try as thoroughly has it can to know what's going on in the world. Electronic intelligence is part of that, and a growing part. In practice, the permissive reactions many/most/all governments have to allegations (or proof) that a comms intel agency has broken the law, that's what the trouble is. That these groups have been allowed to break the law or ghostwrite laws that allow them to violate what would generally not be approved by a citizenry, that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure how ruining the careers of software developers and computer scientists who've worked for these organizations does anything other than remove from circulation some brilliant members of our community. Ostracize the middle managers, bureaucrats, politicians that allow the trampling of our rights. But don't arrest the guy designing the home theater system for El Chapo's vacation house and tell me you've taken down the Mexican drug cartel.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cryoshon 11y ago
  In reality, the software engineers that work for the above are the goons of the bad guys, and we cannot allow them to continue their work as it is detrimental to our interests. Any amount of perspective informs them that what they are doing is not supportive of a democratic state, yet they continue anyway. Why must we accommodate their subservience? Following orders is no excuse.
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  >NSA, GCHQ, BSI/BND, etc. aren't the "bad guy" in theory. Theory is not really relevant when the practical reality is monstrous. The five eyes are not redeemable.
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    Theory is of course relevant when the implementation of it, and the environment that it's implemented in, is what is poisoned. It's easy for us to sit at our desks and churn out our work and be mad. And there's things to be mad about for sure. The wanton disregard for civil liberty and protection is simply irredeemable. And to be sure, I've been a fan of your country's very public responses over the last few years to personal privacy. I hope the US legislature can learn a thing or two. But It's not the "five eyes". It's the entire world. Any country with an interest in protecting their sovereignty also has some form of information gathering operation. When that operation gets big and exposes itself, folks get upset because, yeah, being spied on isn't a comfortable thing. Do some countries go about gathering this information more morally than others? Something tells me we'd have to be in the secret inner sanctums of the biggest opponents to really know, and I think the answer would be "a spade is a spade." Does it help our countries protect themselves? I honestly don't know. But I do know that "grey hatting" in the general development community doesn't garner this sort of bile and venom. I don't know why being a grey hat for a government should be treated differently.
assocguilt 11y ago
Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. Said person could have in fact done something very important for their country. Who are you associated with that I (or society) doesn't like? Maybe your career should be ended for working with an organisation that has done something unethical whether you were involved or not? Freedom of association is one of the cornerstones of a free society. You need to think long and hard about your opinions my friend. I also had myopic opinions when I was fresh out of college though - filed under shithnsays
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  >Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. If the NSA would like to declassify it's employees job history in a credible and verifiable fashion, I'd be keen to take this on a case by case basis. It is possible that the NSA is hiring engineers for benign reasons. If that's the case, I assume they are not classifying that work. After all, the government should not be withholding information from the public without cause. As it stands, it is reasonable, in light of the revelations of the last several years, to suppose that any engineer who cannot reveal their work history with an intelligence agency has performed unethical work. This is what's known as "preponderance of evidence". >Who are you associated with that I (or society) doesn't like? What a fascinating question. So many insights to your character. I'm entitled to associate with whom I like, and your seedy, toad-like implication that for even suggesting such a thing as personal accountability, I must be a state enemy has the delicious tang of a low quality KGB-centric TV serial. You know, the kind in which the plucky all-american hero fights back against the oppression of a totalitarian russian government. It would be funny if global law enforcement wasn't looking towards digitally predicted thought crime as a genuine goal. So speculate freely, because the real answer is terribly dull: I'm a normal citizen, posting my opinions on an internet forum and associating with you.
  - assocguilt 11y ago
    That question provides zero insight into my character but it does shed some light on your lack of intelligence. I don't actually care who you associate with - it was a thought game - you are saying that you are for guilt via association (or at least I assumed you were) which I was I tried to throw that principle back in your face. Jeez, do you need jokes explaining to you too? The fact you think my inability to talk about some secret work I have done means that I've done something unethical is ridiculous.

rhino369 11y ago

How is Google or Facebook any better? They are spy agencies for advertising purposes instead of national security. Or companies that deploy ad sense or otherwise depend on companies like Google or Facebook.

Cakez0r 11y ago
People have a choice (at least to some extent) about the data they share with Google and Facebook. There is no such choice about the information that governments scoop up.
blub 11y ago
Exactly. Between themselves, Google & Facebook have access to a disturbingly large amount of the private information and the thoughts of billions of persons. Pictures, emails, messages, social graphs, you name it. And now Microsoft decided they also want a piece of the pie. The kicker? I see people still defend Google all the time, nowadays with bullshit arguments like "I am tired of this you are the product meme" and still excuse Facebook because they need it to keep in touch with others. And they found startups based on advertising and tracking, they work for them and generally support analytics as an inalienable right of software development.
Zigurd 11y ago
Because one problem at a time. Instead of throwing up ones hands because some other thing is bad, too.
- Sir_Substance 11y ago
  >Because one problem at a time. Pretty much. I don't use Facebook at all, and give in to Google only on technical searches (Which DDG still isn't good at), mapping and when forced to by work (GCE etc.), so you're preaching to the choir, but lets not try for an overnight coup here.

mattlutze 11y ago

But... NSA, GCHQ, BSI/BND, etc. aren't the "bad guy" in theory. It's within a nation's interest to, within the extent of law and respect for human rights, try as thoroughly has it can to know what's going on in the world. Electronic intelligence is part of that, and a growing part. In practice, the permissive reactions many/most/all governments have to allegations (or proof) that a comms intel agency has broken the law, that's what the trouble is. That these groups have been allowed to break the law or ghostwrite laws that allow them to violate what would generally not be approved by a citizenry, that needs to be addressed. I'm not sure how ruining the careers of software developers and computer scientists who've worked for these organizations does anything other than remove from circulation some brilliant members of our community. Ostracize the middle managers, bureaucrats, politicians that allow the trampling of our rights. But don't arrest the guy designing the home theater system for El Chapo's vacation house and tell me you've taken down the Mexican drug cartel.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cryoshon 11y ago
In reality, the software engineers that work for the above are the goons of the bad guys, and we cannot allow them to continue their work as it is detrimental to our interests. Any amount of perspective informs them that what they are doing is not supportive of a democratic state, yet they continue anyway. Why must we accommodate their subservience? Following orders is no excuse.
Sir_Substance 11y ago
>NSA, GCHQ, BSI/BND, etc. aren't the "bad guy" in theory. Theory is not really relevant when the practical reality is monstrous. The five eyes are not redeemable.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Theory is of course relevant when the implementation of it, and the environment that it's implemented in, is what is poisoned. It's easy for us to sit at our desks and churn out our work and be mad. And there's things to be mad about for sure. The wanton disregard for civil liberty and protection is simply irredeemable. And to be sure, I've been a fan of your country's very public responses over the last few years to personal privacy. I hope the US legislature can learn a thing or two. But It's not the "five eyes". It's the entire world. Any country with an interest in protecting their sovereignty also has some form of information gathering operation. When that operation gets big and exposes itself, folks get upset because, yeah, being spied on isn't a comfortable thing. Do some countries go about gathering this information more morally than others? Something tells me we'd have to be in the secret inner sanctums of the biggest opponents to really know, and I think the answer would be "a spade is a spade." Does it help our countries protect themselves? I honestly don't know. But I do know that "grey hatting" in the general development community doesn't garner this sort of bile and venom. I don't know why being a grey hat for a government should be treated differently.

assocguilt 11y ago

Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. Said person could have in fact done something very important for their country. Who are you associated with that I (or society) doesn't like? Maybe your career should be ended for working with an organisation that has done something unethical whether you were involved or not? Freedom of association is one of the cornerstones of a free society. You need to think long and hard about your opinions my friend. I also had myopic opinions when I was fresh out of college though - filed under shithnsays

Sir_Substance 11y ago
>Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. If the NSA would like to declassify it's employees job history in a credible and verifiable fashion, I'd be keen to take this on a case by case basis. It is possible that the NSA is hiring engineers for benign reasons. If that's the case, I assume they are not classifying that work. After all, the government should not be withholding information from the public without cause. As it stands, it is reasonable, in light of the revelations of the last several years, to suppose that any engineer who cannot reveal their work history with an intelligence agency has performed unethical work. This is what's known as "preponderance of evidence". >Who are you associated with that I (or society) doesn't like? What a fascinating question. So many insights to your character. I'm entitled to associate with whom I like, and your seedy, toad-like implication that for even suggesting such a thing as personal accountability, I must be a state enemy has the delicious tang of a low quality KGB-centric TV serial. You know, the kind in which the plucky all-american hero fights back against the oppression of a totalitarian russian government. It would be funny if global law enforcement wasn't looking towards digitally predicted thought crime as a genuine goal. So speculate freely, because the real answer is terribly dull: I'm a normal citizen, posting my opinions on an internet forum and associating with you.
- assocguilt 11y ago
  That question provides zero insight into my character but it does shed some light on your lack of intelligence. I don't actually care who you associate with - it was a thought game - you are saying that you are for guilt via association (or at least I assumed you were) which I was I tried to throw that principle back in your face. Jeez, do you need jokes explaining to you too? The fact you think my inability to talk about some secret work I have done means that I've done something unethical is ridiculous.