8 ms·

I just mentioned how this could be interpreted as a draft to my mother who grew up watching the Vietnam draft, and she immediately brought up an interesting que

by pdkl95 11y ago

I just mentioned how this could be interpreted as a draft to my mother who grew up watching the Vietnam draft, and she immediately brought up an interesting question: "Can you be a conscientious objector?" Given that nobody is being put in a position where they might have to use deadly force, the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply. While suspect it would be hard to extend the concept to the orders given to Apple, the fact that the engineers involved would even consider resignation make it clear how strongly they object to the order.

sp_ 11y ago
I'm not saying I'm a conscientious objector, but I write a whole lotta bugs under stress conditions. This may take a while ...
eximius 11y ago
I don't think you can 'conscientiously object' to any law you want, so no. Though I probably would anyway. - I'd like to think. It's hard to really know.
peteretep 11y ago
You need to prove your conscientious objections to a court. Unless you've got an existing history of privacy activism, that's going to be a challenge.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  If you have spent your career improving privacy software.... this is going to be easy. It's a bit like worrying about establishing your religious bona fides if you're a bishop.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > It's a bit like worrying about establishing your > religious bona fides if you're a bishop I have created a whole lot of software for money. None of it gives any insight in to my conscience. A better example would be trying to establish religious bona fides as a result of being a carpenter who makes church pews.
    - BWStearns 11y ago
      To beat the analogy to death, only if people came to church primarily for the pews. The reason every bishop would have religious bona fides is because the job inherently requires the conviction. You wouldn't be a security researcher/engineer if you didn't believe in building secure systems. A web developer might be a carpenter in the analogy, sure they might be religious, but it's not inherent in their job.
hysan 11y ago
> the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply Unless they are atheist/agnostic and claim that this is a core belief for them. Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs. It would be interesting to force the courts to make a judgement on the differences between the moral tenants atheists/agnostics follow and that of established religions.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  >> Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs If you only consider the subset of security related/conscious programmers they're fairly outspoken and on these particular issues they're probably more orthodox than comparable religious constituencies are on organized violence for which there have been pacifist exemptions. I'm not familiar with the law regarding conscientious objection (it's late, now I have my tangent reading for tomorrow) but I'd presume the first amendment would require that a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one?
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one? That's correct, which is why I mentioned "pacifist or religious arguments". Various types of pacifist arguments have been recognized in the past, of both religious and secular origins. From the Selective Service[1]: WHO QUALIFIES? Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims. While religious tests are generally banned, the government can scrutinize the veracity of a claim. I would be very difficult convince a judge that you legitimately believe something if you don't have at least some kind of verifiable history or you regularly engage in behavior that is contradictory with that belief. It's worth pointing out that being a conscientious objector doesn't necessarily excuse you from having to work for the government; as mentioned in [1], there are "alternate services" available for people that object to the usual draft. I have no idea how any of this would apply to objecting to creating mass security vulnerabilities. It almost certainly requires a test case and judicial ruling. [1] https://www.sss.gov/consobj https://www.sss.gov/consobj

by pdkl95 11y ago

sp_ 11y ago

I'm not saying I'm a conscientious objector, but I write a whole lotta bugs under stress conditions. This may take a while ...

eximius 11y ago

I don't think you can 'conscientiously object' to any law you want, so no. Though I probably would anyway. - I'd like to think. It's hard to really know.

peteretep 11y ago

You need to prove your conscientious objections to a court. Unless you've got an existing history of privacy activism, that's going to be a challenge.

BWStearns 11y ago
If you have spent your career improving privacy software.... this is going to be easy. It's a bit like worrying about establishing your religious bona fides if you're a bishop.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > It's a bit like worrying about establishing your > religious bona fides if you're a bishop I have created a whole lot of software for money. None of it gives any insight in to my conscience. A better example would be trying to establish religious bona fides as a result of being a carpenter who makes church pews.
  - BWStearns 11y ago
    To beat the analogy to death, only if people came to church primarily for the pews. The reason every bishop would have religious bona fides is because the job inherently requires the conviction. You wouldn't be a security researcher/engineer if you didn't believe in building secure systems. A web developer might be a carpenter in the analogy, sure they might be religious, but it's not inherent in their job.

hysan 11y ago

> the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply Unless they are atheist/agnostic and claim that this is a core belief for them. Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs. It would be interesting to force the courts to make a judgement on the differences between the moral tenants atheists/agnostics follow and that of established religions.

BWStearns 11y ago
>> Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs If you only consider the subset of security related/conscious programmers they're fairly outspoken and on these particular issues they're probably more orthodox than comparable religious constituencies are on organized violence for which there have been pacifist exemptions. I'm not familiar with the law regarding conscientious objection (it's late, now I have my tangent reading for tomorrow) but I'd presume the first amendment would require that a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one?
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one? That's correct, which is why I mentioned "pacifist or religious arguments". Various types of pacifist arguments have been recognized in the past, of both religious and secular origins. From the Selective Service[1]: WHO QUALIFIES? Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims. While religious tests are generally banned, the government can scrutinize the veracity of a claim. I would be very difficult convince a judge that you legitimately believe something if you don't have at least some kind of verifiable history or you regularly engage in behavior that is contradictory with that belief. It's worth pointing out that being a conscientious objector doesn't necessarily excuse you from having to work for the government; as mentioned in [1], there are "alternate services" available for people that object to the usual draft. I have no idea how any of this would apply to objecting to creating mass security vulnerabilities. It almost certainly requires a test case and judicial ruling. [1] https://www.sss.gov/consobj https://www.sss.gov/consobj