4 ms·

Yes, the article, yes, but I've also been a part of too many projects like this, when a technological marvel is being developed for a number of years, creating

by abpavel 11y ago

Yes, the article, yes, but I've also been a part of too many projects like this, when a technological marvel is being developed for a number of years, creating new capabilities, technology innovations, and driving efficiencies. Thousands of American man-hours were spent in creating this marvel, only for someone to summarily judge on a whim of what was that effort was about. It wasn't about what EFF said. That just simply wasn't in the RFP/RFC/RFWhatever.

jonathankoren 11y ago
Throwing up your hands and saying, "I just built it! It's not my job to think about how it's used!" is a cop out. It's also against the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct[0]. [0] https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...
- ultramancool 11y ago
  How about "it's just a tool"? You could say the same thing about knives, cars, Tor, Bitcoin or the Internet itself if you wanted. You can't blame a creator for how a finished product is used. Their vision might greatly differ or it might not exist at all.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    When you custom build a tool and you sell it saying - specifically - that it can be "used to monitor Falun Gong members", the whole "it's just a tool, not my fault how it's used" thing becomes disingenuous.
  - djrogers 11y ago
    In this case though, the tool only had one purpose, and the creator knew exactly what the buyer would be doing with it.
    - ultramancool 11y ago
      They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Monitor, perhaps. But that's very different. It's also not exactly specified what they built - was it generic and something they might be able to sell to corporations or other governments who want traffic monitoring or something designed only for this purpose?
      - jonathankoren 11y ago
        > They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Well them they've been living under a rock. It's been officially banned for 17 years, and there's literally a wikipedia article about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
        ultramancool 11y ago
        It's entirely possible they assumed otherwise. Are you trying to say you must assume the worst possible intentions from your customers and that anything less should be illegal? Surely Tor developers could have guessed it would be used for child pornography - should that have stopped them?
        jonathankoren 11y ago
        You're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. It's completely different. At this point it's being willfully ignorant[0] and you're being intentionally obtuse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness
        ultramancool 11y ago
        > You're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. People with anonymity aren't "known actors"? You could just as easily argue willful blindness with Tor or end to end cryptography devs. And that's how I'm worried that a case like this will be used if it's successful.

by abpavel 11y ago

jonathankoren 11y ago

Throwing up your hands and saying, "I just built it! It's not my job to think about how it's used!" is a cop out. It's also against the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct[0]. [0] https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...

ultramancool 11y ago
How about "it's just a tool"? You could say the same thing about knives, cars, Tor, Bitcoin or the Internet itself if you wanted. You can't blame a creator for how a finished product is used. Their vision might greatly differ or it might not exist at all.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  When you custom build a tool and you sell it saying - specifically - that it can be "used to monitor Falun Gong members", the whole "it's just a tool, not my fault how it's used" thing becomes disingenuous.
- djrogers 11y ago
  In this case though, the tool only had one purpose, and the creator knew exactly what the buyer would be doing with it.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Monitor, perhaps. But that's very different. It's also not exactly specified what they built - was it generic and something they might be able to sell to corporations or other governments who want traffic monitoring or something designed only for this purpose?
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      > They knew they'd use it to torture? I highly doubt that. Well them they've been living under a rock. It's been officially banned for 17 years, and there's literally a wikipedia article about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong
      - ultramancool 11y ago
        It's entirely possible they assumed otherwise. Are you trying to say you must assume the worst possible intentions from your customers and that anything less should be illegal? Surely Tor developers could have guessed it would be used for child pornography - should that have stopped them?
        jonathankoren 11y ago
        You're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. It's completely different. At this point it's being willfully ignorant[0] and you're being intentionally obtuse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness
        ultramancool 11y ago
        > You're dealing with a known actor with a known track record against a known target. People with anonymity aren't "known actors"? You could just as easily argue willful blindness with Tor or end to end cryptography devs. And that's how I'm worried that a case like this will be used if it's successful.