9 ms·

I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry

I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry. The missing scruples here could fill several large containers.

nxzero 10y ago
How would this solve anything?
- milge 10y ago
  In the same way police corruption would be fixed if the good eggs didn't protect the bad ones.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Poor comparison and illogical too. "Bad cops" have committed acts which are illegal; where were illegal acts committed in the story? Even if organizationally there wasn't a tendency to protect the organization, this would not end the issue.
    - gherkin0 10y ago
      The acts may not be "illegal" but they are unjust and immoral.
      - nxzero 10y ago
        You mean like punishment without due process? (aka a blacklist)
- kirykl 10y ago
  it'd be like Pharma companies refusing to manufacture lethal injection
  - nxzero 10y ago
    No, it would not. Blacklisting someone without due process is not the same thing as refusing to produce a drug to kill someone.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
The missing scruples are what make the people responsible for this valuable. You don't want someone who might have a moral crisis working on a product that can and will be easily wielded for abuse.
elorant 10y ago
Yeah, sure, let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments. Blacklisting individuals isn't going to solve any problem whatsoever and we run the risk of alienating a whole bunch of people who will then might go out and do even worst things than writing software for questionable companies. We need laws that prevent those things. That's the only way this can be resolved. We're a huge community with an equally huge influence and resources. Let's coordinate and use our power for a good cause, instead of resurrecting witch-hunting practices.
- ProAm 10y ago
  > let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments The government is made up of it's constituents, we should absolutely blacklist those people to let them know we are not OK with this. You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest to do that, nor is it for them to implement 'better' legislation. Ideally that would be great, but we are WAY past that being a realistic possibility in America.
  - tremon 10y ago
    The government is made up of it's constituents [..] You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest I don't think you meant what you wrote there. You're saying government transparency is not in the best interest of its citizens?
    - ProAm 10y ago
      No I did. In theory the government is made up of its own people, so my first sentence meant I deem it acceptable to blacklist private companies that provide these products and services to the government. But also in the same breathe, people in government are also extremely self serving, and it does them no good to provide more transparency when their current paychecks benefit from a lack of transparency. I can see how that appears to be contradictory but I did not mean for it to be taken in that manner, hope this clears up my statement.
brbsix 10y ago
I've always wondered about the people engineering devices like this, the people at Harris Corp. creating Stingrays and other surveillance platforms, how they feel about their work. Listing individual employees might be a bit much, but we could certainly create one of companies involved. Unfortunately I fear it would be a long list.
- eonw 10y ago
  im sure their most important hiring aspect is a certain mindset. once you get someone truly believing they are working on the side of good, they will do just about anything. zealotry is alive and well.
  - kpil 10y ago
    I'm sure Stingrays catches a lot of bad guys. The problem is if the police is corrupted and are using it outside the law, or not by the intention of the law. (As this civil case nonsense)
- joncp 10y ago
  Harris has very very high turnover. I believe that people get hired not knowing what they're getting into. It takes a while to figure out that not all is as it should be.
- sonthonax 10y ago
  Stingrays were used by NATO forces in Afghanistan to listen into Taliban mobile phone chatter, as they didn't use radios.
- Merad 10y ago
  Most people don't have a moral backbone nearly as string as they think they do. There was an article last week, posted here IIRC, about a an adware company in the northeast that was apparently a pretty good employer other than morally and ethically repugnant nature of the product being created. Several of the employees interviewed talked about the mental hoops they jumped through to justify working there.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
awt 10y ago
Kudos. +1 for ostracism of the cowardly amoral shits building and using this stuff.

nxzero 10y ago

How would this solve anything?

milge 10y ago
In the same way police corruption would be fixed if the good eggs didn't protect the bad ones.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Poor comparison and illogical too. "Bad cops" have committed acts which are illegal; where were illegal acts committed in the story? Even if organizationally there wasn't a tendency to protect the organization, this would not end the issue.
  - gherkin0 10y ago
    The acts may not be "illegal" but they are unjust and immoral.
    - nxzero 10y ago
      You mean like punishment without due process? (aka a blacklist)
kirykl 10y ago
it'd be like Pharma companies refusing to manufacture lethal injection
- nxzero 10y ago
  No, it would not. Blacklisting someone without due process is not the same thing as refusing to produce a drug to kill someone.

fucking_tragedy 10y ago

The missing scruples are what make the people responsible for this valuable. You don't want someone who might have a moral crisis working on a product that can and will be easily wielded for abuse.

elorant 10y ago

Yeah, sure, let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments. Blacklisting individuals isn't going to solve any problem whatsoever and we run the risk of alienating a whole bunch of people who will then might go out and do even worst things than writing software for questionable companies. We need laws that prevent those things. That's the only way this can be resolved. We're a huge community with an equally huge influence and resources. Let's coordinate and use our power for a good cause, instead of resurrecting witch-hunting practices.

ProAm 10y ago
> let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments The government is made up of it's constituents, we should absolutely blacklist those people to let them know we are not OK with this. You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest to do that, nor is it for them to implement 'better' legislation. Ideally that would be great, but we are WAY past that being a realistic possibility in America.
- tremon 10y ago
  The government is made up of it's constituents [..] You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest I don't think you meant what you wrote there. You're saying government transparency is not in the best interest of its citizens?
  - ProAm 10y ago
    No I did. In theory the government is made up of its own people, so my first sentence meant I deem it acceptable to blacklist private companies that provide these products and services to the government. But also in the same breathe, people in government are also extremely self serving, and it does them no good to provide more transparency when their current paychecks benefit from a lack of transparency. I can see how that appears to be contradictory but I did not mean for it to be taken in that manner, hope this clears up my statement.

brbsix 10y ago

I've always wondered about the people engineering devices like this, the people at Harris Corp. creating Stingrays and other surveillance platforms, how they feel about their work. Listing individual employees might be a bit much, but we could certainly create one of companies involved. Unfortunately I fear it would be a long list.

eonw 10y ago
im sure their most important hiring aspect is a certain mindset. once you get someone truly believing they are working on the side of good, they will do just about anything. zealotry is alive and well.
- kpil 10y ago
  I'm sure Stingrays catches a lot of bad guys. The problem is if the police is corrupted and are using it outside the law, or not by the intention of the law. (As this civil case nonsense)
joncp 10y ago
Harris has very very high turnover. I believe that people get hired not knowing what they're getting into. It takes a while to figure out that not all is as it should be.
sonthonax 10y ago
Stingrays were used by NATO forces in Afghanistan to listen into Taliban mobile phone chatter, as they didn't use radios.
Merad 10y ago
Most people don't have a moral backbone nearly as string as they think they do. There was an article last week, posted here IIRC, about a an adware company in the northeast that was apparently a pretty good employer other than morally and ethically repugnant nature of the product being created. Several of the employees interviewed talked about the mental hoops they jumped through to justify working there.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

awt 10y ago

Kudos. +1 for ostracism of the cowardly amoral shits building and using this stuff.