4 ms·

Wow. This is probably the worst comment I've ever seen on HN. You're suggesting that people who follow the law, which you disagree with, get blacklisted, foll

by bbarn 10y ago

Wow. This is probably the worst comment I've ever seen on HN. You're suggesting that people who follow the law, which you disagree with, get blacklisted, following the model of criminals killing other criminals who follow the law. If you want to change the government, there are far better ways than retaliating against citizens unwilling to risk life and limb for your ideology. I think you need to learn to direct your anger. Not everyone is in so privileged of a position to be taking your specific moral high ground over their own well being.

throwaway21013 10y ago
Troll. Period.
hbt 10y ago
So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? Let me guess, you believe all government actions are lawful. All lawful actions are righteous and justified. The only permissible way to change the system is through the system. Did I get the gist of your morality? In which case, keep voting and I'm sure you will see the changes you want reflected in legislation just so they can be ignored in by secret courts and intelligence services. In the real world, people respond to threats (e.g prison). That's what the government uses. Why are we expected to behave differently?
- bbarn 10y ago
  > So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? It's an expression. How about "Losing your livelyhood." It's a real thing for some people. > Let me guess, you believe all government actions are lawful. All lawful actions are righteous and justified. The only permissible way to change the system is through the system. Did I get the gist of your morality? You're way off on my morality. It's more centered on not causing harm to others, which is what you're suggesting people do, to others that don't fit your sense of morality. > In which case, keep voting and I'm sure you will see the changes you want reflected in legislation just so they can be ignored in by secret courts and intelligence services. In the real world, people respond to threats (e.g prison). That's what the government uses. Why are we expected to behave differently? Do you really think voting or threats are the only two methods to enact change? Neither work particularly well. What does work well is changing the opinion of the majority, and until you do that, you must question whether your minority opinion is actually the correct one, and provide reasons for others to change their opinion of you believe it to be so. Taking the low road and suggesting punishing people who aren't the cause will get you nothing but negative comments on hackernews.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? In a capitalist system, where your alternatives are "work or stave", yes.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    Only if you can't get another job. That's not likely to be a problem for most people faced with this particular situation.
- yarou 10y ago
  You don't seem to understand Nash equilibrium, game theory, and the Prisoner's Dilemma.
sk5t 10y ago
It is legal, and perhaps moral, to refuse to work with unethical people who follow immoral/illegitimate orders. While the mention of "snitches get stitches" set things down the wrong path, the core idea is not unjust.
fsloth 10y ago
While I do think the concept of community ostracision is impractical (because there is never only one tech community to start with) - "I just followed the law" is never a moral free pass. Given that what law means actually is daily debated in courtrooms it's not only morally hollow, it's uncomputable to an individual in the general sense. "I just did what the authority figure told me to" is one the oldest excuses in the book.
- bbarn 10y ago
  To be clear - I am not suggesting that everything on the books should be followed, I am suggesting that punishing people who are following these specific laws in question, which are following NSA letters and gag orders, does not fit what I think is the commonly accepted way we treat each other.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Yes. I agree with this sentiment fully. The main connotation which invoked my response was equalling the resentment of following the law unilaterally to the mindset of a criminal organization.
rodgerd 10y ago
> Wow. This is probably the worst comment I've ever seen on HN. You're suggesting that people who follow the law, which you disagree with, get blacklisted, following the model of criminals killing other criminals who follow the law. Because everything legal is good. People like you are what Stalin, Hitler, and Mao rely on.
- bbarn 10y ago
  Where did I say anything remotely like that? You're taking an ideological stance on privacy, one I generally agree with, and forgetting the motivator behind the overreaching laws, which is quite simply to ATTEMPT to do something to make this country safer. Does it work? I don't think so, but a lot of people do. It's pretty hard to quantify since the data isn't open, and by its nature can't be. It's a pretty severe jump from disagreeing with whether or not this system works, and what liberties can challenge the system, to pulling your godwin card out.
  - steveax 10y ago
    One can never know the motivations of others, full stop.
bambax 10y ago
1/ For the most part, this is not the "law". We're talking about instructions that have not been legally challenged, that are issued by a government agency, ie civil servants that are not responsible to the people. 2/ In any case "the law" is only the result of a very imperfect process; it's not the word of God: it can be changed (it often is) and it doesn't have any special moral value. Your moral code is yours, it's dictated by your conscience and should not be taken whole from texts written by other people. In the 20th century, many crimes have been committed by people following the law, and not just in Nazi Germany. French Jews were arrested and delivered to the German authorities by members of the French police who were simply following orders. The ones giving the orders have indeed been tried after the war, but not the ones following them; in fact they never had to suffer any consequence for their actions. But the truth is, had there been no cops willing to participate, there would have been no deportations. "I'm just doing my job" or "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid excuse. It's a cop out (pun intended).
mindcrime 10y ago
Not everyone is in so privileged of a position to be taking your specific moral high ground over their own well being. "Privilege" doesn't enter into it. Everybody has the option to do the right thing, if they're willing to accept the consequences. Not everybody will of course, but there's nothing truly preventing one from doing so.
- dagw 10y ago
  The difference is that for some people the "consequence" for doing the right thing is that they'll have to get a new, but similar, job while for other people it's watching their family being tortured to death. Saying that these two people are facing the same or even similar options is disingenuous to say the least.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Saying that these two people are facing the same or even similar options is disingenuous to say the least. I didn't see anybody say that, so I'm not sure what your point is. At the end of the day, sometimes doing "the right thing" has horrific consequences. Some people can and will accept that, some can't or won't. But the choice is always available. Consider that the Founding Fathers of the US had "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" as a rallying cry, not "Give me Liberty, or erm, well no more than minor inconvenience". Sometimes you have to be willing to accept death, imprisonment, etc. for a cause you believe in. Look at Edward Snowden, who did what he though to be "the right thing" even though he knew the most likely consequence involved death, imprisonment or torture (or some combination of all of the above).

by bbarn 10y ago

throwaway21013 10y ago

Troll. Period.

hbt 10y ago

So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? Let me guess, you believe all government actions are lawful. All lawful actions are righteous and justified. The only permissible way to change the system is through the system. Did I get the gist of your morality? In which case, keep voting and I'm sure you will see the changes you want reflected in legislation just so they can be ignored in by secret courts and intelligence services. In the real world, people respond to threats (e.g prison). That's what the government uses. Why are we expected to behave differently?

bbarn 10y ago
> So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? It's an expression. How about "Losing your livelyhood." It's a real thing for some people. > Let me guess, you believe all government actions are lawful. All lawful actions are righteous and justified. The only permissible way to change the system is through the system. Did I get the gist of your morality? You're way off on my morality. It's more centered on not causing harm to others, which is what you're suggesting people do, to others that don't fit your sense of morality. > In which case, keep voting and I'm sure you will see the changes you want reflected in legislation just so they can be ignored in by secret courts and intelligence services. In the real world, people respond to threats (e.g prison). That's what the government uses. Why are we expected to behave differently? Do you really think voting or threats are the only two methods to enact change? Neither work particularly well. What does work well is changing the opinion of the majority, and until you do that, you must question whether your minority opinion is actually the correct one, and provide reasons for others to change their opinion of you believe it to be so. Taking the low road and suggesting punishing people who aren't the cause will get you nothing but negative comments on hackernews.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rodgerd 10y ago
> So now, quitting your job (because you're asked to do something unethical) is the equivalent of losing your life and limbs? In a capitalist system, where your alternatives are "work or stave", yes.
- DennisP 10y ago
  Only if you can't get another job. That's not likely to be a problem for most people faced with this particular situation.
yarou 10y ago
You don't seem to understand Nash equilibrium, game theory, and the Prisoner's Dilemma.

sk5t 10y ago

It is legal, and perhaps moral, to refuse to work with unethical people who follow immoral/illegitimate orders. While the mention of "snitches get stitches" set things down the wrong path, the core idea is not unjust.

fsloth 10y ago

While I do think the concept of community ostracision is impractical (because there is never only one tech community to start with) - "I just followed the law" is never a moral free pass. Given that what law means actually is daily debated in courtrooms it's not only morally hollow, it's uncomputable to an individual in the general sense. "I just did what the authority figure told me to" is one the oldest excuses in the book.

bbarn 10y ago
To be clear - I am not suggesting that everything on the books should be followed, I am suggesting that punishing people who are following these specific laws in question, which are following NSA letters and gag orders, does not fit what I think is the commonly accepted way we treat each other.
- fsloth 10y ago
  Yes. I agree with this sentiment fully. The main connotation which invoked my response was equalling the resentment of following the law unilaterally to the mindset of a criminal organization.

rodgerd 10y ago

> Wow. This is probably the worst comment I've ever seen on HN. You're suggesting that people who follow the law, which you disagree with, get blacklisted, following the model of criminals killing other criminals who follow the law. Because everything legal is good. People like you are what Stalin, Hitler, and Mao rely on.

bbarn 10y ago
Where did I say anything remotely like that? You're taking an ideological stance on privacy, one I generally agree with, and forgetting the motivator behind the overreaching laws, which is quite simply to ATTEMPT to do something to make this country safer. Does it work? I don't think so, but a lot of people do. It's pretty hard to quantify since the data isn't open, and by its nature can't be. It's a pretty severe jump from disagreeing with whether or not this system works, and what liberties can challenge the system, to pulling your godwin card out.
- steveax 10y ago
  One can never know the motivations of others, full stop.

bambax 10y ago

1/ For the most part, this is not the "law". We're talking about instructions that have not been legally challenged, that are issued by a government agency, ie civil servants that are not responsible to the people. 2/ In any case "the law" is only the result of a very imperfect process; it's not the word of God: it can be changed (it often is) and it doesn't have any special moral value. Your moral code is yours, it's dictated by your conscience and should not be taken whole from texts written by other people. In the 20th century, many crimes have been committed by people following the law, and not just in Nazi Germany. French Jews were arrested and delivered to the German authorities by members of the French police who were simply following orders. The ones giving the orders have indeed been tried after the war, but not the ones following them; in fact they never had to suffer any consequence for their actions. But the truth is, had there been no cops willing to participate, there would have been no deportations. "I'm just doing my job" or "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid excuse. It's a cop out (pun intended).

mindcrime 10y ago

Not everyone is in so privileged of a position to be taking your specific moral high ground over their own well being. "Privilege" doesn't enter into it. Everybody has the option to do the right thing, if they're willing to accept the consequences. Not everybody will of course, but there's nothing truly preventing one from doing so.

dagw 10y ago
The difference is that for some people the "consequence" for doing the right thing is that they'll have to get a new, but similar, job while for other people it's watching their family being tortured to death. Saying that these two people are facing the same or even similar options is disingenuous to say the least.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Saying that these two people are facing the same or even similar options is disingenuous to say the least. I didn't see anybody say that, so I'm not sure what your point is. At the end of the day, sometimes doing "the right thing" has horrific consequences. Some people can and will accept that, some can't or won't. But the choice is always available. Consider that the Founding Fathers of the US had "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" as a rallying cry, not "Give me Liberty, or erm, well no more than minor inconvenience". Sometimes you have to be willing to accept death, imprisonment, etc. for a cause you believe in. Look at Edward Snowden, who did what he though to be "the right thing" even though he knew the most likely consequence involved death, imprisonment or torture (or some combination of all of the above).