6 ms·

Not sure why this was downvoted. It's a very valid question considering the times we live in.

by enraged_camel 10y ago

hnbro 10y ago
if not this person, someone else will. so it just boils down to asking what his personal political views are.
- 1888franklin 10y ago
  You state this as simple fact, but is it so? Delivering enterprise software is very hard. Matt suggests that USDS was necessary to rescue healthcare.gov, for example. The labor pool of skilled coders is smaller vs. demand than for many other professions. If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project? I concede that we cannot prevent some software from being created. But there is a great qualitative difference between any software and effective software. And if there isn't, and our creativity/labor doesn't matter in creating such a difference, then what is all this talk on HN about? besides... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    > If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project? Not sure what the top 500 vote totals were on this, but when Snowden's documents revealed existence of a massive domestic surveillance program that included large amounts of data collection, parsing and analysis, most people were surprised at the breadth, depth and sheer amount of data. Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either, which spells doubt on the idea that top 500 were even invited to express their stance on the subject, which nevertheless did not force the project into derailment. For all we know, some might have participated, through a government or a third-party contract that did not specify exact goals of the project and provided limited view into the overarching theme. One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. It could be very bad indeed.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      That's why we need to more specifically show where software crosses ethical boundaries. With these NSA programs, I can easily see how you can work on them and never actually realise how bad what you're doing is – especially if your work followed a progressions. Also, I can't resist, but: > Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either ...until is wasn't
    - throwanem 10y ago
      > One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. I've had the opportunity to work with a few ex-NSA software engineers. One in particular was among the smartest and most capable colleagues I've ever had. If, as is the impression I gathered, he's at all typical of the talent NSA has at its disposal, I would expect the limiting factors to be the volume and accuracy of the data available, rather than the quality of the software built to analyze it.
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Phone metadata isn't "large amounts of data," nor do the programs using it qualify as a "massive domestic surveillance program."
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        I admittedly have little visibility into the scope of NSA programs, so have to resort to media for subjective evaluation of what constitutes "massive" or "domestic". BBC called it "extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 Wired described "the vast scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs" in reference to Snowden leaks. https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ EFF refers to NSA's access to "large streams of domestic and international communications" https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works Assuming that journalists tend to sensationalize I'd agree to apply a grain a salt for these statements, but is there an argument suggesting NSA's operation was fairly small scale and is not indicative of their capability to build large systems?
- eragoins 10y ago
  Or maybe he can do what Galen Erso did...
- peteretep 10y ago
  > if not this person, someone > else will Tell that to the person booking performers for the inauguration
mwfunk 10y ago
I would guess that most of the people who downvoted it, did so because they were opposed to the idea of a Muslim registry (as am I). If you're opposed to it, and hope that he is also opposed to it, then the last thing you want to do is to force him to go on record at this stage in his career as being opposed to it. That may do nothing, or it may hurt him, but it's not going to help him or the opposition to the registry. On the other hand, if you're in favor of a Muslim registry and fear that he might oppose it, then it makes total sense to ask him this question at this time. In fact that's the only reason it makes sense to ask him this question at this time. Hence downvoters, assuming that the majority of HN is against a Muslim registry.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  I just took the question at face value. It's pretty silly to try to read too much into it, in my opinion.
- 1888franklin 10y ago
  As the asker, I will say I'm opposed to the registry, and I disagree a bit with your notion on strategy. I see what you're saying. But I think it's important to establish a norm in our communities now (perhaps like http://neveragain.tech/ http://neveragain.tech/), rather than being silent and hoping that we will have "sleepers" in the right positions that can stop it later on.
  - forrestthewoods 10y ago
    Given that no "Muslim Registry" has ever been proposed or supported by anyone it is not the most pressing question.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      Here's the thing, bub. A person who has put so much effort into just hinting he'd like one[0] while making sure he can also claim not to want one is just a scumbag, not someone who has never proposed or supported one. It's like saying "I don't really think all blue people are liars" and giving a big wink to your audience at the same time, then claiming to not be a racist. Are supporters of someone like that suckers or just being dishonest about their own intentions? [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trump-and-the-muslim-database/?client=safari https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/...

Not sure why this was downvoted. It's a very valid question considering the times we live in.

hnbro 10y ago

if not this person, someone else will. so it just boils down to asking what his personal political views are.

1888franklin 10y ago
You state this as simple fact, but is it so? Delivering enterprise software is very hard. Matt suggests that USDS was necessary to rescue healthcare.gov, for example. The labor pool of skilled coders is smaller vs. demand than for many other professions. If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project? I concede that we cannot prevent some software from being created. But there is a great qualitative difference between any software and effective software. And if there isn't, and our creativity/labor doesn't matter in creating such a difference, then what is all this talk on HN about? besides... "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
- prostoalex 10y ago
  > If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project? Not sure what the top 500 vote totals were on this, but when Snowden's documents revealed existence of a massive domestic surveillance program that included large amounts of data collection, parsing and analysis, most people were surprised at the breadth, depth and sheer amount of data. Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either, which spells doubt on the idea that top 500 were even invited to express their stance on the subject, which nevertheless did not force the project into derailment. For all we know, some might have participated, through a government or a third-party contract that did not specify exact goals of the project and provided limited view into the overarching theme. One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. It could be very bad indeed.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    That's why we need to more specifically show where software crosses ethical boundaries. With these NSA programs, I can easily see how you can work on them and never actually realise how bad what you're doing is – especially if your work followed a progressions. Also, I can't resist, but: > Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either ...until is wasn't
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. I've had the opportunity to work with a few ex-NSA software engineers. One in particular was among the smartest and most capable colleagues I've ever had. If, as is the impression I gathered, he's at all typical of the talent NSA has at its disposal, I would expect the limiting factors to be the volume and accuracy of the data available, rather than the quality of the software built to analyze it.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Phone metadata isn't "large amounts of data," nor do the programs using it qualify as a "massive domestic surveillance program."
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      I admittedly have little visibility into the scope of NSA programs, so have to resort to media for subjective evaluation of what constitutes "massive" or "domestic". BBC called it "extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 Wired described "the vast scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs" in reference to Snowden leaks. https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ EFF refers to NSA's access to "large streams of domestic and international communications" https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works Assuming that journalists tend to sensationalize I'd agree to apply a grain a salt for these statements, but is there an argument suggesting NSA's operation was fairly small scale and is not indicative of their capability to build large systems?
eragoins 10y ago
Or maybe he can do what Galen Erso did...
peteretep 10y ago
> if not this person, someone > else will Tell that to the person booking performers for the inauguration

mwfunk 10y ago

I would guess that most of the people who downvoted it, did so because they were opposed to the idea of a Muslim registry (as am I). If you're opposed to it, and hope that he is also opposed to it, then the last thing you want to do is to force him to go on record at this stage in his career as being opposed to it. That may do nothing, or it may hurt him, but it's not going to help him or the opposition to the registry. On the other hand, if you're in favor of a Muslim registry and fear that he might oppose it, then it makes total sense to ask him this question at this time. In fact that's the only reason it makes sense to ask him this question at this time. Hence downvoters, assuming that the majority of HN is against a Muslim registry.

enraged_camel 10y ago
I just took the question at face value. It's pretty silly to try to read too much into it, in my opinion.
1888franklin 10y ago
As the asker, I will say I'm opposed to the registry, and I disagree a bit with your notion on strategy. I see what you're saying. But I think it's important to establish a norm in our communities now (perhaps like http://neveragain.tech/ http://neveragain.tech/), rather than being silent and hoping that we will have "sleepers" in the right positions that can stop it later on.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  Given that no "Muslim Registry" has ever been proposed or supported by anyone it is not the most pressing question.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Here's the thing, bub. A person who has put so much effort into just hinting he'd like one[0] while making sure he can also claim not to want one is just a scumbag, not someone who has never proposed or supported one. It's like saying "I don't really think all blue people are liars" and giving a big wink to your audience at the same time, then claiming to not be a racist. Are supporters of someone like that suckers or just being dishonest about their own intentions? [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trump-and-the-muslim-database/?client=safari https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/...