4 ms·

I believe the author’s post is a little condescending and ignores the nuances of such situations. Sure, it's easy enough to "just say no" if you're already pret

I believe the author’s post is a little condescending and ignores the nuances of such situations. Sure, it's easy enough to "just say no" if you're already pretty successful and have a lot to lose by engaging in illegal activity. But what about the talented hacker who has failed career wise and is going through a really tough phase financially. It might seem that there's everything to gain and nothing to lose. If you have a choice of being able feed your family or “just say no” to modifying an odometer, what would you choose?

senko 10y ago
> If you have a choice of being able feed your family or “just say no” to modifying an odometer, what would you choose? Let me generalize that for you: If you have a choice of being able to feed your family or "just say no" to commit a crime, what would you choose?
- oblib 10y ago
  Depends. If it's a Robin Hood scenario it can be morally justifiable. If the crime is stealing from anyone, rich or poor, so I can live easier, then no.
ifoundthetao 10y ago
Are you kidding me? I would just say no. It's much more to lose your family and life by going to jail than it is to use public services to get assistance for food and shelter. Even if you don't go to jail, the amount lost in legal expenses are going to far outweigh the money brought in from said activities. Moreover, it's going to seriously impair your ability to get a job in the future, in the particular field that you've currently been experiencing failure in.
- Someone 10y ago
  That assumes you live in a country where "public services to get assistance for food and shelter" exist. Not everybody is so lucky. It certainly isn't always _just_ say no.
  - s73ver 10y ago
    Yes, it is. If you are willing to do bad things, it doesn't matter the reason. Those people in 3rd world countries calling with tax scams or calling "from Windows" about a virus are bad people, straight up.
- wcummings 10y ago
  >It's much more to lose your family That's exactly the point. If you didn't have a family, didn't have a career, if you were already broke and don't have money for rent, maybe you have a drug habit or some other personal demons, what's to stop you? What other opportunities do you have? What do you have to lose? The calculus is completely different.
wpietri 10y ago
Practical ethical behavior isn't just about decisions in the moment. It's about making good long-term decisions so you are in a position to make good short-term decisions. You can always create some hypothetical narrow situation that will justify a bad action. But so what? If you do the bad action, you are still morally responsible for the bad action. And you have still fucked up enough in your life that you let bad people put you in a position of having to choose between one bad action or another. In the early days of the consumer Internet, I'd often call up spammers and talk with them. A lot of the time I heard this blame-shifting, self-justifying nonsense. They had bills to pay! Families to feed! They were just going through a bad patch! They were good people, it wasn't their fault, they had to spam! Circa 2009 there were a lot of people who were losing their suburban homes because they took out loans to cover "bills". And in the sympathetic articles about them, you'd see the house with the picture of two nice cars and a boat and they'd be wearing nice, name-brand clothes. Ah, those bills. And sure, I get that consumer capitalism ruthlessly exploits the primate status drive. But c'mon, people: you have no good choices now because you made some pretty bad choices before. Own your shit. You see the same exact moral vacuity in startup founders who get in over their heads. "I'm a good person! But we just had to sell your personal data to the highest bidder! But I'm a good person!" Well sure, but you also took millions of OPM to start a tech company with no clear revenue model while simultaneously telling your users that you were the most ethical company ever. Water runs downhill, genius. TL;DR: Ethics aren't cheap. If you really want to have them, you have to prepare.
- problems 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's a great example, if you're in the position to sell data to the highest bidder that means people were stupid enough to give you that data and you're free to do what you like with it. Then again, maybe this is just an ethical divide.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    If your theory of ethics is "when people trust me I can do anything I want to them", then we are at best on opposite sides of an ethical chasm. But I'm not sure that "I will take advantage of anybody I can" qualifies as ethics at all.
criddell 10y ago
I don't think there's all that much nuance there. > It might seem that there's everything to gain and nothing to lose. There's almost always more to lose, it just might take time. If you think providing for your family is hard today, how much more difficult would it be for them if you were in prison, or were paying restitution, or were unable to find work due to a past conviction?
s73ver 10y ago
The circumstances don't matter. If it's unethical when you're rolling in dough, it's unethical when you're poor. You say no, period.
oblib 10y ago
No. The truth is desperation you describe is faced everyday by many and they still don't commit crimes. What you do is choose to keep working at what's right. We can certainly justify stealing a loaf of bread during hard times to keep your child from starving after you've tried everything else you could, but not making a career out of turning back speedos. One speedometer, maybe, but not one a week. That's a racket.

senko 10y ago

> If you have a choice of being able feed your family or “just say no” to modifying an odometer, what would you choose? Let me generalize that for you: If you have a choice of being able to feed your family or "just say no" to commit a crime, what would you choose?

oblib 10y ago
Depends. If it's a Robin Hood scenario it can be morally justifiable. If the crime is stealing from anyone, rich or poor, so I can live easier, then no.

ifoundthetao 10y ago

Are you kidding me? I would just say no. It's much more to lose your family and life by going to jail than it is to use public services to get assistance for food and shelter. Even if you don't go to jail, the amount lost in legal expenses are going to far outweigh the money brought in from said activities. Moreover, it's going to seriously impair your ability to get a job in the future, in the particular field that you've currently been experiencing failure in.

Someone 10y ago
That assumes you live in a country where "public services to get assistance for food and shelter" exist. Not everybody is so lucky. It certainly isn't always _just_ say no.
- s73ver 10y ago
  Yes, it is. If you are willing to do bad things, it doesn't matter the reason. Those people in 3rd world countries calling with tax scams or calling "from Windows" about a virus are bad people, straight up.
wcummings 10y ago
>It's much more to lose your family That's exactly the point. If you didn't have a family, didn't have a career, if you were already broke and don't have money for rent, maybe you have a drug habit or some other personal demons, what's to stop you? What other opportunities do you have? What do you have to lose? The calculus is completely different.

wpietri 10y ago

Practical ethical behavior isn't just about decisions in the moment. It's about making good long-term decisions so you are in a position to make good short-term decisions. You can always create some hypothetical narrow situation that will justify a bad action. But so what? If you do the bad action, you are still morally responsible for the bad action. And you have still fucked up enough in your life that you let bad people put you in a position of having to choose between one bad action or another. In the early days of the consumer Internet, I'd often call up spammers and talk with them. A lot of the time I heard this blame-shifting, self-justifying nonsense. They had bills to pay! Families to feed! They were just going through a bad patch! They were good people, it wasn't their fault, they had to spam! Circa 2009 there were a lot of people who were losing their suburban homes because they took out loans to cover "bills". And in the sympathetic articles about them, you'd see the house with the picture of two nice cars and a boat and they'd be wearing nice, name-brand clothes. Ah, those bills. And sure, I get that consumer capitalism ruthlessly exploits the primate status drive. But c'mon, people: you have no good choices now because you made some pretty bad choices before. Own your shit. You see the same exact moral vacuity in startup founders who get in over their heads. "I'm a good person! But we just had to sell your personal data to the highest bidder! But I'm a good person!" Well sure, but you also took millions of OPM to start a tech company with no clear revenue model while simultaneously telling your users that you were the most ethical company ever. Water runs downhill, genius. TL;DR: Ethics aren't cheap. If you really want to have them, you have to prepare.

problems 10y ago
I'm not sure that's a great example, if you're in the position to sell data to the highest bidder that means people were stupid enough to give you that data and you're free to do what you like with it. Then again, maybe this is just an ethical divide.
- wpietri 10y ago
  If your theory of ethics is "when people trust me I can do anything I want to them", then we are at best on opposite sides of an ethical chasm. But I'm not sure that "I will take advantage of anybody I can" qualifies as ethics at all.

criddell 10y ago

I don't think there's all that much nuance there. > It might seem that there's everything to gain and nothing to lose. There's almost always more to lose, it just might take time. If you think providing for your family is hard today, how much more difficult would it be for them if you were in prison, or were paying restitution, or were unable to find work due to a past conviction?

s73ver 10y ago

The circumstances don't matter. If it's unethical when you're rolling in dough, it's unethical when you're poor. You say no, period.

oblib 10y ago

No. The truth is desperation you describe is faced everyday by many and they still don't commit crimes. What you do is choose to keep working at what's right. We can certainly justify stealing a loaf of bread during hard times to keep your child from starving after you've tried everything else you could, but not making a career out of turning back speedos. One speedometer, maybe, but not one a week. That's a racket.