4 ms·

Note in particular the utter lack of anything that actually benefits us, the developers: * No protections on moonlighting * No mention of fair equity for w

Note in particular the utter lack of anything that actually benefits us, the developers: * No protections on moonlighting * No mention of fair equity for work by early engineers * No condemnation of clawbacks of equity * No whistleblower protection * No comments on diversity or discrimination * No comments on harassment * No comments on reasonable workloads/workweeks * No comments on allowing remote work or helping remote workers Make no mistake folks: this "pledge" does basically nothing to help you. Look out for your own interests. Further, it doesn't even have the balls to stand up and say "We won't do evil things like give away user data to government agencies" and instead goes for the much easier "well if the paperwork is okay we'll sell out the users i guess". This isn't worth the bytes it spent getting to you.

tptacek 9y ago
Not to put too fine a point on it, but when even me and 'angersock agree on something, shit's hinky.
- angersock 9y ago
  Quite right, sir. Quite right.
bermanoid 9y ago
Do you really think any company could or should publicly commit to refuse to comply with valid court orders? I'm all for strengthening the language and adding teeth to these demands, but we've got to be realistic here. A US corporation declaring blanket refusal to cooperate with the US government is not realistic.
- flukus 9y ago
  > Do you really think any company could or should publicly commit to refuse to comply with valid court orders? The could create a situation where they can't comply, at least meaningfully. "Here's the data judge, too bad it's encrypted and we don't have the key".
- tptacek 9y ago
  I think it's not the kind of question that's best asked of companies. Companies should commit not to collect abusable data in the first place. Employees, on the other hand, can in fact pledge not to assist the DOJ, even if "correct process" is used. If enough of them pledge that, companies will have to adjust their retention practices, lest their data function as a time bomb waiting to blow their teams up. I think if you're going to mirror NeverAgain.tech, don't water it down. But the bigger issue is: stop looking to companies to make promises. People promise. Companies can only posture.
  - bermanoid 9y ago
    Ok, but given the starting premise, "what's a pledge that we can coerce companies into signing?", what would you shoot for, instead? To me, the bit where companies would need to agree to not implement backdoors into encryption protocols is actually pretty meaningful. You know that the evil shitfuck companies like Palantir are not going to sign on with that clause in place, but they weren't going to listen, anyways. If Facebook signs on, though, it could actually be a toothy, verifiable commitment.

tptacek 9y ago

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when even me and 'angersock agree on something, shit's hinky.

angersock 9y ago
Quite right, sir. Quite right.

bermanoid 9y ago

Do you really think any company could or should publicly commit to refuse to comply with valid court orders? I'm all for strengthening the language and adding teeth to these demands, but we've got to be realistic here. A US corporation declaring blanket refusal to cooperate with the US government is not realistic.

flukus 9y ago
> Do you really think any company could or should publicly commit to refuse to comply with valid court orders? The could create a situation where they can't comply, at least meaningfully. "Here's the data judge, too bad it's encrypted and we don't have the key".
tptacek 9y ago
I think it's not the kind of question that's best asked of companies. Companies should commit not to collect abusable data in the first place. Employees, on the other hand, can in fact pledge not to assist the DOJ, even if "correct process" is used. If enough of them pledge that, companies will have to adjust their retention practices, lest their data function as a time bomb waiting to blow their teams up. I think if you're going to mirror NeverAgain.tech, don't water it down. But the bigger issue is: stop looking to companies to make promises. People promise. Companies can only posture.
- bermanoid 9y ago
  Ok, but given the starting premise, "what's a pledge that we can coerce companies into signing?", what would you shoot for, instead? To me, the bit where companies would need to agree to not implement backdoors into encryption protocols is actually pretty meaningful. You know that the evil shitfuck companies like Palantir are not going to sign on with that clause in place, but they weren't going to listen, anyways. If Facebook signs on, though, it could actually be a toothy, verifiable commitment.