4 ms·
> actually has programmers on its staff who think its ok to write a program whose sole purpose is to try and break the law It's not that simple. Team A is giv
by zvrba 9y ago
> actually has programmers on its staff who think its ok to write a program whose sole purpose is to try and break the law
It's not that simple.
Team A is given the task of writing SW that locks down all computers in case some alarm goes off (e.g., opening a door without disarming an alarm). In the start, this alarm and all workstations are connected to an on-premises server.
Team B is given the task of moving the server into the cloud (or home office) because HR realized they could automatically monitor which employees enter and exit the office. For security auditing.
The system has been moved to the cloud and team C is given the task of extending the SW to make it possible to block certain employees for logging in, e.g., after they've accumulated a certain number of work hours during a week. To prove that the company complies with work regulations.
Now you have built a system, all under plausible and "just" pretenses, that allows you to lock down an office anytime remotely.
Team D (managers) are given the task of paging a number when a raid happens. Team E is instructed to lock down an office when the number is paged (possibly they're told that it's a system test or something else).
If anyone is doing anything unethical here, it's the managers and, possibly, team E (executing the lockdown).
- samfriedman 9y agoWhen the system is compartmentalized like this, the "anyone doing anything unethical here" is surely the senior leadership who can see the full system and leverage its capabilities for unethical purposes.
- candiodari 9y agoWhy are we assuming this is something not already in law ? It's pretty well defined, and it's criminal. So in short: if you trigger this system in reaction to a police visit you are guilty of obstruction of justice and can face up to 10 years in jail (in the US, my state). There is nothing the company can do to shield you from this. Anyone who has ordered you to do this would be accessory to obstruction of justice, punishable by up to 10 years of jail (not 100% sure). Neither of those people can defend themselves by saying that it was in the company's interest, or that they were ordered to do so. This is criminal law, and your claim would be akin to saying that your boss asked you to murder someone. If you do it, it's your ass (of course ordering a murder is a crime too, but it doesn't absolve the murderer). This goes to quite extreme lengths and even applies in cases of coercion (so if you murder someone because your boss kidnapped your daughter, you're still a murderer and can still be convicted as such). The same would apply here. One hopes Uber is not just throwing employees under the bus (because the IRS, I guarantee you, would get an obstruction of justice persecution started if Ripley happened to them. They have sent people to jail for far less)
- mirimir 9y ago> It's not that simple. I agree, but in a different way. Who's to say that it's not governments that are the major criminals here? Many westerners would agree regarding China, North Korea, Iran, and so on. But what if the laws being used against Uber are products of corruption? To stifle competition against the taxi industry, which seems likely. But whatever. This is some damn impressive OPSEC, no? I mean, serious anarchocapitalist OPSEC. And that just brings a smile to my face.
- mverwijs 9y agoReminds me of "Snowcrash".