6 ms·

That's the thing isn't it ? They can't do anything alone. It always amazes me that those big entities exist, because they require such a huge highly educated a

That's the thing isn't it ? They can't do anything alone. It always amazes me that those big entities exist, because they require such a huge highly educated and skilled human power. What are all those genius at the NSA thinking ? I can't imagine somebody smart enough to work here is not smart enough to understand the consequences of working there. So why are they not quitting ? Social pressure and money are part of the equation, certainly. I remember when I turned down a Google interview, my close circle though it was weird that I did that, even more for ethical reason. Having the best toys, budgets and projects certainly helps as well. But still, I wonder.

iblo66 8y ago
>So why are they not quitting ? Because not everybody thinks the way you do. That's why we have elections.
cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Arguably the majority supports the ideological foundations, aims, and methods of the institutions you are speaking of. In particular the military and intelligence institutions. If they didn't, they would have been removed by vote or force some time ago. Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. I am not arguing this is a good thing, but I think it's a reality. Military power abroad means wealth accumulation at home.
- sametmax 8y ago
  > Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. No argument here, having a strong bully in the room is good for you when he is on your side.
- p1esk 8y ago
  Interesting. I have absolutely zero ethical concerns with Google building a drone which can more accurately target someone. I'm also perfectly fine with US government using those drones to kill bad guys. Now if they use it to kill good guys, then it's a problem that needs to be solved.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Yeah but your good guys and their good guys will not be the same for ever.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      If that ever happens, I will protest them killing good guys, rather than protest them having advanced weapons.
  - dorgo 8y ago
    Is Snowden a good guy? My government did enough stupid things for me to not want them to have sophisticated military toys.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      Is Snowden a good guy? Debatable, but regardless - do you think the reason US government have not killed Snowden is the lack of "sophisticated military toys"? Also, my government did enough stupid things (like killing innocent people in war zones by mistake) for me to want them to have more intelligent weapons.
  - soVeryTired 8y ago
    How does one determine who's a good guy and who's a bad guy? I would have thought most people are somewhere in between.
    - p1esk 8y ago
      So far, the people they kill are very much in line with my definition of "bad guys" (e.g. bin Laden).
      - soVeryTired 8y ago
        I don't think you're really engaging with my point.
- jerf 8y ago
  It isn't hard to imagine a scenario in which the majority, or even the strong majority, of each nation disapproves of its own military or intelligence techniques, but nevertheless nothing can change because any nation that unilaterally drops some questionable technique (and don't just think "torture" here, but "excessive surveillance of the home population" and such) pays penalties vs. the other nations and experiences no benefit, making it very difficult for even one nation to climb the resulting gradient, let alone the entire world. It's a hard problem, and most glib solutions are, well, just that, glib. Centralized agreements become increasingly difficult as the number of entities increase, for instance, even before we account for scenarios like this where the reward for defection increases proportionally to the number of other participants in the disarmament. This is also ignoring those cases where there isn't even disagreement; in the real world, for instance, while you can quibble about the exact lines it seems to be the case that the Chinese accept and approve of levels of "invasive government" (to use a Western spin on the idea; I don't know what they would call it exactly) that Magna Carta-descended countries would consider abhorrent, making coordination even harder. (Meanwhile, they consider our lack of coordination or whathaveyou, if not "abhorrent", at the very least "sub-optimal", and possible dangerously socially negligent. As I'm using English here and, like I said, I don't know what they'd call it exactly, I can't help a bit of a Western spin here, but I acknowledge the flip side.)
relics443 8y ago
Have you considered that there are people out there with values that differ from yours? It's not wildly impossible, regardless of what the screaming minority would have you believe. Maybe they don't have a problem with working on such projects, because they agree with their end goal?
- vokep 8y ago
  They probably understand others have different values. The confusion is, some values seem so self evident that its bewildering anyone with a certain level of intelligence wouldn't realize the same values. I think the answer might be that they do have the same values, but they have a different model of the world overall, which calls for different ways of achieving those values. To take this to an extreme, imagine a person fighting for their life against actual criminals threatening vs a person fighting for their life against a random person they think is a shape-shifting alien impostor. Both are internally justified by the same values, one is externally justified by a more correct perception of reality.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Ah, those are the words I have been missing. Thank you.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    How can you tell that your perception of reality is more "correct" than mine?
- sametmax 8y ago
  Ocam's razor, so yes. I learned very young there are differences, like I literally (NOT figurative at all) couldn't see the motivation behind destroying school equipment, drawing on walls, etc. While for some, it's fun. But even after all those years, it's just so hard to wrap my head around that.
- refurb 8y ago
  I'm glad someone made this comment. It blows me away when people think their set of values is the only "right" way to think and anyone else who has a different set of values is obviously damaged or doing it unwillingly.
Sharlin 8y ago
It's literally the same thing that allowed concentration camps to happen. Or, in the words of the late Sir Terence: “There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.” — Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
rixrax 8y ago
What about all the open source? I'l hazard that that quite a few instruments of war and mayhem run on FOSS. Is there a moral dilemma there? Should FOSS licenses make provisions for the type of use packages can be used for (I believe they should)?

iblo66 8y ago

>So why are they not quitting ? Because not everybody thinks the way you do. That's why we have elections.

cmrdporcupine 8y ago

Arguably the majority supports the ideological foundations, aims, and methods of the institutions you are speaking of. In particular the military and intelligence institutions. If they didn't, they would have been removed by vote or force some time ago. Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. I am not arguing this is a good thing, but I think it's a reality. Military power abroad means wealth accumulation at home.

sametmax 8y ago
> Frankly the broad majority of people in the US benefit materially in some way from their existence in ways that they might not even be fully aware of. No argument here, having a strong bully in the room is good for you when he is on your side.
p1esk 8y ago
Interesting. I have absolutely zero ethical concerns with Google building a drone which can more accurately target someone. I'm also perfectly fine with US government using those drones to kill bad guys. Now if they use it to kill good guys, then it's a problem that needs to be solved.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Yeah but your good guys and their good guys will not be the same for ever.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    If that ever happens, I will protest them killing good guys, rather than protest them having advanced weapons.
- dorgo 8y ago
  Is Snowden a good guy? My government did enough stupid things for me to not want them to have sophisticated military toys.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    Is Snowden a good guy? Debatable, but regardless - do you think the reason US government have not killed Snowden is the lack of "sophisticated military toys"? Also, my government did enough stupid things (like killing innocent people in war zones by mistake) for me to want them to have more intelligent weapons.
- soVeryTired 8y ago
  How does one determine who's a good guy and who's a bad guy? I would have thought most people are somewhere in between.
  - p1esk 8y ago
    So far, the people they kill are very much in line with my definition of "bad guys" (e.g. bin Laden).
    - soVeryTired 8y ago
      I don't think you're really engaging with my point.
jerf 8y ago
It isn't hard to imagine a scenario in which the majority, or even the strong majority, of each nation disapproves of its own military or intelligence techniques, but nevertheless nothing can change because any nation that unilaterally drops some questionable technique (and don't just think "torture" here, but "excessive surveillance of the home population" and such) pays penalties vs. the other nations and experiences no benefit, making it very difficult for even one nation to climb the resulting gradient, let alone the entire world. It's a hard problem, and most glib solutions are, well, just that, glib. Centralized agreements become increasingly difficult as the number of entities increase, for instance, even before we account for scenarios like this where the reward for defection increases proportionally to the number of other participants in the disarmament. This is also ignoring those cases where there isn't even disagreement; in the real world, for instance, while you can quibble about the exact lines it seems to be the case that the Chinese accept and approve of levels of "invasive government" (to use a Western spin on the idea; I don't know what they would call it exactly) that Magna Carta-descended countries would consider abhorrent, making coordination even harder. (Meanwhile, they consider our lack of coordination or whathaveyou, if not "abhorrent", at the very least "sub-optimal", and possible dangerously socially negligent. As I'm using English here and, like I said, I don't know what they'd call it exactly, I can't help a bit of a Western spin here, but I acknowledge the flip side.)

relics443 8y ago

Have you considered that there are people out there with values that differ from yours? It's not wildly impossible, regardless of what the screaming minority would have you believe. Maybe they don't have a problem with working on such projects, because they agree with their end goal?

vokep 8y ago
They probably understand others have different values. The confusion is, some values seem so self evident that its bewildering anyone with a certain level of intelligence wouldn't realize the same values. I think the answer might be that they do have the same values, but they have a different model of the world overall, which calls for different ways of achieving those values. To take this to an extreme, imagine a person fighting for their life against actual criminals threatening vs a person fighting for their life against a random person they think is a shape-shifting alien impostor. Both are internally justified by the same values, one is externally justified by a more correct perception of reality.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Ah, those are the words I have been missing. Thank you.
- p1esk 8y ago
  How can you tell that your perception of reality is more "correct" than mine?
sametmax 8y ago
Ocam's razor, so yes. I learned very young there are differences, like I literally (NOT figurative at all) couldn't see the motivation behind destroying school equipment, drawing on walls, etc. While for some, it's fun. But even after all those years, it's just so hard to wrap my head around that.
refurb 8y ago
I'm glad someone made this comment. It blows me away when people think their set of values is the only "right" way to think and anyone else who has a different set of values is obviously damaged or doing it unwillingly.

Sharlin 8y ago

It's literally the same thing that allowed concentration camps to happen. Or, in the words of the late Sir Terence: “There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.” — Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

rixrax 8y ago

What about all the open source? I'l hazard that that quite a few instruments of war and mayhem run on FOSS. Is there a moral dilemma there? Should FOSS licenses make provisions for the type of use packages can be used for (I believe they should)?