4 ms·

I suspect you're not going to get many personal stories here because it would be self-incriminating. But I have a couple from some people I know in tech. 1. I

I suspect you're not going to get many personal stories here because it would be self-incriminating. But I have a couple from some people I know in tech. 1. I know the guy who, pre-Snowden, actually designed many of the pieces of network gear needed for the dragnet. His perspective was basically: Yes it's wrong, but what do I know? I just design electronic circuits. 2. Same guy also mentioned how at another company he worked at they used DNS tricks to exfiltrate data out of their enterprise clients. Nothing crazy, mostly just analytics to aid in things like product design. They got caught though. First Intel went out, then a couple hours later 4 other big tech companies (including Apple and Microsoft). Then a huge swath of devices stopped reporting. They got acquired shortly afterwards for a large, but sub-billion dollar amount. 3. I know a couple people that crack into devices and sell the 0days to the highest bidder. I consider this practice for anything cyber-physical (self-driving cars, etc) to be so unreasonably unethical that it should be against international law. It's one thing to sell these things to an allied government, it's quite another to have them on the open market.

nharada 8y ago
> Yes it's wrong, but what do I know? I just design electronic circuits. This outlook, along with "well if I don't do it someone else will anyway", is why tech workers are quickly becoming the new bankers in the view of the public.
- amelius 8y ago
  Yeah, some hackers wear white hats, others wear black hats, and then there are those who wear paper bags over their heads.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > This outlook, along with "well if I don't do it someone else will anyway", is why tech workers are quickly becoming the new bankers in the view of the public. Which really annoys me, because while moral indifference of some tech workers is wrong, there are still the business guys actually giving the immoral orders. Those are conveniently forgotten in the new narrative.
  - pc86 8y ago
    At what level of technical skill/background does a business guy become a tech guy? People are people and this "oh the business guys are the bad ones, not poor little programmer making $200k/yr implementing business guy's idea" mindset is odd.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      It's not about the skills/background, but decisionmaking capacity. The blame for executing an order is separate from the blame for issuing one. If a tech worker is both the decisionmaker and the implementer then they get to be blamed for both, of course.
atmosx 8y ago
I am not sure I understand the distinction you make between a government and the higher bidder? How can you be reasonably sure that your findings will not be used wrongfully by X gov official?
- user5994461 8y ago
  The highest bidder is likely to be a government agency.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  You can't, but if the NSA or CIA wanted to kill a bunch of people they could. Whereas ISIS and company can't. Not knowing who is buying your 0day is dangerous to public safety.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Was the second company Meraki? EDIT: I don't expect to receive an answer to this (and that's fine), but I'll give more color to my guess. Meraki had a side venture in internet connectivity-enabled location analytics which was more profitable than its actual router sales. This is one of the reasons why its acquisition price was so high. It has since contributed to a location analytics service within Cisco.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  No, sorry.
avs733 8y ago
> 1. I know the guy who, pre-Snowden, actually designed many of the pieces of network gear needed for the dragnet. His perspective was basically: Yes it's wrong, but what do I know? I just design electronic circuits. In case anyone wonders, this is why so many engineering schools are increasing their focus on teaching ethics.
avs733 8y ago
>It's one thing to sell these things to an allied government, it's quite another to have them on the open market. Honest question...why? The result/intent seems the same whether done by a state or nonstate actor. In fact a state actor seems more likely to use it because of a greater feeling of moral justification.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Because terrorists target civilians on purpose.
  - avs733 8y ago
    1) Those are incredibly arbitrary labels and you either know that or should know that 2) The US drone program regularly targets first aid personnel and rescuers.[0] [0] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-04/cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-04/cia...
    - seabear 8y ago
      What does nr. 2 have to do with anything? The fact that the US kills civilians doesn't make this more ethical.
      - RunawayGalaxy 8y ago
        Because the original implication was that state actors don't target civilians.
hkai 8y ago
Nice job, we know it's you.
orarbel1 8y ago
You forgot to add “confiding for a friend”

nharada 8y ago

> Yes it's wrong, but what do I know? I just design electronic circuits. This outlook, along with "well if I don't do it someone else will anyway", is why tech workers are quickly becoming the new bankers in the view of the public.

amelius 8y ago
Yeah, some hackers wear white hats, others wear black hats, and then there are those who wear paper bags over their heads.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> This outlook, along with "well if I don't do it someone else will anyway", is why tech workers are quickly becoming the new bankers in the view of the public. Which really annoys me, because while moral indifference of some tech workers is wrong, there are still the business guys actually giving the immoral orders. Those are conveniently forgotten in the new narrative.
- pc86 8y ago
  At what level of technical skill/background does a business guy become a tech guy? People are people and this "oh the business guys are the bad ones, not poor little programmer making $200k/yr implementing business guy's idea" mindset is odd.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It's not about the skills/background, but decisionmaking capacity. The blame for executing an order is separate from the blame for issuing one. If a tech worker is both the decisionmaker and the implementer then they get to be blamed for both, of course.

atmosx 8y ago

I am not sure I understand the distinction you make between a government and the higher bidder? How can you be reasonably sure that your findings will not be used wrongfully by X gov official?

user5994461 8y ago
The highest bidder is likely to be a government agency.
3pt14159 8y ago
You can't, but if the NSA or CIA wanted to kill a bunch of people they could. Whereas ISIS and company can't. Not knowing who is buying your 0day is dangerous to public safety.

throwawaymath 8y ago

Was the second company Meraki? EDIT: I don't expect to receive an answer to this (and that's fine), but I'll give more color to my guess. Meraki had a side venture in internet connectivity-enabled location analytics which was more profitable than its actual router sales. This is one of the reasons why its acquisition price was so high. It has since contributed to a location analytics service within Cisco.

3pt14159 8y ago
No, sorry.

avs733 8y ago

> 1. I know the guy who, pre-Snowden, actually designed many of the pieces of network gear needed for the dragnet. His perspective was basically: Yes it's wrong, but what do I know? I just design electronic circuits. In case anyone wonders, this is why so many engineering schools are increasing their focus on teaching ethics.

avs733 8y ago

>It's one thing to sell these things to an allied government, it's quite another to have them on the open market. Honest question...why? The result/intent seems the same whether done by a state or nonstate actor. In fact a state actor seems more likely to use it because of a greater feeling of moral justification.

3pt14159 8y ago
Because terrorists target civilians on purpose.
- avs733 8y ago
  1) Those are incredibly arbitrary labels and you either know that or should know that 2) The US drone program regularly targets first aid personnel and rescuers.[0] [0] https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-04/cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-02-04/cia...
  - seabear 8y ago
    What does nr. 2 have to do with anything? The fact that the US kills civilians doesn't make this more ethical.
    - RunawayGalaxy 8y ago
      Because the original implication was that state actors don't target civilians.

hkai 8y ago

Nice job, we know it's you.

orarbel1 8y ago

You forgot to add “confiding for a friend”