4 ms·

It doesn't matter if it's family appointments or work appointments. Keeping tabs on someone like that is a violation of personal privacy.

shadowgovt 7y ago
We'll have to agree to disagree that a person's personal privacy protection should categorically extend to whether they're helping build the next generation of drone warfare target-acquisition software.
- ddalex 7y ago
  Or perhaps to help build vaccines, should one be opposed on personal preferences to vaccinations. See the slippery slope there?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Is someone violating FDA law while building the vaccines? If so, we should know about it and protect a person's right to build a paper trail. Building vaccines is unlikely to be an activity in violation of the law; exporting algorithms to China is far more delicate. We protect whistleblowers for a reason.
    - fulafel 7y ago
      The algorithm export bit was pioneered by EFF In https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Encryption protocols are no longer classified as "munitions." Software is, however, still regulated by export control (https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html). This is currently a hot topic, as China has used facial recognition software in ongoing persecution of the Uighur minority. The US government responded by blacklisting several Chinese firms, and selling software to those firms could land an individual in jail (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-rights-technology-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-righ...). I'm not saying Google did anything illegal in its liaison with the Chinese government to build out a search engine to their specifications. But it is exactly the sort of business venture that needs to be carefully monitored and that whistleblower protections are intended to guard.
- brandmeyer 7y ago
  I think you're making an "ends justify the means" argument, and I'm not buying it.

shadowgovt 7y ago

We'll have to agree to disagree that a person's personal privacy protection should categorically extend to whether they're helping build the next generation of drone warfare target-acquisition software.

ddalex 7y ago
Or perhaps to help build vaccines, should one be opposed on personal preferences to vaccinations. See the slippery slope there?
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Is someone violating FDA law while building the vaccines? If so, we should know about it and protect a person's right to build a paper trail. Building vaccines is unlikely to be an activity in violation of the law; exporting algorithms to China is far more delicate. We protect whistleblowers for a reason.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    The algorithm export bit was pioneered by EFF In https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Encryption protocols are no longer classified as "munitions." Software is, however, still regulated by export control (https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html). This is currently a hot topic, as China has used facial recognition software in ongoing persecution of the Uighur minority. The US government responded by blacklisting several Chinese firms, and selling software to those firms could land an individual in jail (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-rights-technology-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-righ...). I'm not saying Google did anything illegal in its liaison with the Chinese government to build out a search engine to their specifications. But it is exactly the sort of business venture that needs to be carefully monitored and that whistleblower protections are intended to guard.
brandmeyer 7y ago
I think you're making an "ends justify the means" argument, and I'm not buying it.