3 ms·

They put pop-up stealth advertisements, targeted at your doctor, into your electronic medical record, so that he or she would get you addicted to painkillers.

They put pop-up stealth advertisements, targeted at your doctor, into your electronic medical record, so that he or she would get you addicted to painkillers. Software developers did this. For drug money. That's just terrible, isn't it? They shouldn't have done that. But even if the developers had ethical concerns, they had no recourse but to quit, and be replaced by someone else--who might get six months of work in before realizing that they are working for the baddies, and also deciding to either quit or die a little inside. I would do that job. I would take that money. I don't get a stupidly-inflated Valley salary with bonus RSUs, and I have bills to pay. I don't have a union that can protect me from nonsense. I know it's wrong. I would do it anyway, because I have been screwed by every company I have ever worked for, such that I learned that my ethics don't matter. Money matters. I want my kids to get an education without student loans, if they want it. I want to drive a car that isn't older than they are. And I want to retire before I die. My ethics would only keep me from that. Apparently, the companies that aren't managed by money-grubbing sociopaths just don't hire where I live. So if you don't want stuff like this to happen, make it actually mean something to have ethical objections, even for people working outside of California. I build software that has probably contributed in a material way to human suffering. For far less money than a Silicon Valley developer might get paid to make a mobile app for on-demand dog-walking. Everyone in my building does it. Everyone in the building across the street does it. Companies that don't hurt people as part of their business model aren't hiring here. People that have a problem with it--or at least those who can't hide that they do--don't get the jobs. So if you are currently on a high horse, I hope you enjoy the view from up there. You haven't yet used your influence to help other workers--those with nigh-nonexistent power as an individual to influence the corporate employers that reluctantly hire them, and then reserve the right to fire at any time for any reason, or no reason.

vharuck 7y ago
>But even if the developers had ethical concerns, they had no recourse but to quit, and be replaced by someone else I'm not saying that everyone who touched the software should be indicted, but there were options beyond quitting. They could've told the customers, the news outlets, or the government. Of course, when you're surrounded by people doing the same thing and nobody else is speaking up, it's not unreasonable to think you're the only one who sees it as shady.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Whistleblowing is likely worse than quitting.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Yes, by whistleblowing they would have gone from unemployed developers to unemployed developers in prison. FBI targets security researchers with no business connection to health software companies. [0] How much worse would it be for ex-employees? [0] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-shafer-fbi-raid/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-shafer-fbi-raid/
heavyset_go 7y ago
> I would do that job. I would take that money. I don't get a stupidly-inflated Valley salary with bonus RSUs, and I have bills to pay. I don't have a union that can protect me from nonsense. I know it's wrong. I would do it anyway, because I have been screwed by every company I have ever worked for, such that I learned that my ethics don't matter. Money matters. You've identified a perverse incentive that requires punitive counter-incentive in response. Someone in your position will think twice about doing that job if by doing so, their freedom and ability to take care of their kids is put in jeopardy. Of course, there needs to be punitive incentives at the top so that such that low-level employees are not pushed to act in ways that lead to results such as these.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  The Uncle Ben Parker Contrapositive applies: with no power comes no responsibility. As long as "at will" employment exists, then no contract terms exist, and no labor law can stick to the employer, so long as they are willing to lie whenever there is no contradictory evidence. If the employee gets fired for asserting their rights in the law, and the employer can say it was an "at will" termination, the employee has no effective recourse or remedy. If you criminalize the work that I do, you are just getting me fired for no HR-disclosable reason (again), and the company will have that work done in another jurisdiction. If you aren't putting c-level executives and/or board members in prison, and forcibly restructuring or dissolving corporations, you aren't doing anything to protect me, the worker. And if you are placing legal liability on me, personally, I definitely will not testify against my superiors. I know the feces roll downhill. I was about to be incredulous, but I actually do believe that you would rather have me fired and put in prison, and my dependents thrown in the gutter, than to have a software workers' union or stronger federal labor laws that might possibly protect me from an arbitrary dismissal if I tell my boss "What you are asking me to do is unethical." Thanks for that.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    Thank you for putting it these terms. I do agree with your overall point. Perhaps I worded my view poorly. I am more in favor of software engineers having the same liability that engineers in other fields have. If a civil engineer signs off on plans for a bridge that gets people killed, liability will fall upon their employer and the engineer themselves. In that sense, there are incentives for both the employer and the engineer not to design structures that cause harm. > If you aren't putting c-level executives and/or board members in prison, and forcibly restructuring or dissolving corporations, you aren't doing anything to protect me, the worker. Agreed. > I was about to be incredulous, but I actually do believe that you would rather have me fired and put in prison, and my dependents thrown in the gutter, than to have a software workers' union or stronger federal labor laws that might possibly protect me from an arbitrary dismissal if I tell my boss "What you are asking me to do is unethical." Thanks for that. On the contrary, I am in favor of unionization and stronger labor laws in IT.
vkou 7y ago
> But even if the developers had ethical concerns, they had no recourse but to quit, and be replaced by someone else--who might get six months of work in before realizing that they are working for the baddies, and also deciding to either quit or die a little inside. They have another option. Organize and push back. But when FAMG employees organize to push back on unethical behaviour that they are asked to be complicit in, much of HN tends to accuse them of all sorts of nasty things.
the_decider 7y ago
Those engineers that drafted gas-chamber blueprints had kids to feed too. You’re no better than they are.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Not going to argue. That's absolutely correct. And let me tell you, it's really great for the self-esteem, too. As long as people keep giving tax cuts to the rich and undermining labor law, it's only going to get worse. Kids are still in cages. Presidents are still corrupt. And I'm too much a coward to withdraw my support of the system for your benefit, just because I don't want my family to be insecure about food and shelter again. I don't want to move yet another 1100 miles for work. I want to feel like I matter, but I really don't. If you feel like you have the choice to not do what I do, then you also have the power to help me have the same choice. Will you use it?

vharuck 7y ago

>But even if the developers had ethical concerns, they had no recourse but to quit, and be replaced by someone else I'm not saying that everyone who touched the software should be indicted, but there were options beyond quitting. They could've told the customers, the news outlets, or the government. Of course, when you're surrounded by people doing the same thing and nobody else is speaking up, it's not unreasonable to think you're the only one who sees it as shady.

mcguire 7y ago
Whistleblowing is likely worse than quitting.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Yes, by whistleblowing they would have gone from unemployed developers to unemployed developers in prison. FBI targets security researchers with no business connection to health software companies. [0] How much worse would it be for ex-employees? [0] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-shafer-fbi-raid/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/justin-shafer-fbi-raid/

heavyset_go 7y ago

> I would do that job. I would take that money. I don't get a stupidly-inflated Valley salary with bonus RSUs, and I have bills to pay. I don't have a union that can protect me from nonsense. I know it's wrong. I would do it anyway, because I have been screwed by every company I have ever worked for, such that I learned that my ethics don't matter. Money matters. You've identified a perverse incentive that requires punitive counter-incentive in response. Someone in your position will think twice about doing that job if by doing so, their freedom and ability to take care of their kids is put in jeopardy. Of course, there needs to be punitive incentives at the top so that such that low-level employees are not pushed to act in ways that lead to results such as these.

logfromblammo 7y ago
The Uncle Ben Parker Contrapositive applies: with no power comes no responsibility. As long as "at will" employment exists, then no contract terms exist, and no labor law can stick to the employer, so long as they are willing to lie whenever there is no contradictory evidence. If the employee gets fired for asserting their rights in the law, and the employer can say it was an "at will" termination, the employee has no effective recourse or remedy. If you criminalize the work that I do, you are just getting me fired for no HR-disclosable reason (again), and the company will have that work done in another jurisdiction. If you aren't putting c-level executives and/or board members in prison, and forcibly restructuring or dissolving corporations, you aren't doing anything to protect me, the worker. And if you are placing legal liability on me, personally, I definitely will not testify against my superiors. I know the feces roll downhill. I was about to be incredulous, but I actually do believe that you would rather have me fired and put in prison, and my dependents thrown in the gutter, than to have a software workers' union or stronger federal labor laws that might possibly protect me from an arbitrary dismissal if I tell my boss "What you are asking me to do is unethical." Thanks for that.
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  Thank you for putting it these terms. I do agree with your overall point. Perhaps I worded my view poorly. I am more in favor of software engineers having the same liability that engineers in other fields have. If a civil engineer signs off on plans for a bridge that gets people killed, liability will fall upon their employer and the engineer themselves. In that sense, there are incentives for both the employer and the engineer not to design structures that cause harm. > If you aren't putting c-level executives and/or board members in prison, and forcibly restructuring or dissolving corporations, you aren't doing anything to protect me, the worker. Agreed. > I was about to be incredulous, but I actually do believe that you would rather have me fired and put in prison, and my dependents thrown in the gutter, than to have a software workers' union or stronger federal labor laws that might possibly protect me from an arbitrary dismissal if I tell my boss "What you are asking me to do is unethical." Thanks for that. On the contrary, I am in favor of unionization and stronger labor laws in IT.

vkou 7y ago

> But even if the developers had ethical concerns, they had no recourse but to quit, and be replaced by someone else--who might get six months of work in before realizing that they are working for the baddies, and also deciding to either quit or die a little inside. They have another option. Organize and push back. But when FAMG employees organize to push back on unethical behaviour that they are asked to be complicit in, much of HN tends to accuse them of all sorts of nasty things.

the_decider 7y ago

Those engineers that drafted gas-chamber blueprints had kids to feed too. You’re no better than they are.

logfromblammo 7y ago
Not going to argue. That's absolutely correct. And let me tell you, it's really great for the self-esteem, too. As long as people keep giving tax cuts to the rich and undermining labor law, it's only going to get worse. Kids are still in cages. Presidents are still corrupt. And I'm too much a coward to withdraw my support of the system for your benefit, just because I don't want my family to be insecure about food and shelter again. I don't want to move yet another 1100 miles for work. I want to feel like I matter, but I really don't. If you feel like you have the choice to not do what I do, then you also have the power to help me have the same choice. Will you use it?