9 ms·

Ostracising someone from society solely on where they work without looking at their actual actions is implying guilt by association. A tactic often used by auth

• XMPPwocky 6y ago
  Finally, somebody's brave enough to say the truth! I've been helping with some work for a small local gang- we do the usual (murder-for-hire, "debt collection", extortion, etc). Although I only do administrative work - keeping records and such. Pays great. But you know what? My wife- my wife of five years- left me when she found out. Can you believe that? What a fucking fascist. I didn't do anything wrong. I never killed anybody. And, sure, I did also help machine firearms for folks, and I did help with some supply chain issues to make sure we have a reliable supply of bullets, but I never shot anyone. Not one person. How dare anybody discriminate against me?
  • nec4b 6y ago
    Right, why do we need due process and laws, when we have people like you who know everything by reading a simple article on the web?
    • TomMarius 6y ago
      I really don't want due process and laws to decide who my friends are for me.
      • nec4b 6y ago
        I don't want a mob deciding who should be harassed because of an article.
        • TomMarius 6y ago
          Ostracizing someone is not harrasment. It's the opposite.
          • gdy 6y ago
            I find your argument to be quite disingenuous considering that the intention of the ostracism it to harm by denying job opportunities and by exclusion from social relations. Have some decency to call your actions what they are. If you want to harm somebody in retaliation for doing something you don't approve of, don't call it 'the opposite of harassment'.
            • TomMarius 6y ago
              I can see your point but perhaps it's a difference of viewpoint. When I am ostracising someone, it's because something bad they did. I think I have the right to choose with who I associate, and nobody has the right to force themselves upon me.
              • gdy 6y ago
                I don't understand why you are redefining a call for ostracism as "deciding who your friends are" and then classify ostracism as "the opposite of harassment". This pretty much looks like harassment to me: "the developer community need to start ostracising people working for these companies. Don't hire former employees, don't hang hang out with people who work for these companies and conferences. Don't supply services to these companies (build their website, network...)."
                • TomMarius 6y ago
                  I don't understand what you don't understand. I can't harass someone I don't interact with.
    • hutzlibu 6y ago
      Erm, he made an abstract argument in a satirical way, to counter the abstract argument from parent. I don't see judgment to the concrete case.
    • XMPPwocky 6y ago
      Let's say I am staunchly anti-abortion. I believe any abortion is, unambiguously, murder - the killing of a human being, and, maybe even worse, a child. It's unforgivable- goes against everything I believe in. I also have a friend named Sammy, who's a doctor. Last night I discovered Sammy got a new job at Planned Parenthood, where a significant part of her time will be spent performing surgical abortions. How many articles on the web should I read before I'm allowed to stop being friends with Sammy?
      • Blaiz0r 6y ago
        Maybe the right thing to do is to change your opinions on anti-abortion, and come to understand Sammy better?
        • lorenzhs 6y ago
          In that example yes, but are you really telling me that I should change my views on whether it's okay for governments to hack journalists and activists to publicly smear them and arrest their sources?
          • aronpye 6y ago
            Nope, but you should judge individuals on their individual actions
            • profmonocle 6y ago
              How is choosing to work for a company that sells surveillance software to despotic governments not an "individual action"?
            • Veen 6y ago
              It's an interesting position but one with unpleasant implications. Do you think it is morally wrong to work for, say, a terrorist organization planning a chemical weapons attack if all you do is manage procurement for them — you don't make chemical weapons or use them, you just make phone calls and manage a few spreadsheets. Also, do you have the same feeling for the reverse situation? If instead of being an employee, you're the boss. You're aware that your employees are doing something morally wrong and you do nothing to stop them, but you aren't doing it yourself. Do you have any responsibility? In the ethics of war, there is the concept of command responsibility[0], where leaders are responsible for the actions of people under their command. Do you think that is a bad doctrine because the leaders aren't the ones shooting people? No one dies through their individual actions even if their subordinates commit war crimes. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
  • aronpye 6y ago
    If you are proven to have aided a killer by providing them with weapons for example, that is accessory to murder. Maybe everyone in that organisation is evil and corrupt, but you cannot just assume that and apply summary judgment without due process.
    • varjag 6y ago
      No, in case of organizations whose raison d'être is doing something morally repugnant for you, it's okay to apply summary judgement.
  • dijksterhuis 6y ago
    Unclear whether this is legit, or if you're being facetious to demonstrate a point. I'm gonna bet on the latter, seeing as this is HN! You intended to supply a local gang with guns and ammo to earn profit from it, along with the other actions you took. You purposefully set out to profit from their criminal behaviour in full knowledge of what that entailed. I'm not surprised your wife left you. Good on her. Here is a circumstance where your point is not valid, where there is no malicious intent: - Developer A in dept X finds out developer B in dept Y is working on Z. Is uncomfortable with anything to do with Z. - Dev A raises this with line manager C and gets pushed back. - Dev A tries to raise this up higher. Gets push back. - Dev A decides to leave the company because the workplace has now become increasingly hostile. Dev A tried to do the right thing and raise up the fact that project Z was unethical. By presuming guilt by association, Dev A is treated exactly the same as Dev B. Consider engineers at Google. Did every Google engineer work on project dragonfly? Did every engineer know about it until it was leaked to the press? Do the project zero team work on ad tracking? Bringing it back to your example now. If you were an accountant for a printing shop that just happened to be a front, but you never knew about it or suspected it, that's another story. There's no intent to profit from or knowledge of the criminality. Now you're an innocent bystander who was taking advantage of. If your wife left you in this situation, I'd feel for you. This is why we presume innocence until guilt is proven. I, for one, would rather some guilty people slip through the net of justice if it helps us to not habitually punish innocent people for crimes they did not commit. The world is not perfect, nothing is ever black and white.
    • surewhynat 6y ago
      I believe you're missing le point. The google engineers should fear retribution from the community if they don't take action to repair the damage that google caused. No not every engineer was on project dragonfly, but, it should put pressure on every engineer to stand up and do the right thing. And it should put them all at risk, that way as a collective whole you'll choose to do the right thing, in order to not put innocent people on your team at risk.
    • black_puppydog 6y ago
      Cool, so there are areas with shades of grey. Claiming that you somehow were not aware of what NSO is doing is just not one of those, at least I won't give you the benefit of the doubt if you're working there as a dev. Likewise, if you work for Hacking team, you know what you are doing.
  • abstractbarista 6y ago
    It is unfortunate. This reality is inherently unequal.
  • MisterTea 6y ago
    You hiring?
• hutzlibu 6y ago
  If a organisation is criminal, then being member of that organisation means, yes, you are a criminal, too. But in this case it is not a criminal organisation, by law, it is a company selling "software weapons" to a government the western governments view as legitimate and therefore ok to sell weapons to, even though it is not at all democratic. So the company is acting within the law (probably), but we probably agree, that it is not moral to do so. If we agree on that, than it is also not ok, to support a company who is doing wrong. So I agree, to avoid people, who do no ethical work. But I don't know enough of the companies in question to make that final judgement and judge case by case, like always.
  • aronpye 6y ago
    Being a member of a criminal organisation does not make you a criminal by itself, that is called guilt by an association and has been used by tyrants throughout history to justify oppression and killing without cause. You are only a criminal if you are proven through substantial evidence that you have in fact committed a crime.
    • jay_kyburz 6y ago
      Perhaps if you don't know its a criminal organization, then sure. But if you knowingly assist murderers do their job, I say you can go to jail with them.
      • aronpye 6y ago
        I mostly agree, but there is nuance to these types of things. For example, is everyone who worked in Nazi Germany a criminal?
        • hutzlibu 6y ago
          Hard question, still disputed. My point of view is, yes! Unless he opposed in a meaningful way. But most did their duty and did so proudly. And after the war everyone just did their duty because hey had to and no one was a nazi. But the question also applies to today. The US for example use turtore and murder. So for some family members of people being murdered, because they attended a wedding in afghanistan, the whole US is guilty and therefore a legimitate target. I do not think so, but I think people in the US should take this more into consideration when thinking about terrorist. Most terrorist legitimate their actions (and get support) by saying they fight back the evil empire.that brings them only bombs.
• mtgx 6y ago
  It's not "guilt by association" - they are actually the guilty ones if they work on the software and enable the surveillance with their own code. Guilt by association would refer more to say the office secretary in said company - or the founder's cousin. This is more like saying soldiers can't be held culpable for what their leaders ordered. And we know that's not a good excuse. The people developing these tools and writing code for them are the "soldiers" here. And they're happy to cash in writing them.
• pryce 6y ago
  > Everyone in a civilised society has the right to a fair trial without the presumption of guilt. This is absurd. A "right to a fair trial" is the standard for criminal trials, which are associated with criminal punishments -particularly but not always- imprisonment and execution. The right to a fair trial has never been a standard we as individuals are obliged to follow in other contexts; for example: it would be ridiculous to think "a trial" is needed before we decide whether we should continue doing business with a company that dismisses its employees for being gay or trans. Similarly, there is a long history of consumer boycott movements to pressure both companies and nations into acting more ethically; from Apartheid South Africa, to confectionary and fruit companies, to oil companies, to which eggs we might choose to buy. In none of those circumstances is a "right to a fair trial" a relevant concern. A better question might be: How unethical does a company have to be before the act of just working for them should be considered immoral enough to merit public rebuke and repudiation? I don't think there's a lot of companies that reach that threshold, but I'm adamant that some should: Blackwater is the most obvious choice here.
  • aronpye 6y ago
    I agree that a trial by jury isn’t always required. But when punishing individuals, there should always be due process. In any case, any action taken should be evidence based and properly investigated.
    • CathedralBorrow 6y ago
      Any action taken by anyone? If I want to boycott a company, would you like my actions to be properly investigated?
    • bluntfang 6y ago
      >any action taken should be evidence based and properly investigated. My emotionally charged actions to not be your friend or colleague requires no evidence or proper investigation. If you want to be my friend/colleague, stop being an asshole. It's that simple.
• kome 6y ago
  just following orders... Seriously: boycott, divest, sanction NSO Group and similar businesses.
• boomlinde 6y ago
  > Everyone in a civilised society has the right to a fair trial without the presumption of guilt. In the case of criminal and civil proceedings, sure, but a boycott on my part is an application of my own moral compass, not of the law. I don't owe anyone a "fair trial" for the judgement that guides my own free actions. If for any other reason than absolute necessity you work for an organization that serves authoritarian, anti-democratic regimes with tools designed specifically to implement policies to that end, I will think poorly of you for no other reason. I won't trust that you are able to make decent moral choices. I will base my own conduct on that judgement. My conduct insofar that it's clearly legal should not be the subject of a fair trial.
• ohnope 6y ago
  It’s not guilt by association, it’s guilt by action. The action of deciding to work for the company with such a mission / clientele. Especially in a role requiring enough technical knowledge to know what’s going on.
• cycomanic 6y ago
  I didn't not say ostracising from society, just from our community. Regarding fair trial, this is not a legal matter, it is a moral judgement. And working for a company who is actively helping authoritarian governments to prosecute and kill dissidents is making a choice. That is not guilt by association, you _are_ helping with your actions. Your argumentation is exactly how how totalitarian governments commit atrocities, divide the responsibilities up enough so that every little cog can justify to themselves that what they are doing is not morally wrong. I know I'm coming close to invoking Godwins law, but Oskar Gröning had a moral (and even legal) responsibility for his actions, even if he did not kill anyone himself.
• DoctorNick 6y ago
  This is the epitome of the ignorant, tiresome, bad-faith "innocent before proven guilty" argument. The childish "A tactic often used by authoritarians" is just icing on the cake.
• bluntfang 6y ago
  >Everyone in a civilised society has the right to a fair trial without the presumption of guilt. Fair trial is about the government enforcing laws, not about social groups enforcing morals and ethics. No one has the right to a trial when you act like an asshole and no one wants to be your friend because of it.