3 ms·

you assume the people doing this see a problem with it. They could easily... * just be a nihilist and not give a damn * Think its fine because they are encour

by avs733 6y ago

you assume the people doing this see a problem with it. They could easily... * just be a nihilist and not give a damn * Think its fine because they are encouraging people to do something they see as good. * Think its fine because 'its just ads' * Think it's someone else's responsibility to make decisions about ethics (as an engineering prof, I see this all the time...students who say engineers' jobs are technology not ethics/morals)

samatman 6y ago
> Think it's someone else's responsibility to make decisions about ethics (as an engineering prof, I see this all the time...students who say engineers' jobs are technology not ethics/morals) The problem is that they're correct in a practical sense. The company they work for might get fined, but all the engineers see is the performance review. This system encourages engineers to think of compliance and morality as someone else's problem because: it is. Many will justify this as "if I don't do it, someone else will" and again: absolutely correct. Pass a law where engineers themselves may face fines or jail time for implementing immoral code, and they will suddenly discover a keen interest in the ethics of what they do.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Morality (definition left as an exercise) is something you have to be able to afford. Get hungry enough, get tired of sleeping on cardboard enough, get tired enough of restrictions imposed on you by society for stupid mistakes you made while out of your mind ... and morality is a luxury you can't afford. (In many countries, that luxury is permanently out-of-reach for the great majority.) Now add to that the constant reminders that morality doesn't stop a lot of people at the top from immoral behavior. Banks, politicians, Wall-Street, celebrities, billionaires etc. are in the news all the time for pulling shady shit. When they get caught, they say OOPS! They hear: 'don't do that any more, where people can see you' and they're free for another round. Many people tend to adopt behavior that's rewarded. It takes a strong moral compass; some people never got magnetized. Show people a society that rewards moral behavior (they exist) and they might go there. (Some countries have low recidivism rates because of how well they treat people in prison.) If people can afford to move, they might. Else they may just say screw it, XYZ throws toxins in the river, I'll do it too. Choice: track people or go shoot 'terrorists'. Hmmmm.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    I see this argument a lot, I grew up in such an environment. But being moral is really not a luxury because there are several very rich people who are immoral. Being moral is easy or hard depending upon your means, but so is everything else. At the end of the day you have to think about what you are doing and you and solely you are responsible for this. Also this whole argument is distracting from the fact that this is TrustArc we are talking about. Its an american company with 340 employees and over 20 million american dollars in annual revenue. When a company out of India does this same thing we can argue impact of means on morality then.
- endgame 6y ago
  > The company they work for might get fined, but all the engineers see is the performance review. This system encourages engineers to think of compliance and morality as someone else's problem because: it is. Didn't work so well for the VW guy: https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/25/vw_engineer_gets_3yrs_for_emissionbusting_sw/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/25/vw_engineer_gets_3yrs... > "if I don't do it, someone else will" Maybe, but at the very least it raises the price for companies to buy unethical people.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    or lowers the cost because at least some ethics are the luxury of the well-off. (sure, worrying about feeding family might not lead you to kill someone but it might let you make it difficult for users to opt out of privacy invasion)

by avs733 6y ago

samatman 6y ago

> Think it's someone else's responsibility to make decisions about ethics (as an engineering prof, I see this all the time...students who say engineers' jobs are technology not ethics/morals) The problem is that they're correct in a practical sense. The company they work for might get fined, but all the engineers see is the performance review. This system encourages engineers to think of compliance and morality as someone else's problem because: it is. Many will justify this as "if I don't do it, someone else will" and again: absolutely correct. Pass a law where engineers themselves may face fines or jail time for implementing immoral code, and they will suddenly discover a keen interest in the ethics of what they do.

8bitsrule 6y ago
Morality (definition left as an exercise) is something you have to be able to afford. Get hungry enough, get tired of sleeping on cardboard enough, get tired enough of restrictions imposed on you by society for stupid mistakes you made while out of your mind ... and morality is a luxury you can't afford. (In many countries, that luxury is permanently out-of-reach for the great majority.) Now add to that the constant reminders that morality doesn't stop a lot of people at the top from immoral behavior. Banks, politicians, Wall-Street, celebrities, billionaires etc. are in the news all the time for pulling shady shit. When they get caught, they say OOPS! They hear: 'don't do that any more, where people can see you' and they're free for another round. Many people tend to adopt behavior that's rewarded. It takes a strong moral compass; some people never got magnetized. Show people a society that rewards moral behavior (they exist) and they might go there. (Some countries have low recidivism rates because of how well they treat people in prison.) If people can afford to move, they might. Else they may just say screw it, XYZ throws toxins in the river, I'll do it too. Choice: track people or go shoot 'terrorists'. Hmmmm.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  I see this argument a lot, I grew up in such an environment. But being moral is really not a luxury because there are several very rich people who are immoral. Being moral is easy or hard depending upon your means, but so is everything else. At the end of the day you have to think about what you are doing and you and solely you are responsible for this. Also this whole argument is distracting from the fact that this is TrustArc we are talking about. Its an american company with 340 employees and over 20 million american dollars in annual revenue. When a company out of India does this same thing we can argue impact of means on morality then.
endgame 6y ago
> The company they work for might get fined, but all the engineers see is the performance review. This system encourages engineers to think of compliance and morality as someone else's problem because: it is. Didn't work so well for the VW guy: https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/25/vw_engineer_gets_3yrs_for_emissionbusting_sw/ https://www.theregister.com/2017/08/25/vw_engineer_gets_3yrs... > "if I don't do it, someone else will" Maybe, but at the very least it raises the price for companies to buy unethical people.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  or lowers the cost because at least some ethics are the luxury of the well-off. (sure, worrying about feeding family might not lead you to kill someone but it might let you make it difficult for users to opt out of privacy invasion)