3 ms·
> The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Mi
by jancsika 6y ago
> The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise.
You must be trolling me.
The article as written is completely different than the article as written plus something like what I quoted from you pasted at the bottom.
- roenxi 6y agoSorry if the argument was too subtle. The article is arguing that there is a proper engineering choice to be made (Do I include Easter Eggs? No, primarily because it is an unnecessary bug vector that erodes user trust). The root of this thread is an argument observation that users shouldn't trust the software anyway. Fair enough, that is certainly true. But there isn't a choice for MS about whether they help with PRISM. The US government is going to force them to. In a framework of what decisions the developer makes there are no choices to be made - they have to implement PRISM. It isn't reasonable to argue about something outside their sphere of influence when assessing what principles are good and bad. PRISM doesn't erode anyone's trust in the competence of Microsoft's engineering, it is just a general erosion of trust in American software. Nothing MS can do about it. I'm arguing that the article should be seen as trust in engineering competence. Not trust in the abstract.