4 ms·

I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, e

I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?

Clubber 5y ago
I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it. (1) discriminating against marginalized communities What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people? (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well. (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China? (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.
krferriter 5y ago
If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.
- krageon 5y ago
  > What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    Do you think that having a camera in your backyard constitutes surveillance? Does a baby monitor constitute surveillance? Does a drone with a camera constitute surveillance? It can be used for this, after all. No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
    - krageon 5y ago
      All rules can be interpreted maliciously, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.

I don't get it. What does "allowing that one's politics is partially flawed" have to do with not wanting one's project used for surveillance, weapons control, etc?

Clubber 5y ago

I think 1 and 2 are more the issue, but possibly all of them. They are all loose definitions that mean different things to different people. I think it would limit serious uptake once a legal department gets a hold of it. (1) discriminating against marginalized communities What does this mean? I bet I could get several different answers. Old people are marginalized by agism in tech, does this mean tech companies can't use this? How would they prove they don't marginalize old people? (2) building tools that disingenuously manipulate public opinion Ditto. To me this means no political party or marketing/advertising department can use this. Probably most news outlets as well. (3) building tools of mass surveillance and prediction to repress the rights of people Rights defined by whom? US Constitution? Right not to be offended? Rights granted by the Taliban or ISIS? Communist China? (4) building tools that control weapons, including tools that automate the deployment, operation, and targeting of weapons. I think most people can get on board with this one, unless we were attacked in earnest by a strong military foe.

krferriter 5y ago

If you have a political position that all weapons are bad and all surveillance is bad then I think that is a deeply flawed viewpoint. What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance. Where those things go into the realm of abuse. Of course, "abuse" is a subjective word for these things too, but I think there's a general consensus that some things are bad.

krageon 5y ago
> What we want to avoid is improper use of weapons and surveillance All use of weapons and surveillance is abusive, so what you are saying "we" (who?) want is not something that I find reasonable.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  Do you think that having a camera in your backyard constitutes surveillance? Does a baby monitor constitute surveillance? Does a drone with a camera constitute surveillance? It can be used for this, after all. No matter what you think, the authors might disagree, so you have no way of using the software in anything related to it. Worse yet, this can quickly change - the system you built that uses this software in the background might be totally fine to watch a womans shelter, but the license could be pulled any minute because the authors dislike that you also sold your product to a normal prison.
  - krageon 5y ago
    All rules can be interpreted maliciously, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any.