4 ms·

I would like to post a slightly different angle to the discussion. Assumption: the majority of commenters are working in technology fields, and perhaps even t

I would like to post a slightly different angle to the discussion. Assumption: the majority of commenters are working in technology fields, and perhaps even technology startups. Let’s say that you have developed some software product that works pretty well for certain applications, but is certainly not perfect. But it works well enough that your customers are paying you to use your product. Now, your customers decide to use your product in a way that you have neither intended nor prescribed. (In fact, your product comes with a disclaimer.) In doing so, they end up in court. And you get hauled into the middle of it. Should you have to expose your technology? This could endanger your entire business.

trs8080 4y ago
If your technology is being used as justification for incarcerating people and as a way for law enforcement to circumvent the law and escalate routine encounters into violence, then yes. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh... https://www.vice.com/en/article/5db8vk/police-are-using-gunshot-detection-tech-to-justify-stop-and-frisks https://www.vice.com/en/article/5db8vk/police-are-using-guns... https://www.vice.com/en/article/88nd3z/gunshot-detecting-tech-is-summoning-armed-police-to-black-neighborhoods https://www.vice.com/en/article/88nd3z/gunshot-detecting-tec...
kmeisthax 4y ago
If the law hinges upon how your secret algorithm works then it should not be a secret. I'd rather have my secret sauce cloned by China[0] than live under Maoism[1]. This sounds unfair to you, but sometimes the fair solution creates more injustice than it solves. This is the same reason why we have the EPA Superfund program. Love Canal might not have been the polluter's fault[2] but the "fair" alternative was to let everyone sit in court while they and their kids die from toxic waste. [0] tbh the biggest problem with Chinese IP theft is that they don't share their plunder [1] At least I'm assuming "keeping the law secret" is something Mao did, I might just be being an ignorant American [2] If I remember correctly New York State or the county government actually threatened to use eminent domain to force the polluter to sell the toxic waste dump to them.
woodruffw 4y ago
Yes. This is a foundational cornerstone of our legal system: we do not incarcerate people based on evidence that they cannot question or review. Believe it or not, this is not a unique problem for technology fields. Courts have long understood that techniques are possibly sensitive, and allow for a broad variety of discovery techniques to accommodate the defendant's rights. A common one for software is to have an independent, court-overseen third party review the code and produce an affidavit affirming that the code does what it claims. Another is to only allow review of techniques in a controlled environment, where the defense cannot steal intellectual property.

trs8080 4y ago

If your technology is being used as justification for incarcerating people and as a way for law enforcement to circumvent the law and escalate routine encounters into violence, then yes. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh... https://www.vice.com/en/article/5db8vk/police-are-using-gunshot-detection-tech-to-justify-stop-and-frisks https://www.vice.com/en/article/5db8vk/police-are-using-guns... https://www.vice.com/en/article/88nd3z/gunshot-detecting-tech-is-summoning-armed-police-to-black-neighborhoods https://www.vice.com/en/article/88nd3z/gunshot-detecting-tec...

kmeisthax 4y ago

If the law hinges upon how your secret algorithm works then it should not be a secret. I'd rather have my secret sauce cloned by China[0] than live under Maoism[1]. This sounds unfair to you, but sometimes the fair solution creates more injustice than it solves. This is the same reason why we have the EPA Superfund program. Love Canal might not have been the polluter's fault[2] but the "fair" alternative was to let everyone sit in court while they and their kids die from toxic waste. [0] tbh the biggest problem with Chinese IP theft is that they don't share their plunder [1] At least I'm assuming "keeping the law secret" is something Mao did, I might just be being an ignorant American [2] If I remember correctly New York State or the county government actually threatened to use eminent domain to force the polluter to sell the toxic waste dump to them.

woodruffw 4y ago

Yes. This is a foundational cornerstone of our legal system: we do not incarcerate people based on evidence that they cannot question or review. Believe it or not, this is not a unique problem for technology fields. Courts have long understood that techniques are possibly sensitive, and allow for a broad variety of discovery techniques to accommodate the defendant's rights. A common one for software is to have an independent, court-overseen third party review the code and produce an affidavit affirming that the code does what it claims. Another is to only allow review of techniques in a controlled environment, where the defense cannot steal intellectual property.