3 ms·

> I think it’s just very, very easy to create a system of people collectively doing evil things where no one person carries the burden of evil individually enou

> I think it’s just very, very easy to create a system of people collectively doing evil things where no one person carries the burden of evil individually enough to really feel sick enough with what they’re contributing to. Which is why I don't think punishing just the company itself is enough. The engineers, designers, PM's that implemented this should also receive punishment, sufficient enough to make anyone thinking of participating in the implementation of such systems has reason enough to feel sick, if only for their own skin. Make it clear that participating in such things carries the risk of losing your career, a lot of money, and potentially even your freedom.

DrScientist 1y ago
I'd argue that the person running the company in this case is responsible. Now they may argue that they didn't know - but you can frame the law such that's it's their duty to know and ensure this sort of stuff doesn't happen. cf Sarbanes-Oxley
brookst 1y ago
Definitely a good way to drive talent overseas. Get the low level people to assume all of the risk with none of the upsides; ask recent grades and junior people to do E2E ethical analysis on every project in addition to their 60 hour/week job, give the truly evil people convenient, lower-level scapegoats.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  Completely agree. My feeling is that corporate officers should bear the burden that the corporation as a person currently bears. I can only imagine how much better things would be in past experiences if the C-levels felt a personal need to actually know how the sausage is being made.
  - genocidicbunny 1y ago
    I can't fully agree because the way I see it, that is in a way scapegoating the company executives. Are they responsible? Probably, yes, they set the direction of the company and give the orders at the highest level. But we the engineers and designers are the ones actually implementing what is probably a fairly nebulous order at the highest levels into something concrete. They deign that there should be evil created, but we're the ones who are actually making it happen. Some of the responsibility lies with us, and we need to not pretend that's not the case.
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      I'd agree at a personal/moral level there is equal responsibility. However that doesn't recognise both the power and risk/reward imbalance here. If you, as an employee did this - maybe you'd add a few dollars to your stock options over time. If your Zuck - that's potentially billions. And in terms of downside - if you are Zuck and stop it in the company - there is no comeback - if you are an engineer blowing the whistle - you may find it hard to work in the industry ever again - and only one of those two actually needs to work.
      - Ray20 1y ago
        Sounds like a typical blurring of responsibility through bureaucracy. "If Zak is a billionaire, then he is responsible, but since he essentially did nothing wrong, then no one will be held accountable." Total nonsense. There are specific crimes, and there are specific people who planned this crimes, specific peoples who ordered them to be carried out, and who carried them out. And these people should be held accountable for these crimes. Even if they work 60 hours a week for minimum wage and would have been fired if they hadn't committed them. They should have quit in such cases, not committed crimes. And on the other hand, if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that? Even if you have 20 megayachts and your employees work 60 hours a week for minimum wage.
        SoftTalker 1y ago
        > if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that? Thats where "known or should have known" becomes relevant. It's your company, it's your responsiblity to know what they are doing.
        Ray20 1y ago
        No, what you are suggesting is a typical strategy of avoiding punishment and creating an opportunity to break the law. A very common strategy, used everywhere, especially in dictatorial and socialist regimes. There is a substitution of one real crime, committed by real people, for a crime "they didn’t know, but should have" against other people, for which there is no real responsibility, while the real criminals are declared to be simply "cogs" in the system. As a result, no one is held accountable for a crime for which dozens of people who directly committed it could go to prison for many years, because the person held responsible is a high-ranking manager who "should have known, but did not know," who himself issues "a severe reprimand" or assigns a tiny fine for it. Thus, the entire system is drowning in crimes, the commission of crimes becomes a REQUIREMENT of the system and the commission of crimes becomes a guarantee of the loyalty to the system.
- account42 1y ago
  You don't need to invest significant time to realize that working around privacy restrictions is wrong and you shouldn't do it.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Have you worked in software? This is a complex, multi-application system with IPC. Most of the people implementing it probably had no idea what the partner applications were, let alone the business intent. Nobody sits down with a mid-level developer and says “we need your native app to receive webrtc connections that will be used to send app-layer telemetry that circumvents privacy protections”. The requirement is just to receive events and log them. And odds are there were all sorts of harmless events as well. At the level where people had a holistic view of the system and intent, sure, throw them in jail. I’d guess that’s about 1% of the people who designed, implemented, tested, documented this code.
throwawayqqq11 1y ago
LLC - Limited liability company GmbH - Society with limited liability (german, translated) This liability shield is by design.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  And yet, we still have the ability to pierce the liability veil. Heck, it's even in the name, "limited liability". Not "no liability".
- zufallsheld 1y ago
  The ceo (Geschäftsführer) is liable when they when they intentionally break the law so the limited liability is not applicable then.
- account42 1y ago
  Limited liability doesn't mean no liability. It means that you don't personally pay for damages due to mistakes not that you get to wantonly do crime without personal consequences.

DrScientist 1y ago

I'd argue that the person running the company in this case is responsible. Now they may argue that they didn't know - but you can frame the law such that's it's their duty to know and ensure this sort of stuff doesn't happen. cf Sarbanes-Oxley

brookst 1y ago

Definitely a good way to drive talent overseas. Get the low level people to assume all of the risk with none of the upsides; ask recent grades and junior people to do E2E ethical analysis on every project in addition to their 60 hour/week job, give the truly evil people convenient, lower-level scapegoats.

Waterluvian 1y ago
Completely agree. My feeling is that corporate officers should bear the burden that the corporation as a person currently bears. I can only imagine how much better things would be in past experiences if the C-levels felt a personal need to actually know how the sausage is being made.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  I can't fully agree because the way I see it, that is in a way scapegoating the company executives. Are they responsible? Probably, yes, they set the direction of the company and give the orders at the highest level. But we the engineers and designers are the ones actually implementing what is probably a fairly nebulous order at the highest levels into something concrete. They deign that there should be evil created, but we're the ones who are actually making it happen. Some of the responsibility lies with us, and we need to not pretend that's not the case.
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    I'd agree at a personal/moral level there is equal responsibility. However that doesn't recognise both the power and risk/reward imbalance here. If you, as an employee did this - maybe you'd add a few dollars to your stock options over time. If your Zuck - that's potentially billions. And in terms of downside - if you are Zuck and stop it in the company - there is no comeback - if you are an engineer blowing the whistle - you may find it hard to work in the industry ever again - and only one of those two actually needs to work.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      Sounds like a typical blurring of responsibility through bureaucracy. "If Zak is a billionaire, then he is responsible, but since he essentially did nothing wrong, then no one will be held accountable." Total nonsense. There are specific crimes, and there are specific people who planned this crimes, specific peoples who ordered them to be carried out, and who carried them out. And these people should be held accountable for these crimes. Even if they work 60 hours a week for minimum wage and would have been fired if they hadn't committed them. They should have quit in such cases, not committed crimes. And on the other hand, if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that? Even if you have 20 megayachts and your employees work 60 hours a week for minimum wage.
      - SoftTalker 1y ago
        > if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that? Thats where "known or should have known" becomes relevant. It's your company, it's your responsiblity to know what they are doing.
        Ray20 1y ago
        No, what you are suggesting is a typical strategy of avoiding punishment and creating an opportunity to break the law. A very common strategy, used everywhere, especially in dictatorial and socialist regimes. There is a substitution of one real crime, committed by real people, for a crime "they didn’t know, but should have" against other people, for which there is no real responsibility, while the real criminals are declared to be simply "cogs" in the system. As a result, no one is held accountable for a crime for which dozens of people who directly committed it could go to prison for many years, because the person held responsible is a high-ranking manager who "should have known, but did not know," who himself issues "a severe reprimand" or assigns a tiny fine for it. Thus, the entire system is drowning in crimes, the commission of crimes becomes a REQUIREMENT of the system and the commission of crimes becomes a guarantee of the loyalty to the system.
account42 1y ago
You don't need to invest significant time to realize that working around privacy restrictions is wrong and you shouldn't do it.
- brookst 1y ago
  Have you worked in software? This is a complex, multi-application system with IPC. Most of the people implementing it probably had no idea what the partner applications were, let alone the business intent. Nobody sits down with a mid-level developer and says “we need your native app to receive webrtc connections that will be used to send app-layer telemetry that circumvents privacy protections”. The requirement is just to receive events and log them. And odds are there were all sorts of harmless events as well. At the level where people had a holistic view of the system and intent, sure, throw them in jail. I’d guess that’s about 1% of the people who designed, implemented, tested, documented this code.

throwawayqqq11 1y ago

LLC - Limited liability company GmbH - Society with limited liability (german, translated) This liability shield is by design.

genocidicbunny 1y ago
And yet, we still have the ability to pierce the liability veil. Heck, it's even in the name, "limited liability". Not "no liability".
zufallsheld 1y ago
The ceo (Geschäftsführer) is liable when they when they intentionally break the law so the limited liability is not applicable then.
account42 1y ago
Limited liability doesn't mean no liability. It means that you don't personally pay for damages due to mistakes not that you get to wantonly do crime without personal consequences.