11 ms·

Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.

by mcantelon 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago
When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?
- mcantelon 13y ago
  If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.
  - kingkilr 13y ago
    How are you defining things that are to the detriment of humanity? Which ethical system are you making judgements like that on? Does the scale of things that are bad for humanity come into play?
    - mcantelon 13y ago
      If you want to make a case for an "ethical system" in which mass surveillance is good for humanity be my guest (and PM me your email login credentials while you're at it: I promise not to use them irresponsibly).
      - icebraining 13y ago
        You're not the NSA; defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. Not that I defend mass government surveillance, I'm just tired of that pseudo-argument.
        mcantelon 13y ago
        The NSA is made up on individuals like you or me and Edward Snowden has made the case that there's little preventing any insider from accessing what they want on whomever they want. As the surveillance state becomes an accepted part of modern society there will be those who seek involvement in it expressly for the purpose of abusing or exploiting their power.
        twoodfin 13y ago
        Actually, I don't think Snowden has made that case. He's asserted it, certainly, but things like the PRISM slides don't back him up.
        icebraining 13y ago
        They are individuals, yes (though they are certainly not random people), but they still operate within a structure that shapes their actions. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. But some random guy on HN - who knows? He might just post them on 4chan for the lulz. It's simply a facile argument that weakens the real arguments against mass state surveillance.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        It's not a bad argument, there's just better ones. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. It's perfectly possible to be crushed by a system without any of those operating the levers knowing or feeling anything personally about you. Systemic exploitation, a corrupt system if you will, is hardly better than corrupt individuals within a system, and the most horrific things in history all were rather apersonal, that's kinda what allowed them to reach an otherwise impossible scale, ferocity and longevity. People distrusting people while trusting faceless agencies is the problem, not the solution.
        dclowd9901 13y ago
        > defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. How on earth can you make that argument? Ostensibly, by giving him the credentials you trust something to keep your privacy private. With the feds, you have no choice.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?
    - RyanZAG 13y ago
      Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war? Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc. How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that? Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other arms of the government?
        mcantelon 13y ago
        >How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? What is legal and what is ethical are not necessarily the same thing, hence laws changing to make slavery illegal, etc. Ethical considerations often result in the changing of laws.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So ethical things can be illegal, unethical things can be legal. Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical?
        13y ago
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail. So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer". We're not talking about being mean to people because of their skin color, or not selling them ice cream because they're working for the Mafia. We're talking not selling them weapons, and not letting them buy you drinks and whatnot, because they're working for the Mafia. That's exactly appropriate. What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. You're making a mockery out of the word "discrimination" here. You're equating withdrawing support from those who do harm with being mean to handicapped people and whatnot: Fuck that, utterly and completely.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    >What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. Can you leave free speech out of this. Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it. Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Can you leave free speech out of this. Maybe, if you could kindly explain what you mean by that, because I don't get it. the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it There are over a hundred hours of Adolf Eichmann trials on Youtube. Watch any one of them, provided it contains him defending himself. So if the bigger problem is a complete non-issue, what does that say about the smaller ones? Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it. What is legal or not might be an issue for the organizers, granted, but personally I care more about what is right and what isn't. So if they break the laws for this, more power to them; if they can find a loophole, also fine. Private clubs can invite whoever they fuck they want, for example; this wouldn't be very practical, but there's nearly always a way.
- GigabyteCoin 13y ago
  Would you think it a wise idea to offer any form of training to an active member of the Nazi regime?
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Ever since we decided "just following orders" isn't a valid excuse.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  Lots of reasons. If someone were employed by, say, the Gestapo then it's pretty clear you would want to discriminate against them.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    You're the 3rd person to try and Godwin the thread. Can we stick to discrimination against the employees of legal employers in one's own state that one recognizes as legitimate and one is not in active rebellion against?
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Can we stfu about Godwin? Do you even know what it means? It's from the time of usenet and all it was was an observation that when the Nazi's come up the discussion is usually over. It's certainly not a good excuse to go ignoring important lessons in history. Nazi Germany is one of the better examples of why "just doing my job" is not a valid excuse for anything.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Actually Godwin only said that the longer discussions on the internet get, the greater the chance of someone making a comparison to the Nazis. Various groups decided that if this event occurred it was an indicator that the person who made the comparison had lost the debate and that the discussion was over.
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Various groups may have decided that, and may even be right in some cases but there are plenty of valid reasons to bring up the Nazis for base line comparisons.

Why not? Contributing to the knowledge of companies such at Narus is detrimental to the good of humanity.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

mcantelon 13y ago
If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.
- kingkilr 13y ago
  How are you defining things that are to the detriment of humanity? Which ethical system are you making judgements like that on? Does the scale of things that are bad for humanity come into play?
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    If you want to make a case for an "ethical system" in which mass surveillance is good for humanity be my guest (and PM me your email login credentials while you're at it: I promise not to use them irresponsibly).
    - icebraining 13y ago
      You're not the NSA; defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. Not that I defend mass government surveillance, I'm just tired of that pseudo-argument.
      - mcantelon 13y ago
        The NSA is made up on individuals like you or me and Edward Snowden has made the case that there's little preventing any insider from accessing what they want on whomever they want. As the surveillance state becomes an accepted part of modern society there will be those who seek involvement in it expressly for the purpose of abusing or exploiting their power.
        twoodfin 13y ago
        Actually, I don't think Snowden has made that case. He's asserted it, certainly, but things like the PRISM slides don't back him up.
        icebraining 13y ago
        They are individuals, yes (though they are certainly not random people), but they still operate within a structure that shapes their actions. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. But some random guy on HN - who knows? He might just post them on 4chan for the lulz. It's simply a facile argument that weakens the real arguments against mass state surveillance.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        It's not a bad argument, there's just better ones. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. It's perfectly possible to be crushed by a system without any of those operating the levers knowing or feeling anything personally about you. Systemic exploitation, a corrupt system if you will, is hardly better than corrupt individuals within a system, and the most horrific things in history all were rather apersonal, that's kinda what allowed them to reach an otherwise impossible scale, ferocity and longevity. People distrusting people while trusting faceless agencies is the problem, not the solution.
      - dclowd9901 13y ago
        > defending mass surveillance by them is not incompatible with not trusting you with one's email account. How on earth can you make that argument? Ostensibly, by giving him the credentials you trust something to keep your privacy private. With the feds, you have no choice.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?
  - RyanZAG 13y ago
    Certainly, yes. Is it not ok to discriminate against someone who has joined a terrorist group and is actively helping them? Is an army medic not rightly discriminated against by the other side if the medic's side loses the war? Discrimination is bad when it's about 'who someone is', never when it's about 'what someone does'. Providing work and support in exchange for money is very much 'what someone does'.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      So from your two examples, discrimination on the basis of one's employer is okay if the employer is not recognized as legitimate by the state, taxes are not remitted, etc. How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? You say it's never bad. How do you know that? Is it okay for the IRS to discriminate on the basis of one's employer? What about other arms of the government?
      - mcantelon 13y ago
        >How do you decide if it's okay or not to discriminate against employees when the employer in question is legal? What is legal and what is ethical are not necessarily the same thing, hence laws changing to make slavery illegal, etc. Ethical considerations often result in the changing of laws.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        So ethical things can be illegal, unethical things can be legal. Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical?
        13y ago
PavlovsCat 13y ago
When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail. So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer". We're not talking about being mean to people because of their skin color, or not selling them ice cream because they're working for the Mafia. We're talking not selling them weapons, and not letting them buy you drinks and whatnot, because they're working for the Mafia. That's exactly appropriate. What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. You're making a mockery out of the word "discrimination" here. You're equating withdrawing support from those who do harm with being mean to handicapped people and whatnot: Fuck that, utterly and completely.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  >What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. Can you leave free speech out of this. Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it. Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Can you leave free speech out of this. Maybe, if you could kindly explain what you mean by that, because I don't get it. the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it There are over a hundred hours of Adolf Eichmann trials on Youtube. Watch any one of them, provided it contains him defending himself. So if the bigger problem is a complete non-issue, what does that say about the smaller ones? Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it. What is legal or not might be an issue for the organizers, granted, but personally I care more about what is right and what isn't. So if they break the laws for this, more power to them; if they can find a loophole, also fine. Private clubs can invite whoever they fuck they want, for example; this wouldn't be very practical, but there's nearly always a way.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
Would you think it a wise idea to offer any form of training to an active member of the Nazi regime?
tripzilch 13y ago
> When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Ever since we decided "just following orders" isn't a valid excuse.
flyinRyan 13y ago
Lots of reasons. If someone were employed by, say, the Gestapo then it's pretty clear you would want to discriminate against them.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  You're the 3rd person to try and Godwin the thread. Can we stick to discrimination against the employees of legal employers in one's own state that one recognizes as legitimate and one is not in active rebellion against?
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Can we stfu about Godwin? Do you even know what it means? It's from the time of usenet and all it was was an observation that when the Nazi's come up the discussion is usually over. It's certainly not a good excuse to go ignoring important lessons in history. Nazi Germany is one of the better examples of why "just doing my job" is not a valid excuse for anything.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      Actually Godwin only said that the longer discussions on the internet get, the greater the chance of someone making a comparison to the Nazis. Various groups decided that if this event occurred it was an indicator that the person who made the comparison had lost the debate and that the discussion was over.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Various groups may have decided that, and may even be right in some cases but there are plenty of valid reasons to bring up the Nazis for base line comparisons.