8 ms·
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.
by 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 agoHow 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 agoIf 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 agoYou'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 agoThe 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 agoActually, 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 agoThey 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 agoIt'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.
- icebraining 13y agoI'm sorry, could you please rephrase that? I don't understand what you mean.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoSo discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?
- RyanZAG 13y agoCertainly, 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 agoSo 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 agoSo 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