6 ms·

This might not be the norm here, but give me enough money and challenging work, great working conditions, and I'll work for any legal company or organization, t

This might not be the norm here, but give me enough money and challenging work, great working conditions, and I'll work for any legal company or organization, though some organizations would have to put out a great deal of money vs others! Given that like most decent programmers here, I can work more or less anywhere, given equal amounts of money etc, I'd probably go work for Google than the CIA. But if the job choice is between fiddling with javascript on some ancient offshored CRUD codebase(say, been there done that), vs building robots for the American Army, or the Indian army - [I live in India]), no contest at all. In other words I won't work for the mafia or child pornographers or anything illegal, but the CIA/NSA/whoever? In a heartbeat. Drone targeting software? sure thing. A drone is just the weapon of the day and not any more illegal than say a smoothbore musket in its day. Should all the engineers/metallurgists have stuck to making trinkets for the nobility vs cannons for their army? You are working for the same people in any case. Every algorithm known to man has both good and bad uses. Not developing algorithms because they might be harmful is insane. On a less hyperbolic plane, I like Richard Stallman but would easily work for Apple or Goldman Sachs (for e.g, given enough money and good work and good working conditions and coworkers). The software you'd write for SpaceX isn't that far different from the software you'd write to control an ICBM. Salarymen who think they can control what the software they write will be used for by their employers are just deluding themselves. Do you think the people who built Watson have any control on what IBM will do with the tech? And this is a company that used computing to help the Nazis. Should the engineers at IBM not have worked on computers? Work is just work, a means to exchange your talents for money. Keep it legal, do good work. Go home and play with the kids. The way to stop the NSA from doing distasteful things is, in my opinion, to work to elect people/hold your legislators feet to the fire, and get good legislation passed not refuse to research/deploy cryptographic/cryptanalysis algorithms. I just wanted a little balance to this discussion. Not everyone buys into the political correctnesses of the day. Sorry for the rant, but the article is nonsensical, trying to guilt trip algorithm developers. yes so "People should think about it. But I'm just an engineer, basically."

zzzeek 13y ago
when you say "keep it legal" it sounds like you only mean, "so I don't get arrested". That is, you would not work on something very ethical, but illegal (like some system of assisting in the production of medical marijuana in a state where it's illegal) but you would work on something unethical but legal (NSA spying). So really, saying anything legal is not saying much - essentially ethics don't come into question. I know for a fact that I'm very uncomfortable working on something that I find to be obviously unethical. Though NSA stuff, I'd not work on that just because I'd hate keeping everything I do a secret.
- plinkplonk 13y ago
  Sure, as with all things human, there is the occasional gray area where there are no good answers, but yes I probably wouldn't work in a criminal enterprise in a democratic nation, whether it is about medical marijuana or not. The point is, I'll work on things as per my ethics, not some random person's ethics or a hypothetical "engineers code of conduct" or whatever as the article seems to advocate. I gave plenty of examples of software that some people would consider unethical (say drone targeting, or NSA crawling etc that TFA is about) that I would have no problem working on. My ethics are mostly in harmony with the legal systems of democratic nations. I'm sorry if that doesn't accord with your notions of what "should be".
  - zzzeek 13y ago
    Oh well that's something different - you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical. That's absolutely fine, ethics after all are ultimately personal. Like I'd not work for Monsanto, since I find them unethical, but certainly most hackers disagree with me on that. I'm not happy about the NSA situation though I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical.
    - plinkplonk 13y ago
      I agree completely. I threw in 'legal' in the original post to head off morons chanting "so you'd work for drug dealers" etc. My only point was, to quote you, "the NSA situation ...I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical" (well stated). I have a hard time listening to the demonizing of the NSA engineers by people who work at Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Amazon (or would like to) who build similar technology to profile users!
      - MichaelGG 13y ago
        Throwing in "legal" in a discussion that pretty much revolves around that seems like a poor way to communicate. Also "drug dealers" is probably the epitome of a morally/legal ambiguous job. Purdue has no doubt eased the suffering of millions of people, yet they were still hit with felony convictions.
dylandrop 13y ago
"Every algorithm known to man has both good and bad uses. Not developing algorithms because they might be harmful is insane." Yep, that missile guiding system someone built for Boeing totally has primarily good uses in mind. "Work is just work, a means to exchange your talents for money. Keep it legal, do good work. Go home and play with the kids." Dude, seriously? Everyone should have some sense of morals and question authority. Come on, if we don't question our current way of life, how does anything get better? Why should we be okay with people dying just so we can have a nice, cozy life with our kids?
- plinkplonk 13y ago
  "Dude, seriously? Everyone should have some sense of morals and question authority" Yes seriously. My "sense of morals" is very different from yours (in that I'd gladly work on defence tech say.). So what?
  - jblow 13y ago
    I would gladly work on "defense tech" too, as in actually defending people. But what you mean by "defense tech" is actually offense tech. Look at how these things are actually used in the world. When an entire field needs to stand behind a euphemism in order to prevent seeming ugly, that is certainly some kind of a sign.
    - plinkplonk 13y ago
      There is no difference between a technology being used defensively or offensively. The 'self driving car' tech will feed into 'self driving tanks' tech, and vice versa. Military Satellite tech gives you the GPS and Google Maps, which will in turn be used for military purposes. A technology (including algorithms) can be used for good or ill. That is just the nature of the beast. You can certainly work towards what you see as the overreach of American militarism. It is a political/economic problem which needs a political/economic solution. Your (not) working on cryptanalysis algorithms has nothing to do with it.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
Helianthus 13y ago
This is called a lack of artistic integrity. And there's nothing wrong with that, you're just excerpting yourself from responsibility, and if enough people do that engineering becomes irresponsible. Arguably this is a problem right now. Look, I understand your position, food has to get on the table, but: I don't respect you. I am responsible for everything I put out in the world. You can take that as a guilt trip if you'd like, but I feel like if you're going to be bald-faced about how you put all the real responsibility on laws and those who make them, I can be blunt about how I view your attitude. I guess everyone has to find their own relationship to the value of their work.
- plinkplonk 13y ago
  " but: I don't respect you." heh sure. whatever makes you happy.
  - Helianthus 13y ago
    Heh. Nothing left to say now, really. Cheers.
kbenson 13y ago
I used to think working for the NSA would be fun, interesting, and in the service of my country. I don't think that anymore...
sentenza 13y ago
I have to disagree. Resorting to "keep it legal" removes any moral obligation. There are ethical decisions to be made, some easy, some not so. Should IBM not have worked on Computers? No. Should IBM not have sold to Nazi Germany? Most likely yes. Should the guy working hard all day to make the Zyklon B have refused to do so? ABSOLUTELY Back when I went to school, we had one (or two?) hours per week of "ethics class". If there was one thing to take away from those lessons, it's that you can never just refuse to exercise moral/ethical judgement. Acting ethically is one of the central responsibilities that a citizen in a free society has.
- shabble 13y ago
  > Should the guy working hard all day to make the Zyklon B have refused to do so? ABSOLUTELY Initially at least, Zyklon B was an entirely legitimate pesticide/vermicide that had a broad range of uses. The original form contained a powerful warning odorant to alert users of its presence in sub-lethal concentrations. I don't think there's any claim that the actual production staff knew exactly where or how it was being used, and so would have no real grounds to refuse or quit. There is evidence that once it was found suitable for killing humans, there was a change in formulation to remove the warning odorant at the direct request of the extermination camp officials. I'm not sure if that alone would be grounds for staff suspicion, as it was apparently passed off as necessity due to wartime material shortages, which to me would seem plausible. The production and distributor firms management, however, knew a lot more about what was going on, and where it was being used. Founder Tesch & director Weinbacher were both found guilty in a war-crimes tribunal[1], whilst another employee was acquitted. So I don't think it's quite so simple a scenario as 'the process engineer for the pesticide vats should have guessed they might be being misused and quit just in case' that you lay out. [1] http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm
  - diydsp 13y ago
    ...Which is exactly why engineers (like me) simply must seek out and look beyond the Kool-Aid their company and managers pour and understand exactly what effects the actions of their products and services have on the world. We shouldn't just come into work, pull a bunch of levers and tell ourselves, "I'm sure the managers wouldn't let this happen if it were evil." We have to leverage our curiosity to extend beyond the Disney version. BTW, this goes equally for marketers, a group I feel is as bad at ethics as engineers. Persuading people to continuously purchase and consume unhealthy food and activities is as destructive to the human spirit and our nation as bomb-making. </soapbox>
kyzyl 13y ago
> Keep it legal, do good work. Go home and play with the kids. Tell that to the people whose kids got blown up at a wedding by a Hellfire missile that was guided by your TwitterTerroristLocator.so
woah 13y ago
Interesting attitude. Why "keep it legal" if this is your opinion? (besides the risk of getting caught).
tlrobinson 13y ago
It sounds like you simply allow the law to serves as your morals.
Zigurd 13y ago
"Legal" is exactly what unethical behavior has been hiding behind. Setting your ethics to "legal" is weak.
freshhawk 13y ago
Having any ethics whatsoever is "political correctness" now? I don't think you know what that word means.
robotresearcher 13y ago
"great working conditions" for me implies that I don't find the work odious. No amount of free soda can make up for having to work on a shitty or immoral product. This is a luxury afforded me by the decent amount of decently well paid work available to an engineer. I might have less moral freedom if I couldn't feed my family.

zzzeek 13y ago

when you say "keep it legal" it sounds like you only mean, "so I don't get arrested". That is, you would not work on something very ethical, but illegal (like some system of assisting in the production of medical marijuana in a state where it's illegal) but you would work on something unethical but legal (NSA spying). So really, saying anything legal is not saying much - essentially ethics don't come into question. I know for a fact that I'm very uncomfortable working on something that I find to be obviously unethical. Though NSA stuff, I'd not work on that just because I'd hate keeping everything I do a secret.

plinkplonk 13y ago
Sure, as with all things human, there is the occasional gray area where there are no good answers, but yes I probably wouldn't work in a criminal enterprise in a democratic nation, whether it is about medical marijuana or not. The point is, I'll work on things as per my ethics, not some random person's ethics or a hypothetical "engineers code of conduct" or whatever as the article seems to advocate. I gave plenty of examples of software that some people would consider unethical (say drone targeting, or NSA crawling etc that TFA is about) that I would have no problem working on. My ethics are mostly in harmony with the legal systems of democratic nations. I'm sorry if that doesn't accord with your notions of what "should be".
- zzzeek 13y ago
  Oh well that's something different - you'll work on what you find to be personally ethical. That's absolutely fine, ethics after all are ultimately personal. Like I'd not work for Monsanto, since I find them unethical, but certainly most hackers disagree with me on that. I'm not happy about the NSA situation though I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical.
  - plinkplonk 13y ago
    I agree completely. I threw in 'legal' in the original post to head off morons chanting "so you'd work for drug dealers" etc. My only point was, to quote you, "the NSA situation ...I see it more as an issue of bounds being overstepped, the engineers working there don't strike me as empirically unethical" (well stated). I have a hard time listening to the demonizing of the NSA engineers by people who work at Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Amazon (or would like to) who build similar technology to profile users!
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
      Throwing in "legal" in a discussion that pretty much revolves around that seems like a poor way to communicate. Also "drug dealers" is probably the epitome of a morally/legal ambiguous job. Purdue has no doubt eased the suffering of millions of people, yet they were still hit with felony convictions.

dylandrop 13y ago

"Every algorithm known to man has both good and bad uses. Not developing algorithms because they might be harmful is insane." Yep, that missile guiding system someone built for Boeing totally has primarily good uses in mind. "Work is just work, a means to exchange your talents for money. Keep it legal, do good work. Go home and play with the kids." Dude, seriously? Everyone should have some sense of morals and question authority. Come on, if we don't question our current way of life, how does anything get better? Why should we be okay with people dying just so we can have a nice, cozy life with our kids?

plinkplonk 13y ago
"Dude, seriously? Everyone should have some sense of morals and question authority" Yes seriously. My "sense of morals" is very different from yours (in that I'd gladly work on defence tech say.). So what?
- jblow 13y ago
  I would gladly work on "defense tech" too, as in actually defending people. But what you mean by "defense tech" is actually offense tech. Look at how these things are actually used in the world. When an entire field needs to stand behind a euphemism in order to prevent seeming ugly, that is certainly some kind of a sign.
  - plinkplonk 13y ago
    There is no difference between a technology being used defensively or offensively. The 'self driving car' tech will feed into 'self driving tanks' tech, and vice versa. Military Satellite tech gives you the GPS and Google Maps, which will in turn be used for military purposes. A technology (including algorithms) can be used for good or ill. That is just the nature of the beast. You can certainly work towards what you see as the overreach of American militarism. It is a political/economic problem which needs a political/economic solution. Your (not) working on cryptanalysis algorithms has nothing to do with it.
  - cobrausn 13y ago

Helianthus 13y ago

This is called a lack of artistic integrity. And there's nothing wrong with that, you're just excerpting yourself from responsibility, and if enough people do that engineering becomes irresponsible. Arguably this is a problem right now. Look, I understand your position, food has to get on the table, but: I don't respect you. I am responsible for everything I put out in the world. You can take that as a guilt trip if you'd like, but I feel like if you're going to be bald-faced about how you put all the real responsibility on laws and those who make them, I can be blunt about how I view your attitude. I guess everyone has to find their own relationship to the value of their work.

plinkplonk 13y ago
" but: I don't respect you." heh sure. whatever makes you happy.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  Heh. Nothing left to say now, really. Cheers.

kbenson 13y ago

I used to think working for the NSA would be fun, interesting, and in the service of my country. I don't think that anymore...

sentenza 13y ago

I have to disagree. Resorting to "keep it legal" removes any moral obligation. There are ethical decisions to be made, some easy, some not so. Should IBM not have worked on Computers? No. Should IBM not have sold to Nazi Germany? Most likely yes. Should the guy working hard all day to make the Zyklon B have refused to do so? ABSOLUTELY Back when I went to school, we had one (or two?) hours per week of "ethics class". If there was one thing to take away from those lessons, it's that you can never just refuse to exercise moral/ethical judgement. Acting ethically is one of the central responsibilities that a citizen in a free society has.

shabble 13y ago
> Should the guy working hard all day to make the Zyklon B have refused to do so? ABSOLUTELY Initially at least, Zyklon B was an entirely legitimate pesticide/vermicide that had a broad range of uses. The original form contained a powerful warning odorant to alert users of its presence in sub-lethal concentrations. I don't think there's any claim that the actual production staff knew exactly where or how it was being used, and so would have no real grounds to refuse or quit. There is evidence that once it was found suitable for killing humans, there was a change in formulation to remove the warning odorant at the direct request of the extermination camp officials. I'm not sure if that alone would be grounds for staff suspicion, as it was apparently passed off as necessity due to wartime material shortages, which to me would seem plausible. The production and distributor firms management, however, knew a lot more about what was going on, and where it was being used. Founder Tesch & director Weinbacher were both found guilty in a war-crimes tribunal[1], whilst another employee was acquitted. So I don't think it's quite so simple a scenario as 'the process engineer for the pesticide vats should have guessed they might be being misused and quit just in case' that you lay out. [1] http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm
- diydsp 13y ago
  ...Which is exactly why engineers (like me) simply must seek out and look beyond the Kool-Aid their company and managers pour and understand exactly what effects the actions of their products and services have on the world. We shouldn't just come into work, pull a bunch of levers and tell ourselves, "I'm sure the managers wouldn't let this happen if it were evil." We have to leverage our curiosity to extend beyond the Disney version. BTW, this goes equally for marketers, a group I feel is as bad at ethics as engineers. Persuading people to continuously purchase and consume unhealthy food and activities is as destructive to the human spirit and our nation as bomb-making. </soapbox>

kyzyl 13y ago

> Keep it legal, do good work. Go home and play with the kids. Tell that to the people whose kids got blown up at a wedding by a Hellfire missile that was guided by your TwitterTerroristLocator.so

woah 13y ago

Interesting attitude. Why "keep it legal" if this is your opinion? (besides the risk of getting caught).

tlrobinson 13y ago

It sounds like you simply allow the law to serves as your morals.

Zigurd 13y ago

"Legal" is exactly what unethical behavior has been hiding behind. Setting your ethics to "legal" is weak.

freshhawk 13y ago

Having any ethics whatsoever is "political correctness" now? I don't think you know what that word means.

robotresearcher 13y ago

"great working conditions" for me implies that I don't find the work odious. No amount of free soda can make up for having to work on a shitty or immoral product. This is a luxury afforded me by the decent amount of decently well paid work available to an engineer. I might have less moral freedom if I couldn't feed my family.