6 ms·

Not to start a political flame war, but... How do you, as technologically savvy people who are in a better position than most to understand the grave transgres

Not to start a political flame war, but... How do you, as technologically savvy people who are in a better position than most to understand the grave transgressions of the NSA, reconcile your support of an administration that has shown complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties (specifically within the scope of the NSA/Snowden scandal) with your inherent duty, as an engineer of powerful systems, to above all further the public good? As a subtext, what are your thoughts on continuing to further said administration's political aims in one arena while they restrict your rights and livelihood* in another? Furthermore, and more on topic, what steps have you taken to place privacy concerns at the forefront when creating a service that consumes vast amounts of personal and medical information from millions of people? Last, as someone who has been "on the inside" do you see corruption as a large problem with government procurement? To what extent did corruption create the situation that you were called in to fix with the original HealthCare.gov fiasco? *assuming, of course, that the NSA/Snowden revelations have hurt US tech interests Edit: Mods, if you disapprove of this comment feel free to delete it. That said, I think these are some important questions that need to be asked.

ianstallings 12y ago
But how would you ever make government better without getting involved? I mean unless you are talking about scrapping the existing system and replacing it, you must be involved in order to change it.
lhc- 12y ago
While I can see huge ethical concerns were this project related to the NSA, I don't think you can necessarily force that association here. While I agree with your frustration with the administration, especially with regards to surveillance and civil rights, I also would like to see the ACA do well and lead to a better life for most Americans. I don't think its wrong to want to work on solving this problem (healthcare) while disagreeing with other actions of the government, as the above poster is working on something that will directly help millions of americans. I see improving healthcare as a separate issue from the NSA scandals, and I think that, in refusing to help with fixing healthcare.gov, you are harming millions of poor and needy Americans without actually accomplishing much of anything.
redthrowaway 12y ago
You can both support building a tool to give people healthcare and be against government surveillance. Most people are able to compartmentalize their support or opposition for various government policies and do not see the doing of one thing they don't like as a reason not to support any other thing the government does.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  That's kind of my question though, is how do you compartmentalize that? This may be a personal character flaw, but I definitely wouldn't be able to. The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others), and illegal surveillance that has steadily eroded many of our God given* rights and liberties. On top of that, this is something the administration has wholeheartedly supported and gotten in bed with, and shows no signs of turning back (beyond token political acts that will in the end accomplish very little, if anything). So, wouldn't you question further actions by someone who has proven themselves to act against you so wholeheartedly? Myself, while I normally would have been overjoyed at a healthcare overhaul in this country, am now extremely suspicious of the motivations behind it. Why would this administration act in our favor when they have been acting against us for so long? Thus, my question to brandonb :) *as per the Declaration of Independence Edit: I would say a good analogy would be: Assuming I were Charlie Brown, at what point do I begin to doubt Lucy's psychiatric advice when she's pulled the football out from under me so many times?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsun 12y ago
    Well... I'm pragmatically there's things I'm going to agree with and things I'm going to disagree with for every. single. administration. So the choices are either working within the context of the system that exists today, or anarchy. Working within the context of the system includes reinforcing the things that can positively affect people's lives (healthcare) and fighting things that can negative affect them (spying). Fighting "the system" as a whole is paramount to advocating anarchy.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kaonashi 12y ago
The ACA doesn't really have anything to do with the NSA. You're falling victim to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
wutbrodo 12y ago
I'm not the person you asked, but there seem to be quite a few things wrong with the assumptions underlying this question. > an administration that has shown complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties Is it really true that this is the case for this administration more so than other administrations? Admittedly the increase in opportunity for surveillance has been huge in the last couple decades so the quality of the comparison degrades as you go further back in time, but what the NSA has been doing seems entirely in line with what they've been doing for decades. To be clear, what they've been doing for decades is really, really shitty and I'm glad people are finally outraged, but then wouldn't your view require basically boycotting working with any administration ever? I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition to not hold hostage policies that are potentially worthy just for a single (however significant) issue that you disagree with. > your support of an administration > continuing to further said administration's political aims This leads to me to my next point: it seems like your comment assumes that this was done purely out of a desire to help a political figure, instead of considering the possibility that the volunteers may think that Healthcare.gov is a worthy goal or at least that its brokenness is negatively affecting the American people (I don't think there's any disagreement across the political spectrum on this latter point). That's an awfully cynically political way to look at the world, and I don't think it's accurate to assume that that viewpoint is shared by the volunteers. I think it's probably a safe assumption that the volunteers acted more out of a desire to see hc.gov working than to see Obama's political capital enhanced per se.
smrtinsert 12y ago
Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like? The government will live on beyond this administration and hopefully the site will as well. I don't know what privacy you can expect when they hold the keys, my expectation would be 0. Finally, government procurement is always littered with inefficiency and occasionally large scale corruption. These questions really answer themselves. Now if only you had asked something about technology.
- hueving 12y ago
  >Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like? False equivalence. The correct analogy would be "Do you quit your job when your company does something you don't like?" Many people would answer yes to that.
  - rwallace 12y ago
    Many people would say yes. Empirically, few of them follow through on it.
dannyr 12y ago
If everyone tries to reconcile everything the government does, no good person would ever work for the government. If you want to change it, change it from the inside. Thats is what they are doing. People can protest on the streets or online but changing the government from the inside will be more effective.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  This is probably the best reply I've gotten (I've asked this outside of this thread before as well), and my response would be to ask where the line is when one's efforts stop changing the machine (to abstract the discussion away from "government", not to insult it) and begins furthering it's interests. I honestly don't know the answer, and so I ask inflammatory questions to further my understanding of the issue.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  "Changing it from the inside" is a carrot dangled in front of people to make them think that they can effect change by becoming a cog in the machine. First off, cogs don't change the machine specifically because they're limited in their function. The people who join the government to try to change it from the inside are the same people who, five years later, complain that their hands are tied and they can't effect meaningful change for the better and must continue along the well-trodden path of obedience. I think Obama is a great example here, but I'm sure there are many others.
  - dannyr 12y ago
    I did not say "Changing from the inside" works all the time. There's no perfect solution. If these YC alums, etc decide they don't want to be a "cog in the machine", how else can they have improved the healthcare web site?
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    The only possible way to change a government is from the inside. Even if you have a violent revolution, what happens next? The leaders of the revolt become the leaders on the inside of the new government. Government is not like a company you can boycott; it is an unavoidable attribute of human society. The operative questions are how are you participating in it to achieve your aims, and how effectively.
rayiner 12y ago
Here is something that'll blow your mind: lots of technologically savvy people don't think surveillance is a policy so bad that it destroys the governments overall credibility. Some even don't see a problem with it.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  Thus my, admittedly loaded, question :)
pbreit 12y ago
Pretty much everything you wrote is complete nonsense. There's no relation between healthcare and spying. People don't put their medical information into the system (hello! no more denials for pre-existing conditions). "Corrupt"? Really? Then you try to shame the folks for participating but even acknowledge that inanity with your caveat. Pretty shameful all the way around.
Uhhrrr 12y ago
To make the coupling explicit, what assurance do we have that information given to HealthCare.gov won't be illegally accessed by employees at NSA and other three-letter agencies?
edanm 12y ago
If you're starting from the assumption that everyone else who is "technologically savvy" is obviously in agreement with you, then you're making a large mistake in your reasoning somewhere. Smart people often disagree about things in this world, including in particular whether the actions of the NSA show "complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties" and whether they're justified or not. Also, half the idea of democracy is to compromise with other people. Thinking that people shouldn't do any work for the government because they don't agree with some of the actions of that government is ridiculous.

ianstallings 12y ago

But how would you ever make government better without getting involved? I mean unless you are talking about scrapping the existing system and replacing it, you must be involved in order to change it.

lhc- 12y ago

While I can see huge ethical concerns were this project related to the NSA, I don't think you can necessarily force that association here. While I agree with your frustration with the administration, especially with regards to surveillance and civil rights, I also would like to see the ACA do well and lead to a better life for most Americans. I don't think its wrong to want to work on solving this problem (healthcare) while disagreeing with other actions of the government, as the above poster is working on something that will directly help millions of americans. I see improving healthcare as a separate issue from the NSA scandals, and I think that, in refusing to help with fixing healthcare.gov, you are harming millions of poor and needy Americans without actually accomplishing much of anything.

redthrowaway 12y ago

You can both support building a tool to give people healthcare and be against government surveillance. Most people are able to compartmentalize their support or opposition for various government policies and do not see the doing of one thing they don't like as a reason not to support any other thing the government does.

pdeuchler 12y ago
That's kind of my question though, is how do you compartmentalize that? This may be a personal character flaw, but I definitely wouldn't be able to. The NSA revelations aren't just some small political transgressions, this is a rather world shaking development that shows we have been subject to vast, malicious (i.e. not for our good but for the good of others), and illegal surveillance that has steadily eroded many of our God given* rights and liberties. On top of that, this is something the administration has wholeheartedly supported and gotten in bed with, and shows no signs of turning back (beyond token political acts that will in the end accomplish very little, if anything). So, wouldn't you question further actions by someone who has proven themselves to act against you so wholeheartedly? Myself, while I normally would have been overjoyed at a healthcare overhaul in this country, am now extremely suspicious of the motivations behind it. Why would this administration act in our favor when they have been acting against us for so long? Thus, my question to brandonb :) *as per the Declaration of Independence Edit: I would say a good analogy would be: Assuming I were Charlie Brown, at what point do I begin to doubt Lucy's psychiatric advice when she's pulled the football out from under me so many times?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jsun 12y ago
  Well... I'm pragmatically there's things I'm going to agree with and things I'm going to disagree with for every. single. administration. So the choices are either working within the context of the system that exists today, or anarchy. Working within the context of the system includes reinforcing the things that can positively affect people's lives (healthcare) and fighting things that can negative affect them (spying). Fighting "the system" as a whole is paramount to advocating anarchy.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kaonashi 12y ago

The ACA doesn't really have anything to do with the NSA. You're falling victim to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

wutbrodo 12y ago

I'm not the person you asked, but there seem to be quite a few things wrong with the assumptions underlying this question. > an administration that has shown complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties Is it really true that this is the case for this administration more so than other administrations? Admittedly the increase in opportunity for surveillance has been huge in the last couple decades so the quality of the comparison degrades as you go further back in time, but what the NSA has been doing seems entirely in line with what they've been doing for decades. To be clear, what they've been doing for decades is really, really shitty and I'm glad people are finally outraged, but then wouldn't your view require basically boycotting working with any administration ever? I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition to not hold hostage policies that are potentially worthy just for a single (however significant) issue that you disagree with. > your support of an administration > continuing to further said administration's political aims This leads to me to my next point: it seems like your comment assumes that this was done purely out of a desire to help a political figure, instead of considering the possibility that the volunteers may think that Healthcare.gov is a worthy goal or at least that its brokenness is negatively affecting the American people (I don't think there's any disagreement across the political spectrum on this latter point). That's an awfully cynically political way to look at the world, and I don't think it's accurate to assume that that viewpoint is shared by the volunteers. I think it's probably a safe assumption that the volunteers acted more out of a desire to see hc.gov working than to see Obama's political capital enhanced per se.

smrtinsert 12y ago

Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like? The government will live on beyond this administration and hopefully the site will as well. I don't know what privacy you can expect when they hold the keys, my expectation would be 0. Finally, government procurement is always littered with inefficiency and occasionally large scale corruption. These questions really answer themselves. Now if only you had asked something about technology.

hueving 12y ago
>Do you quit your job when your boss does something you don't like? False equivalence. The correct analogy would be "Do you quit your job when your company does something you don't like?" Many people would answer yes to that.
- rwallace 12y ago
  Many people would say yes. Empirically, few of them follow through on it.

dannyr 12y ago

If everyone tries to reconcile everything the government does, no good person would ever work for the government. If you want to change it, change it from the inside. Thats is what they are doing. People can protest on the streets or online but changing the government from the inside will be more effective.

pdeuchler 12y ago
This is probably the best reply I've gotten (I've asked this outside of this thread before as well), and my response would be to ask where the line is when one's efforts stop changing the machine (to abstract the discussion away from "government", not to insult it) and begins furthering it's interests. I honestly don't know the answer, and so I ask inflammatory questions to further my understanding of the issue.
cryoshon 12y ago
"Changing it from the inside" is a carrot dangled in front of people to make them think that they can effect change by becoming a cog in the machine. First off, cogs don't change the machine specifically because they're limited in their function. The people who join the government to try to change it from the inside are the same people who, five years later, complain that their hands are tied and they can't effect meaningful change for the better and must continue along the well-trodden path of obedience. I think Obama is a great example here, but I'm sure there are many others.
- dannyr 12y ago
  I did not say "Changing from the inside" works all the time. There's no perfect solution. If these YC alums, etc decide they don't want to be a "cog in the machine", how else can they have improved the healthcare web site?
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  The only possible way to change a government is from the inside. Even if you have a violent revolution, what happens next? The leaders of the revolt become the leaders on the inside of the new government. Government is not like a company you can boycott; it is an unavoidable attribute of human society. The operative questions are how are you participating in it to achieve your aims, and how effectively.

rayiner 12y ago

Here is something that'll blow your mind: lots of technologically savvy people don't think surveillance is a policy so bad that it destroys the governments overall credibility. Some even don't see a problem with it.

pdeuchler 12y ago
Thus my, admittedly loaded, question :)

pbreit 12y ago

Pretty much everything you wrote is complete nonsense. There's no relation between healthcare and spying. People don't put their medical information into the system (hello! no more denials for pre-existing conditions). "Corrupt"? Really? Then you try to shame the folks for participating but even acknowledge that inanity with your caveat. Pretty shameful all the way around.

Uhhrrr 12y ago

To make the coupling explicit, what assurance do we have that information given to HealthCare.gov won't be illegally accessed by employees at NSA and other three-letter agencies?

edanm 12y ago

If you're starting from the assumption that everyone else who is "technologically savvy" is obviously in agreement with you, then you're making a large mistake in your reasoning somewhere. Smart people often disagree about things in this world, including in particular whether the actions of the NSA show "complete disregard for our privacy and civil liberties" and whether they're justified or not. Also, half the idea of democracy is to compromise with other people. Thinking that people shouldn't do any work for the government because they don't agree with some of the actions of that government is ridiculous.