4 ms·

If someone chooses to work for a sleazy company, say one that aggressively violates a person's expressed desire to not be tracked, I would not want to hire them

by jes 12y ago

If someone chooses to work for a sleazy company, say one that aggressively violates a person's expressed desire to not be tracked, I would not want to hire them or otherwise associate with them. Should the engineers who enable companies like Turn be shunned by other engineers?

Jgrubb 12y ago
Should engineers who invent new rifle shells, or atomic bombs, or armed drones, or work at the NSA, or Tinder, or Uber, or Groupon, or Zynga be shunned? All of their employers are perceived by some as some as scumbags. If your job that you liked came to you with a challenge like "I want you to invent a brand new way to track our users that nobody has thought of before", would you turn it down? edit: or Facebook, or Google, etc? These companies are in the business of tracking their users' behavior to be sold to advertisers. I'm not really sure how that's different at the macro level than what Verizon/Turn is doing, and we're shunning an awful lot of engineers at this point.
- jes 12y ago
  I won't engage in work that I conclude is immoral, nor will I help others to pursue ends that I consider problematic. I think it's important that you always be free to come to your own conclusions on such matters as well.
  - Jgrubb 12y ago
    > I think it's important that you always be free to come to your own conclusions on such matters as well. I completely agree, but it's equally important not to be too dogmatic about it. For example, to what government do you pay taxes?
    - jes 12y ago
      Not trying to be sarcastic, but is "too dogmatic" a different way of saying "too principled?" I pay taxes to several entities, including the government of the United States of America and the state of Washington. These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force.
      - magicalist 12y ago
        > These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force Just to be clear, what this really means is that you aren't willing to go to jail for your principles. That's fine and you're in good company under that criteria, but that's what the GP was getting at.
        jes 12y ago
        Thank you for a thought-provoking comment. Do you think that refusing to pay one's taxes, and thereby ultimately going to jail, is the best way to make a principled stand against the idea that taxation is theft? As I understand it, in any specific context there are many principles to be considered in making a decision as to how to act. For example, "Strive to act rationally" is an important principle for me. I try to act based on reason and evidence, to the best of my ability to do so. Would you consider someone who chose to make a headlong rush at the IRS and their most sacred rule as acting rationally? I would say such a person was tilting at windmills. I think there are more effective ways for me to work for virtue and justice in the world. In other words, I don't see being principled as necessarily requiring martyrdom.
      - dcole2929 12y ago
        "These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force." False. You can move to another country whose values/morals you agree with more, become a citizen, and renounce your American Citizenship. It's by no means easy but completely doable. You still live here and pay taxes to the US government because your "principles" don't yet outweigh the convenience of living where you do. Make no mistake, America has done, continues to do, and probably will do in the future, utterly terrible, immoral shit.
        jes 12y ago
        I have a different view, but first, thank you for sharing yours. Yes, I could move to a different country. And I have thought about that quite a bit. There may come a time when I decide to do it. But it's troubling, morally, to do so. Here's why. An old man is walking down the street. He's a peaceful guy, minding his own business. A couple of thugs come up to him, stick a gun in his ribs, and demand his wallet. He doesn't want to do it, but he reluctantly gives up his wallet, in the hope that they won't choose to harm him any further. If after this incident, the man chooses not to move to a safer neighborhood, would you say that he is then endorsing the actions of the thugs? In my view, the man has done nothing wrong. He did not initiate force against anyone else. When the thugs, who clearly do not respect individual rights demanded his money, he made a rational calculation and did what he concluded was most likely to save his life. This is why, while I could move to another country, I'm (currently) unwilling to do so. I would prefer to stay in my home, and work as best I can to be an advocate for virtue and peaceful, voluntary cooperation. And finally, yes, I agree with you, the government of the United States has done some horrible things. You might have noticed that I am not exactly an advocate of a large and powerful state. :-D
bloodorange 12y ago
Not everyone has the luxury to be able to refuse or quit a paying job. It'd be harsh to judge like this. It would of course do to shun the firms which do this - ultimately we want to eliminate the behaviour - not the people.
fauigerzigerk 12y ago
I don't think that's a good idea. Yes the ad based business model has gone completely off the rails with their aggressive privacy violations and disgusting deception schemes. I think they should be stopped, if necessary by regulating them off the face of the earth. But personally blaming and shunning regular employees of corporations that break the law or some ethical standard has far reaching ramifications. Bitter ideological battles would take over the personal lives of people who have no say in whether or not their employer decides to use a particular marketing scheme or do business in a particular country. I think personal blame should be reserved for decision makers. If an employee knows about serious crimes committed by their employer they should simply report it to the police.
- jes 12y ago
  I'd rather not do things that give the state more power and control over individuals. So I'm not a big fan of regulation in general. I'd rather pursue voluntary means of encouraging virtuous action where and when I can. Engineers who directly enable this kind of technology are (in my view) not materially different from individuals who write malware. These engineers are members of the group of decision makers, because they know exactly how the code they are writing will be used. I think it's right to not encourage or support their behavior. In other words, the degree to which I would shun someone is proportional to the knowledge and control they had in the situation under consideration.
  - fauigerzigerk 12y ago
    I don't think state control over individuals can be adequately characterised in terms of "more" or "less". Sometimes what governments do is to shift power and control from some groups of individuals to others, as in the case of consumer protection laws. In other cases they grab power for themselves, building a survaillance state. I think the debate should be more about what governments should do and why, not just how much they should do, i.e big or small government.
JadeNB 12y ago
In addition to the other replies you've got, this kind of judgement is, I think, beyond most people's capability to make. Should everyone who works at Turn be shunned, or just those who work on this project specifically? If a previously honourable company starts doing dishonourable work, how long a window does an engineer working there have to find another job before he or she is shunned? What does it mean to 'enable' Turn? That is, could a third-party indirectly enable them? How do we make the judgement when this has happened? For example, should W3C be shunned for making a standard that can be abused in this way?
- jes 12y ago
  I appreciate your comment. For me, it's a matter of the degree to which the person sees the ramifications of what they are doing, and the degree to which they directly contribute to the bad actions. For example, the management team that has built a business around tracking people who clearly do not wish to be tracked is highly suspect, in my view. The sysadmin that runs the servers, less so. But if she/he knows what the company is all about, I'd urge him/her to either try to change the mindset within the company (likely, impossible) or start looking for another gig. I would not ask anyone to sacrifice themselves, but neither should they be facilitating unhelpful behaviors. Verizon, of course, is enabling Turn (as I understand the situation.) Companies that are customers of Turn are also enabling them, in my view. How do you see it?
  - JadeNB 12y ago
    Precisely because your questions seem particularly on point, I find them hard to answer; but I wanted to say that I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with respondents in this thread. It's a rare sight, even on HN, and a pleasure.

by jes 12y ago

Jgrubb 12y ago

Should engineers who invent new rifle shells, or atomic bombs, or armed drones, or work at the NSA, or Tinder, or Uber, or Groupon, or Zynga be shunned? All of their employers are perceived by some as some as scumbags. If your job that you liked came to you with a challenge like "I want you to invent a brand new way to track our users that nobody has thought of before", would you turn it down? edit: or Facebook, or Google, etc? These companies are in the business of tracking their users' behavior to be sold to advertisers. I'm not really sure how that's different at the macro level than what Verizon/Turn is doing, and we're shunning an awful lot of engineers at this point.

jes 12y ago
I won't engage in work that I conclude is immoral, nor will I help others to pursue ends that I consider problematic. I think it's important that you always be free to come to your own conclusions on such matters as well.
- Jgrubb 12y ago
  > I think it's important that you always be free to come to your own conclusions on such matters as well. I completely agree, but it's equally important not to be too dogmatic about it. For example, to what government do you pay taxes?
  - jes 12y ago
    Not trying to be sarcastic, but is "too dogmatic" a different way of saying "too principled?" I pay taxes to several entities, including the government of the United States of America and the state of Washington. These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      > These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force Just to be clear, what this really means is that you aren't willing to go to jail for your principles. That's fine and you're in good company under that criteria, but that's what the GP was getting at.
      - jes 12y ago
        Thank you for a thought-provoking comment. Do you think that refusing to pay one's taxes, and thereby ultimately going to jail, is the best way to make a principled stand against the idea that taxation is theft? As I understand it, in any specific context there are many principles to be considered in making a decision as to how to act. For example, "Strive to act rationally" is an important principle for me. I try to act based on reason and evidence, to the best of my ability to do so. Would you consider someone who chose to make a headlong rush at the IRS and their most sacred rule as acting rationally? I would say such a person was tilting at windmills. I think there are more effective ways for me to work for virtue and justice in the world. In other words, I don't see being principled as necessarily requiring martyrdom.
    - dcole2929 12y ago
      "These taxes are non-voluntary and coerced from me under threat of force." False. You can move to another country whose values/morals you agree with more, become a citizen, and renounce your American Citizenship. It's by no means easy but completely doable. You still live here and pay taxes to the US government because your "principles" don't yet outweigh the convenience of living where you do. Make no mistake, America has done, continues to do, and probably will do in the future, utterly terrible, immoral shit.
      - jes 12y ago
        I have a different view, but first, thank you for sharing yours. Yes, I could move to a different country. And I have thought about that quite a bit. There may come a time when I decide to do it. But it's troubling, morally, to do so. Here's why. An old man is walking down the street. He's a peaceful guy, minding his own business. A couple of thugs come up to him, stick a gun in his ribs, and demand his wallet. He doesn't want to do it, but he reluctantly gives up his wallet, in the hope that they won't choose to harm him any further. If after this incident, the man chooses not to move to a safer neighborhood, would you say that he is then endorsing the actions of the thugs? In my view, the man has done nothing wrong. He did not initiate force against anyone else. When the thugs, who clearly do not respect individual rights demanded his money, he made a rational calculation and did what he concluded was most likely to save his life. This is why, while I could move to another country, I'm (currently) unwilling to do so. I would prefer to stay in my home, and work as best I can to be an advocate for virtue and peaceful, voluntary cooperation. And finally, yes, I agree with you, the government of the United States has done some horrible things. You might have noticed that I am not exactly an advocate of a large and powerful state. :-D

bloodorange 12y ago

Not everyone has the luxury to be able to refuse or quit a paying job. It'd be harsh to judge like this. It would of course do to shun the firms which do this - ultimately we want to eliminate the behaviour - not the people.

fauigerzigerk 12y ago

I don't think that's a good idea. Yes the ad based business model has gone completely off the rails with their aggressive privacy violations and disgusting deception schemes. I think they should be stopped, if necessary by regulating them off the face of the earth. But personally blaming and shunning regular employees of corporations that break the law or some ethical standard has far reaching ramifications. Bitter ideological battles would take over the personal lives of people who have no say in whether or not their employer decides to use a particular marketing scheme or do business in a particular country. I think personal blame should be reserved for decision makers. If an employee knows about serious crimes committed by their employer they should simply report it to the police.

jes 12y ago
I'd rather not do things that give the state more power and control over individuals. So I'm not a big fan of regulation in general. I'd rather pursue voluntary means of encouraging virtuous action where and when I can. Engineers who directly enable this kind of technology are (in my view) not materially different from individuals who write malware. These engineers are members of the group of decision makers, because they know exactly how the code they are writing will be used. I think it's right to not encourage or support their behavior. In other words, the degree to which I would shun someone is proportional to the knowledge and control they had in the situation under consideration.
- fauigerzigerk 12y ago
  I don't think state control over individuals can be adequately characterised in terms of "more" or "less". Sometimes what governments do is to shift power and control from some groups of individuals to others, as in the case of consumer protection laws. In other cases they grab power for themselves, building a survaillance state. I think the debate should be more about what governments should do and why, not just how much they should do, i.e big or small government.

JadeNB 12y ago

In addition to the other replies you've got, this kind of judgement is, I think, beyond most people's capability to make. Should everyone who works at Turn be shunned, or just those who work on this project specifically? If a previously honourable company starts doing dishonourable work, how long a window does an engineer working there have to find another job before he or she is shunned? What does it mean to 'enable' Turn? That is, could a third-party indirectly enable them? How do we make the judgement when this has happened? For example, should W3C be shunned for making a standard that can be abused in this way?

jes 12y ago
I appreciate your comment. For me, it's a matter of the degree to which the person sees the ramifications of what they are doing, and the degree to which they directly contribute to the bad actions. For example, the management team that has built a business around tracking people who clearly do not wish to be tracked is highly suspect, in my view. The sysadmin that runs the servers, less so. But if she/he knows what the company is all about, I'd urge him/her to either try to change the mindset within the company (likely, impossible) or start looking for another gig. I would not ask anyone to sacrifice themselves, but neither should they be facilitating unhelpful behaviors. Verizon, of course, is enabling Turn (as I understand the situation.) Companies that are customers of Turn are also enabling them, in my view. How do you see it?
- JadeNB 12y ago
  Precisely because your questions seem particularly on point, I find them hard to answer; but I wanted to say that I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with respondents in this thread. It's a rare sight, even on HN, and a pleasure.