Hacker News Reader

Comment by kriro | Hacker News Reader

I applaud everyone who sticks up for their principles. However like with most matters of principle it's really hard to draw the line (as the author outlines when it comes to corporations). I'd add these questions...since state governments are major eavesdroppers and ignore privacy rather often, should I stay away from almost all scientific conference that are usually organized by state funded universities? Should I refuse to work as a scientist if it means working at a state sponsored university? Should I refuse to take state-funding?

I think participation under protest and a FU-Palatir etc. panel would have sent a stronger signal but that's debatable. It's a sorry state of affairs any way you look at it.

View on HN

Don' exaggerate. His point is that you shouldn't allow sponsors that could lead to conflicts of interest, not all sponsors that do "bad".

In your example you can go to a symposium on quantum chemistry sponsored by the gov despite the gov eavesdropping. You shouldn't go to a converence on cancer research standards sponsored by the homeopathy league of gentlemen.

Just to clarify I'm talking about scientific research in the area of privacy/crypto etc.

The argument would be "this nation state is an evil eavesdropper thus I won't work for it when my area of expertise is privacy/crypto etc.". I think that's taking it a bit too far because "the state" is pretty big and its sole purpose isn't to eavesdrop (I'd hope) but I wouldn't say that position is unreasonable.

Sorry, i misunderstood then.

I would agree that as long as the specific arm of the gov that spies isnt involved in the conference, its fine. The articles argument does not say otherwise either. It highlights that palantir has opposed interests to the attendees of the conference.

Id say the author would be fine with a state department sponsorship as they repeatedly have backed secure communication for dissidents et al, but would oppose sponsorship of the nsa.

Its not just "on principle" either, but the dangrr that i terested sponsors can influence what gets presented and how. Like how the nsa would push an encryption standard theyve already broken.

What does accepting to be a speaker "under protest" accomplish? Clearly he would be told he is not allowed to make this protest public while speaking. If he cannot make his point public during the conference, then there is no noticeable impact from the so-called "protest".

The conference organizers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to get all the speakers (and have them not make any waves), while also bowing to the almighty dollar from any sponsor willing to open their bank account.

The only ways to protest are to a) get the sponsor kicked, or b) refuse to attend. As he has been turned down regarding the first option, the only way for him to maintain his integrity is to not attend. Good for him for sticking to his principles and not caving in to the pressure to be an ass kisser.

Ostensibly it's the job of the state to balance the civil/privacy rights of its citizens with surveillance. It's the job of these companies to balance the monetary value of the data they collect with the backlash and loss of business they will get by collecting it, which is a very clear and explicit conflict of interest -- they benefit greatly by minimizing that backlash by, say, sponsoring conferences about protecting privacy while simultaneously eviscerating it.

It doesn't have to be forever. Coordinate with colleagues and collectively pick a month of academic radio silence in protest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com