Hacker News Reader

Comment by abstractbeliefs | Hacker News Reader

But who decides what's ethical?

I struggle with the same issues here in the UK, where the professional body for tech, the British Computing Society (BCS) is not just toothless, but in my eyes, actively harmful (for example, chose to vote _in favour_ of NSA-like practices at GCHQ - including giving evidence (in the form of an expert statement) to the government).

I think what is important to realise is that something approximating the majority of people do actually go against the values typically espoused by the people who visit HN, not just in the wider public but also within tech. And even discounting those, how many people are quite happy to just do as told? How do we work to distill the concept of professional ethics in tech from these people, and then instill it?

View on HN

I think a good first step is to learn from groups—doctors, librarians, lawyers, engineers—who have such a working system of professional ethics in place.

Definitely true, and all the ones I am familiar with are purposefully non-partisan. That is, they define as ethical things that both Democrats and Republicans agree on.

That's very much not the case. Consider the epic battle between librarians and John Ashcroft in the wake of 9/11, over patron privacy.

I am less familiar with the librarian code of ethics, but yes, from what I've heard they are quite unique and different from the others.

This thread has another vivid example, with doctors and capital punishment, which is a hugely partisan issue.

At some point we're going to hit No True Scotsman, aren't we?

Capital punishment is a good example, but also an extreme one, and slightly tangential. It isn't that doctors oppose capital punishment for the reasons the anti-capital punishment movement does (the government shouldn't kill people, mistakes are made, the sanctity of life, etc.); instead it is simply because it violates the doctors direct "do no harm" oath.

And it is a rare corner case. Overall, there are plenty of doctors across the political spectrum. I mention this because the ethics proposed in "Never Again" are not like that. They would need to be changed quite significantly to be. That's the issue here.

Doctors are also prohibited from assisting in "enhanced interrogations" performed by the US government.

>"Any interrogation process that...requires a health professional to monitor the actual procedure, must have inherent health risks" and is thus "contrary to international law."[0]

Torture is unfortunately political in America, with the president-elect and many on the right supporting it. And it's another thing an ethics board is standing against.

[0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/medical-personnel-and-int...

They define a much more narrow set of ethics. Nobody's losing their engineering license for designing missiles. You lose your license for sneaking in last minute changes in without proper review, accidentally causing missiles to explode in their launch tube.

Doctors lose their medical license for deliberately harming people or engaging in inhumane experimentation.

How many doctors lost their licence over capital punishment?

Actually, since 2010 anesthesiologists have refused to participate in capital punishment. [0]

> In at least one case, the planned execution of Michael Morales, the execution warrant was stayed indefinitely due to the objection of the contacted physicians to participate.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_of_medical_profe...

You distil it through trial, error, and refinement, and you instill it by rejecting the established consensus and being willing to tolerate unpopularity or even persecution. If you're not happy with the BCS, start drafting an open letter of rejection of their standards and a demand for something better, while teaming up with people to research and rough out an alternative you can live with. Germany offers examples from both fascist and communist regimes, so looking into their post-war/post-regime experiences might be the best place to begin.

You need to finish that thought: the majority of people do actually go against the values typically espoused by the people who visit HN, and they too have strong feelings about the concept of professional ethics. In other words, they consider your values unethical, and you'd be outvoted in a professional society. Your resistance to the GCHQ (or NSA or FSB or Mossad -- whatever your local agency is) is thereby declared unethical. Due to lack of ethics, your membership in said professional society is suspended.

If like any other professional body, a group with an interest in keeping barrier to entry high and expensive. Writing commercial software without a four year degree? Well that's just downright irresponsible and immoral!

No residency working under Big Tech Co for 5 years? No self employment for you! Lets see what giving that kind of power to authorised employers does to tech wages, should be fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com