Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions or torture, or pharma companies resist selling execution drug cocktails. But for some reason technologists are just fine selling the technical building blocks of a surveillance and mass deportation system. That's not right; it's a sign of the diminished professionalism of our field versus other professions, and it does need to change.
All of this is just distracting from the real issues at hand.
What what we debating here? ICE's conduct or Palantir being an enabler? Because if we're talking about Palantir, "someone else would have done it" is not a good excuse.
I think the long term question is: how can we make these choices less okay and less profitable?
How so? Exposing and holding people and companies accountable for wrong behavior does not stop anyone from trying to change the government policies that encourage the wrong behavior. The added media exposure probably helps, especially with people that are interested in the person/company but are not aware of the government policies and their impact.
That's the question, right? Is this wrong behavior? It's legal, that's for sure. Just because you don't agree with ICE's actions doesn't mean every Palantir employee agrees with you.
1. "Someone else would have done it."
2. False dichotomy.
And now piling on:
3. Moral relativism.
4. Finish the Job. (#49 in http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm)
As anyone with the pleasure of having contracted with IBM or Lockheed can tell you, there is a significant difference between working with giant government contractors versus the best funded Silicon Valley firms.
And where is the line? Is the programmer who writes code for a surveillance drone ( immoral? What about one who writes code for a submarine that may carry ballistic missiles? Or for the missile guidance system itself?
When a doctor assists in an execution, they participate in what is a murder, just under some other context. Lift that action up and out of the auspices of state and governance, and you have a murderer, accessory to before or after, or an accomplice to.
This isn't a particularly rare occurrence, but someone is there to cut the life short, do harm, and achieve a goal. Justice, revenge, passion, grudges aside. There's a winner and a loser.
It could be a misanthrope and henchmen, or it could be a doctor, somehow more distinguished than a common thug. The doctor chooses gets hands dirty for different reasons, there they are all the same. But the doctor gets to walk away from his murder, and commit more, so long as the state and government are not deposed.
Are (using your example) Cisco and/or Oracle offering material support, other than making the products that are used? If not, I don't see how they could prevent the government from using their products - the government would just buy the products through a cutout if they had to.
But it turns out that no one (initially) cares when doctors do help with torture, either. The APA helped design the American torture program, and despite some inflammatory articles never saw any real consequences for it.
I don't think this devalues your point about technologists, but it does make me suspect that our uniqueness is overstated; quite a few 'respectable' professions have at one point or another joined in on horrific government overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-p...