Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

The first part of this comment is in fact what I'm saying. The second part, where you call this "witch hunting", I don't agree with. I think our profession is way, way too detached from the consequences of the applications of our work.

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.

View on HN

Interesting to flip it around, though: is the doctor who administers a (legally ordered) lethal injection a monster? Why or why not? Or, who gets to decide yes or no?

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?

Since I never said anything about doctors being monsters, I don't accept the premise of the question.

Sorry for being unclear. You said: "Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions". So I just wanted to flip it around; if the doctor willingly agrees to assist in an execution, what, if any, implications or judgments does that entail?

Does that require clarification? Is this some kind of socratic dissection? Are we going to take this somewhere, after we get the obvious part in writing?

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.

It sounds great in theory but it's so divorced from reality I can't help but feeling anger at Palantir is misdirected. If Palantir refused the contract ICE would walk down the street and offer it to IBM/SAP/Northrop/Raytheon etc. If by some miracle they all refused it remember most three letter agencies have very skilled in-house teams.

All of this is just distracting from the real issues at hand.

Something something if you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook something.

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.

Maybe not IBM :o) I think they learned their lesson last time they sold tech to help doorkickers round up undesirables

> If Palantir refused the contract ICE would walk down the street and offer it to IBM/SAP/Northrop/Raytheon etc.

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'm saying worry about ICE's conduct, worrying about Palantir is unproductive. ICE's ability to build a database is not the limiting factor.

Though it's easier to attract bright and hopefuls to work for Palantir than ICE, right? And it's easier for these employees to excuse their actions with an "I didn't know my efforts would end up being used for that purpose", or "I just wanted to work on interesting problems".

Worrying about both is appropriate: in both cases, folks are acting like amoral jerks, mentally divorcing their actions from the amount of suffering they directly or indirectly cause.

I think the long term question is: how can we make these choices less okay and less profitable?

> I'm saying worry about ICE's conduct, worrying about Palantir is unproductive.

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.

> holding people and companies accountable for wrong behavior

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.

All of your replies in this topic have been logical fallacies:

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)

That's not really constructive. Do you have an actual point to make?

My actual point is you are a troll engaging in Sea lioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning

You were complaining about logical fallacies and then discredit my argument as "trolling". Pot, kettle, etc.

> Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions or torture

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...

I think your analogy is incorrect with regards to doctors (since we're talking about action, not inaction). A clearer one might be: is the doctor who saves the life of a murderer, rapist, etc a wrong for doing so. We say "no she isn't" because she's absolved of responsibility for that decision by her medical oath...if she wants to remain doctoring, she HAS to offer her services without regard to the who the person is. In the case of the programmer, there's no such (legal) obligation.

Thanks, we need more of that courageous attitude in our industry. It's one thing if a company makes a generic product, markets it as such, and bad people happen to decide to use it for bad purposes. It's a totally different thing if a company markets their products as great ways to commit human rights abuses--even if those abuses are legal--shouldn't that at least raise a few eyebrows?

> I think our profession is way, way too detached from the consequences of the applications of our work.

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.

Thank you, well said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com