How does anyone, when asked to build such a program, not raise an objection, or say something?
The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.
The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.
Even on mundane decisions unrelated to ethics, I've seen engineers object to things and get overruled. If you continue digging in your heels, the leadership will simply fire you or move you to another team and get someone else to do it.
If you did have strong ethical objections, it's likely you just left the company. Why stay at something where no one else shares your ethics? So the moral vacuum is somewhat self-reinforcing.
Besides all that, it's a lot easier to sit in a place of judgment when you weren't involved than, say, in a position where you needed the job to put food on the table for your family.
Why do people build weapons? Why do people pay taxes, that are used to fund immoral actions? Why do people provide services to immoral actors? Typically, the answer is money.
US-specific:
* EV credit: $7500
* Solar panels on your roof: 30% federal tax credit (some states have incentives as well)
* Mortgage interest/insurance
* Educational expenses
* Charity contributions
* Tax loss harvesting of non-tax advantaged investment accounts
Some of the above require itemizing.
That seems like a stretch; people pay their taxes because they don't want to go to prison, not because of money. If anything, money would be an incentive not to pay your taxes, so it seems obvious that there's something stronger than money at play there.
similarly, there is nuance in each position. self-preservation motivates avoidance of prosecution, but it doesn't prevent individuals and companies from seeking the most effective legal means to avoid taxes, which sometimes is in a grey area w.r.t law and ethics. as well we should consider that while some public services are considered good and desirable, many of them aren't, and which is good and which is not is a judgment that varies heavily between individuals.
this isn't libertarian-land "taxes are theft" stuff. this is the basic social contract that everyone, libertarians and their opponents, all abide by.
Today, I almost said "Fuck it, if you want to make a blatantly negligent mistake then just reply to this email detailing once more how stupid this is and I'll just build it." If I get asked once more, I still might.
Does that make me an unethical money chasing individual? I dunno, maybe. And maybe I'm wrong and it's not a big deal -- I honestly don't know if that feature is a HIPAA violation or not. But most of all, I just want to keep my job and keep feeding my family.
I wouldn't be too quick to condemn the people that wrote this for Uber.
What if you could opt in to healthcare that was 20% cheaper, but was only subject to contractual promises of medical privacy, not the HIPAA. Would you take the deal?