I left the company that develops the stingray (who’s name is mentioned in the article but I shall not say it) because I didn’t feel comfortable with the ethics of how it could potentially be easily abused without legal permission and/or repercussion. I fear these technologies will become more commonly used against Americans by low level law enforcement without good reason and without responsible usage.
The other option is scorched earth similar to the recent news articles where there were blog posts publicly shaming the company. Wondering what kind of in between options are available. Anonymous posts are a start at least to get the inquisitive types to look in that direction and/or add some weight to previous anonymous posts.
Edit: just read further down the list, and see others have essentially asked the same thing
Perhaps you missed
>[...], we need more more people like you
That person will be their second choice after all.
"A low level enforcement employee used unauthorized tools to locate our suspect. He has been reprimanded. However, once we surveilled the suspect we had the evidence to prove he was guilty unrelated to any prior cause. Case closed."
Mistakes were made but lies were never told.
- Do you think there's a better alternative to tort that could as clearly limit the tools government uses to fight crime?
- If harmless mass surveillance replaces concretely and plainly harmful mass surveillance (e.g. stop and frisk), did we come out ahead?
I'm not a blowhard and obviously do not want to live in a surveillance state. I'm not even advocating for the status quo. It's okay if the answer to these questions are basically, "I don't know."
Or go on and argue that stingrays in isolation of a malevolent government somehow materially harm people in some concrete way. It would be awesome to hear your perspective if that's the case.
Morality is a matter of opinion, and, I believe, pretty much independent of legality.
That means a law can be both immoral and legal, depending on your perspective.
Policing technology is a constantly evolving marketplace and technologies that strike some as immoral frequently are tested in court where their legality is determined.
Many folks weighing in see the act of developing Stingray technology as an immoral act, and it seems that thereby, those who engage in such development are immoral people.
In my opinion, labeling others as immoral for engaging in something you don't approve of is a double edged sword and the more you wield it, the more jeopardy you put yourself in. Anyone who works for a mainstream technology company can have that same finger pointed at them for some facet of their employer's actions.
People who believe that this technology should not be deployed would find it just, if not moral, to pursue a political change rather than shaming those who see a valid purpose for what they are developing.
This makes absolutely no sense. If it is a matter of fact, it should be independently provable not require courts to decide.
Legality is supposed to be the public's opinion of the morality of an action, but in reality it is the ruling class' opinion of how the action impacts them.
An employee knowingly assisting their company commit immoral acts should try to stop them, though a concern about you or your families well-being is a legitimate reason to just try and walk away. Don't delude yourself into thinking tools will be used legally so it is acceptable.
Does that mean that all legal acts are also moral?
It makes plenty of sense once you realize that it's a fact that if a court decides something is illegal, the government may use its monopoly of force to enforce it. Don't confuse scientific fact with legal fact. Also don't confuse legal fact with a court's opinion as to whether the law was actually violated.
I hope more people will follow your example and question their work. Not only at Harris Corporation, but in every part of what is called surveillance capitalism.
Is there really a shortage of people willing and able to do this kind of work for these companies and government agencies? I'm asking because I truly don't know.
And if not, could we think of some other ways people in these positions could exert some influence for change, even if it's only after they leave those jobs?
Eventually, you might start to ask "why" and change some things to bring the costs back in line.
For example, I know lots of people (including me), who refused interviews with Uber post harassment revelations.
I'm questioning whether that market for developers really is tight enough to matter, whether employers and top policy makers would even notice that some number of people withhold their skills in protest.
I'm wondering if perhaps there are other more powerful ways for these developers to exert their influence, whether in these positions or outside of them.
"The effect of corporate reputation on staffing costs"?
A quick googling implies "yes"?
https://www.igniyte.co.uk/blog/how-a-bad-corporate-reputatio....