Yup, they were just following orders. Definitely not responsible for their own decisions and actions
/s
/s
Most engineers on HN aren't solely developing for non-profits and charities, we're writing software for for-profit entities, and most of the really big for-profit entities are pretty evil (e.g. Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc). It's not unreasonable to condemn people for working for these companies, but I think it's important to put into perspective the scale and intent of most of the people working there.
I guess I’m accusing the parent comment of hyperbole more than being “wrong”.
Even if this was not currently criminal, this behavior appears inexcusable. The software engineers building this software lacked the ethical stamina to stand up and say "no" to their masters. They deserve an equal share of the condemnation and consequences for their participation.
Or rather, I would if this wasn't mostly FUD and blown out of proportion. According to other comments it's entirely opt-in.
I mean, that's a valid enough position to have, but I don't feel like you have really thought it through.
And I don't know what kind of standards public defenders in the US have, but over here it's common than an abuse of power by the police force is followed by a wave of resignations.
My point is that if we take a job like a public defender, I think most people agree that the action of what they're doing is a good thing. Providing representation to people who cannot afford a lawyer is (I think) nearly universally regarded as "good". However, they are paid by the US government, who has done its share of very evil things. Does that mean I should condemn a public defender because the entity that signs their paychecks does evil stuff?
Personally, I think the answer is "no". Any sufficiently large entity has its share of bullshit, and I personally do not think that every individual that has ever associated with that entity is guilty-by-association by working with them. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would be surprised if everyone you like passes your purity test then.
I see the point that you're getting at, and there's surely the line to be drawn here, and I think it's a question of scale – and the line is placed differently for each individual. I don't have absolutist views on this, and I probably wouldn't feel bad either, as a public defender in the example you bring up. I'd say public defenders are in the clear even if their state-employer also does bad things – since at least some of the things that they do are good and need to be done, like keeping people safe. I wouldn't say the same about Norton since they're one of many and if they went down tomorrow nothing much would really happen.
I don't think it's comparable to the IT industry though. Companies hugely care about their image, and poking holes in that image is an effective – or at least available – way to put pressure on them. Consider how much effort they're making to recruit people, and how heavily they rely on friends recommending their friends. "Your employees will leave and they'll discourage their friends from working with you" will work much better on a tech company than it would on a state that doesn't really compete with anyone else when it comes to public defense.
One's own conscience work similarly in this case. There's a long way to go from "I directly boost profits of a ruthless, replacable corporation" to the "I criticize the society and yet I participate in it" meme.
I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions.
The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example).
Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job.
In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.
That appears to be opt-in. It's quite plausibly something people interested in crypto might actively want, namely a company they already do business with offering to make all the decisions about coins and wallets and stuff for a small fee. If a YC startup offered this, or it was added to the Dropbox client as an opt-in "let Dropbox make you some cash", people would love it. If Windows 11 or Edge included it, people would hate it. As an opt-in thing it's not a bad idea; not quit-your-job bad and certainly not "just following orders" Nazi trolling bad. It's Norton and AntiVirus's reputation which taint it.
"It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway" - it at least implies that something strongly and obviously bad is underway that anyone with integrity should avoid. And that's not obviously the case either.
[1] https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...