Almost all software can be abused or co-opted for surveillance purposes. It's one of the reasons I've grown more disillusioned with computer tech over the years.
1. Almost all software can be abused or co-opted for surveillance purposes.
2. Some software comes already designed for surveillance purposes up front.
2a. This includes plenty of well-known mass appeal software; importantly, the customer-facing marketing copy and the investor pitch can present a completely different value proposition.
3. Software doesn't become used for surveillance or abuse by accident; there are actual human beings who make a decision to use it in this fashion, or commission it for this purpose.
3a. The "misguided programmers harming people by trying to solve social problems with technology" meme is dumb for many reasons, but it's also distracting (possibly purposefully so) from the fact that it's not software, or people who coded up the software, that are the primary culprits. The coders that were too naive or too self-interested to refuse work or blow the whistle may have some responsibility, but we should start talking about the people who made the decisions to commission or repurpose technology for bad purposes.
If the piece of software you created is unbiased and unopinionated, it can be used for evil purposes. If you make the software deliberatedly against that, you have to (a) take measures without the company knowing (b) have the manpower to do it alone while still reaching development goals (c) those measures can be undone by another developer that cares less that you.
After all, software big enough is collective by nature. It's also unfair to us to think that we're responsible for any misuse as if we were mechanical engineers creating weapons for war
You can quit. Literally, there is something you can do. If your boss asks you to write or adapt something to surveil, then you can quit.
There may be consequences to quitting, perhaps disproportionately felt between you and the company, perhaps consequences that you won't enjoy as much as your current job stability and paycheck, but the choice is always there.
This is why unions are so important, even in a field like software engineering. If you quit on your own, the company may not care. But using the threat of strikes, workers can demand better conditions for themselves and more ethical directions for their company.
Why that is the case is another interesting question.
It's entirely possible that in the post-IBM microcomputer, pre-Google AdWords span, they were correct.
However, it's pretty obvious that current era, power has slid back from labor towards extremely-large corporations.
Sadly history repeats so we'll probably just have another "cultural revolution" and "great leap forward" in the 21st century.
In Marxist terms, lumpenproletariat is a close approximation, but a weird accident of history.
That depends on your baseline, of course. Or to answer your other question:
> Why would you expect anybody getting that kind of money to identify with the lower classes?
I don’t expect it, though I do have deep solidarity myself. Because, to return to the middle of your response:
> If you're making 100k+/year, you're well into bourgeois territory, and FAANG benefits are practically near-instant-owner-class.
I can speak to six figures, and I’m in no way into bourgeois territory. I’m approximately as comfortable as middle class boomers, ie I can make financial decisions to benefit my aging family with some hope I’ll still be comfortable myself. I don’t own anything in the sense meant by “bourgeois” in this context. I may yet, in the sense of a retirement plan. That’s a middle class aspiration. Which, having grown up poor and then broke and then getting by… I recognize very much is still working class.
There certainly is a larger segment of the tech work force than the general population which has reason to believe it can cross the bridge from gentry to ownership… but it’s still a minority of us and it’s mostly scraps. I don’t expect most of my colleagues to be comrades, but I certainly don’t agree with their class analysis which you have expressed so clearly.
If you mean software engineers when saying "tech workers" because unions make it harder to fire people. There's not much that makes a software engineer's job harder than a bad engineer who isn't getting fired and is destroying the quality of the product and the code and creating work for everyone else to fix, all the time.
Unions also result in gaining seniority by time spent in a job instead of competency, and that's also a miserable experience, when someone incompetent is dictating the engineering work. In software engineering you want people who are technically proficient and capable of mentoring to assume leadership positions and positions of increased responsibility, not people who've been there the longest.
I am not actually so much resistant to unions, as I do not see what benefit I’ll get from them. What exactly in my life would have changed for better if I had been a part of a union? Just one thing, can you name?
If you have ever gone up against HR over anything ever, a union would have benefited you.
On call? They paid me $500 a week to have a cellular phone officially, but at the same time unofficially everyone was strictly forbidden to call it. It was an internal political move by the engineering department (see our commitment to this new product? we even put Mike on call), turned into an additional benefit to best engineers.
> If you have ever gone up against HR over anything ever, a union would have benefited you.
My wife (who is one of the best teachers in California, documented) was fired exactly because of the union rules. The principal wanted to keep her so much, that the district turned his desire into a political tool: oh you want to keep L? she is a good teacher? sign this paper (some financial cover up) and we will give you the money to keep L. The union did not care is she a good teacher, or not. Less seniority? Go away (but we keep your $1000 union fees).
They won't, but its a delusion that favours capital over labour.
My favorite counter-example is a collective action of about a thousand medical workers in SF Hospital demanding from Facebook an increase in censorship (and the censorship is impossible without surveillance).
Why do you think a union will support your ethical choices? And if it would not - you’d have to quit the company and the union, loosing not only your salary, but also union fees.
A union gives you more choices than "surveil or resign".
And if the union fails you because it says "no, you have to surveil" then you can still resign.
Why shouldn't workers in a factory have a say over how their labour is used by those who appropriate it?
Baffled by how obvious solutions appear to have fallen off the radar.
As you say, collective bargaining is usually going to be more effective than individual.
It may be more effective in terms of salary and working conditions (though I doubt that in software engineering I would have been able to get better pay through collective).
But in terms of ethics?
Individually, it’s almost impossible to make me support surveillance and censorship. But a big collective is much more vulnerable to manipulation. Comes 9/11 and you’ll get “collective” support for Patriot act, comes 6/1 and you’ll get “collective” support for censorship.
If you had a union, or even a professional association whose code of ethics had teeth, you could refuse without having to quit. It's incredible to me that in 2022, most programmers are still anti-union.
> To stop the surveillance, [they] would have to get their equipment suppliers to make changes; they would have to change their own back-office systems; they would have to reformulate customer contracts so they would not rely on the data being available in case of disputes; and so on.
> [It] would cost [them] more money to stop the surveillance of their customers than to continue doing it.
> That is quite literally what "surveillance too cheap to meter" means.
which is why it's less of a technical problem and more of a social problem
people need to realize that with how the technology is today we can't afford to rely on marked self regulation for a lot of things especially wrt. privacy protection it just fundamentally does not work
(Or in other words, such usage of employee surveillance should be just plain out forbidden by law not just to be used but to be deployed)
Of course, there have always been these kind of people, but in the old days they were easily identified groups of disabled and elderly people, who, most importantly, understood also themselves that they need help.
The bleak future I see that increasing amount of normal people with normal intelligence are just going to be financially destroyed, all while they themselves believe that they are fully qualified and justified to decide whether their money is "invested" in the next cryptard scheme, sent to a nigerian prince to get millions, or put in a crappy health insurance covering accidents once in a blue moon, instead of those damn government elite experts taking their money and actually providing health care and pension. And after they are destroyed, they become even more hostile against the "elite experts" who just seem to be laughing at their faces "told you so".
(To be extremely clear here: I believe intelligence is a highly multi-dimensional thing. And yu can be intelligent only in very limited dimensions. so practically all of us - me very much included - are morons in most of the dimensions. So I am not pointing here to any specific group, but all of us are vulnerable in some dimension. I may be able to above average avoiding certain kind of scams, but I am for sure vulnerable - even laughable stupid looking afterwards - for face-to-face friendly scams. Which, luckily to me, are typically not expensive.)
Unfortunately I have no good solution anywhere in sight. The best idea I have so far is to mock online the idiots who think Ayn Rand was a genius. I have to admit, though, that even that is likely to be useless even in the best case, so most of the time I try to just bite my lip.
By law, like by some Patriot act?
I tend to believe it, "will be."
All tech will eventually be used to try to gain an advantage in war and surveillance. I don't think there's a way to prevent it.