This was months ago. The official announcement was in the middle of April. See this response from the official GrapheneOS X account.
> We're in communication with him and he has been diverted away from combat.
> We're in communication with him and he has been diverted away from combat.
You can argue that a specific individual has specific skills and experience that make them more valuable to the country in a non-fighting role. But software developer is just another common job.
But the commenter seems to be making a moral, not utilitary, argument.
This isn't so much about being worthy of protection as it is about the army dealing the most damage it can. Exploiting software vulnerabilities to disable production (like the Ukranians did for that drone production company) can save as many lives as sending someone to the front can. Breaking into networks to gather OPSEC is crucial for any military operation, offensive or defensive.
odds are the dev is in some sort of signals intelligence unit or doing dev on some sort of drone control system, etc.
ditto for if/when they draft doctors, dentists, welders, etc. -- put people with skills and experience in those fields into areas where they can be used.
doesn't mean the graphine dev ain't working 20 hour days and ain't getting targeted by drones -- just they're not line grunts.
There are a lot of highly qualified people in the combat corps.
> ditto for if/when they draft doctors, dentists, welders, etc. -- put people with skills and experience in those fields into areas where they can be used.
Many of which will be very close to the FEBA.
But the Graphene OS commenter seems to be making a moral, not utilitarian, argument, which is both odd and somewhat reprehensible.
Thousands of people rely on GrapheneOS, many of whose lives would be in danger from repressive regimes or criminals if GrapheneOS makes a security blunder or even stops being maintained. Working on GrapheneOS probably saves far more lives than being just another frontline soldier.
It is blatantly immoral to say that a person's life should be valued more because of they are a software developer or because of the software they produce, or that it should be protected more than the lives of other people.
> Working on GrapheneOS probably saves far more lives than being just another frontline soldier.
And it doesn't make a life one iota more valuable than anyone else's.
Why do armies send people to the front? To defend their citizens' lives from an invading army. By taking the developer away from a project where he saves many lives to the front where he can save few lives if any at all, you're the ond saying that the lives in Ukraine are more valuable than the lives of political dissidents, journalists, refugees, etc. everywhere else.
That messaging is insulting to families of equally skilled people who have died in combat and is also historically a precursor to extreme policies based on perceived human worth.
It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
There was no decision made on where to assign him based on his skills prior to our intervention. People are assigned to infantry by default.
> While it is sensible to use skills effectively
This is not what they're doing in practice.
> Graphene OS's public messaging that pleads for special treatment for one individual developer because their project is important implies that some individuals' lives merit more protection than others, which is not true.
That's absolutely not what we said.
> It's important to note that Graphene didn't ask for this developer to be assigned as a specialist where would they provide the greatest operational benefit - they explicitly asked for protection.
No, that's completely wrong. The entire purpose of the post was an appeal to Ukraine's military based on his clear value to them as a very talented security engineer/researcher. The whole point was getting on the radar of high level people who could evaluate that and make the correct decision of having him do work relevant to those skills. That's why we posted about it publicly at all. We had a clear goal and achieved it.
> It is morally reprehensible, as are your comments.
Your claim that what we said or did is morally reprehensible is ludicrous. We didn't do anything to harm their war effort and they'll be far better off using him in a sensible role related to his skills rather than as infantry.
Ukraine's military leadership made the decision to have him transferred to a software development role entirely based on merit and his value to their war effort. It was done entirely by the book with many people aware of it. It was officially authorized by their military's general staff. If you think keeping our friend safe was morally reprehensible, good for you. None of the officers we talked to had any issue with what we did.
Do you think it's morally reprehensible for Russian men to flee Russia to avoid military service in a war of aggression? If anything, it's morally reprehensible for them not to do everything possible to avoid being part of it. Do you think people are obligated to fight and die for the state they were born in regardless of the details?
In regards to the actual circumstances, not everyone agrees men are obligated to fight and die for their country against an aggressor simply because they were born in it. You're treating it as if there's a universal moral code where defending the nation state you were born in is part of it. It's entirely possible to be against Russia's war of aggression and to support Ukraine defending themselves without wholeheartedly supporting forced conscription. Other countries could have intervened with their volunteer-based forces instead of watching Ukraine send their male population off to die against a much larger force without adequate equipment. What's moral about you expecting Ukrainian men to fight and die in a war while you do nothing?
Denying that this was special pleading is absurd; selective protection for an insider while countless other conscripts (many equally talented and important in their fields) get no such advocacy is a moral and ethical failure.
We never said anything about his life being worth more than others. We posted an appeal to Ukraine's military leadership explaining his value to their war effort with the goal of keeping our friend safe. What's the problem with that?
> And it doesn't make a life one iota more valuable than anyone else's.
What's the problem with trying to keep our friend safe in a way that helps Ukraine to defend themselves?
We posted an appeal to Ukraine's military leadership which was obviously not a moral argument about conscription. Our thread explicitly stated that we aren't taking a position on forced conscription in an existential defensive war.
The former is morally reprehensible and an insult to the families of the war dead.
If this is not clear to you, I think some self reflection is in order.