Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewljohnson | Hacker News Reader

These guys join a chorus of academic voices calling for the same. We've seen similar statements from Professors Rogaway and Green in the past few weeks on HN.

I think we need a legal solution, but if the tech community refuses to participate in corrupting the technology, it puts the spooks in a worse position. I'd sign a pledge saying I will never work on any apparatus (software, data centers, anything at all) that are used for mass surveillance. That's pretty easy for me to do though... the money government throws at some companies and people for this work is more tempting than the One Ring.

http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/politics/surveillance.pdf

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/government-announce...

More like this couldn't hurt.

View on HN

> I'd sign a pledge saying I will never work on any apparatus (software, data centers, anything at all) that are used for mass surveillance.

Anybody that ever worked on Hadoop could not sign such a pledge.

Anybody that ever worked on Linux could not sign such a pledge.

Anybody that ever worked on solr could never sign such a pledge.

And so on. You get the idea, it is not possible to contribute to open source projects that have applications in large scale data storage, mining, generalized operating system work and so on without as a side effect making the apparatus of mass surveillance possible.

The only safeguards that will really work are very strict legal ones, transparency and accountability. As long as the last two are not present the first is meaningless (which is the situation we are currently in).

You could always add a 'don't use this for evil' clause to your licences… http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

(This is not a serious suggestion)

I think you know what I mean, but I'm sure the pledge could be worded to avoid this sort of conundrum.

If I make something that gets co-opted for use in surveillance, fine. But if, for example, I accept a grant from the NSA or GCHQ to improve Hadoop in some specific way, I've crossed a line.

I'm not going to say anyone who ever worked on designing a computer is complicit, but I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid working for companies that supply tons of computers for surveillance. Like I said, it's a tough sell to people who have families to support, but I don't think it's crazy to quit working for certain companies based on the revenue they get from the NSA and related agencies.

There was a time in my life that I would have contracted for the NSA or Booz Allen, I'm fairly sure. Given the revelations, and also given my current financial circumstances, I would not today.

I agree with this, and would take it even further. I don't have a problem with certain types of surveillance software, kinds that create jobs for many developers.

Software that blocks access to adult material for school networks, spam filtering software, any sort of contextual advertising software, web analytics, all of these have many traits of, or are, surveillance software, but I allow myself to be monitored by them all, knowingly.

I don't see a problem with schools and offices filtering inappropriate material, reading email for certain purposes, tracking users, etc, as long as users are aware of these practices, and are willing to trade that element of their freedom for the service being provided. The only practical way forward with any anti-surveillance movement is to focus on legislation, and tools to detect (and under appropriate circumstances) evade surveillance - e.g. I might use Tor at home, but would allow my work email to be read if required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com