Comment by SamInTheShell

2 days ago

So you're trying to justify this type of rampant negligence in tech? Do you think justifying such malfeasance makes up for fact we literally have surveillance networks that bad actors can tap to do really awful things?

Anyone that cares about their perspective has missed the point.

I don't think the person you're replying to is justifying it, but saying there's no laws to prevent the abuse.

Personally I think tech CEOs should be put in stocks in the town square on the regular but they're protected from any form of repercussions besides extreme cases of fraud. Even then, they're only held accountable when the money people have their money effected, not when normal people are bulldozed by the abuse.

  • If I was 10 years younger, I might agree that they aren't justifying it, but I have enough experience with passive speech to just not let it pass anymore.

    Regarding remedy, we really need laws on this stuff yesterday. The problem is that we have to gut first amendment freedoms for some of this stuff, which wont go anywhere because there will always be too much overreach with today's representatives.

    • You should probably read the comment you're replying to before replying

      > Until there are laws in place that makes people actually responsible for creating these situations, it'll continue, as for a company, profits goes above all.

      They obviously meant that we ought to be holding these people responsible.

      2 replies →

> So you're trying to justify this type of rampant negligence in tech?

Don't know how you reached that conclusion, I obviously isn't trying to justify anything. But maybe something I said was unclear? What exactly gave you the idea I'm trying to justify anything of this?

  • Nothing against you personally, just so you know. But I have to point out that anyone caring about the reason for the short coming of flock on stuff like this are just crafting soft reasons they can use to justify things later. Being up front here I care not for their reason because the entire business model is frankly disgusting and an affront to a functioning society. This is the type of tech that evolves into social credit scores and precog crime units, stoping crime before it happens.

    At the end of the day your rationalization only affords comfort to those that have a vested interest in this stuff being successful and it needs to be clear to those people driving this that they’re not doing something popular or even good.

Why stick your neck out, swim upstream to do a good job that will not be recognised as such?

Fix the corporate incentives and engineers will be able to do the right thing without suffering. Not everyone gets the luxury of a secure career doing morally ok things.