Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

... again, easy doesn't mean ethical. If a person's willing to aid a predatory/malicious/unethical (pick any) company in exchange for financial stability, smart or not that says most of what needs to be said of their ethical character.

You're saying

"I could go work at the NSA for a few years, then be set for life in terms of employability, or I could be a back-alley nobody for the rest of my life[...]"

"... and so the ethics of my actions are superseded by other concerns."

And yet again, you're making the downright false assumption that everyone sees it an unethical. Which they don't. In fact, most see it as a necessity. Even more so among the population of degree-holders they want to employ. All but a small percentage will see them as, at worst, neutral. Which brings it back around to 'will I be harming this organization more, or myself more?' With the answer quite obviously being "I am the only one who is hurt by doing this, as it in no way impedes their goals, and will only result in those with less concerns about privacy be those in charge."

[SalmonGod]

And those people are stupid for failing to realize that organizations like the NSA are tools of the powerful, ensuring that people continue to face decisions like this

It's a case of "I could go work at the NSA for a few years, then be set for life in terms of employability, or I could be a back-alley nobody for the rest of my life."

which also makes your Zynga analogy not very applicable.

The reason I think this issue is of such dire importance is because in the face of programs like this it is impossible for social movements or activism to ever be effective enough to change anything without the blessing of those in charge these institutions.  This is the first boss.  Until we beat it, we will not be able to face environmental destruction, extreme inequality, or corruption.  Period.

[Frumple]

And yet again, you're making the downright false assumption that everyone sees it an unethical. Which they don't. In fact, most see it as a necessity.

No, I'm making the assumption/statement that, to some degree, it (or, at least, some of it) is unethical. It's very easy to see something as either not unethical or necessary if you're ignoring or (spuriously) justifying unethical action. A lot of really nasty shit has been done over th'course of history while a majority of people thought said shit wasn't unethical, or was a necessity, or had some kind of excuse why it was acceptable even if it wasn't ethical.

Which brings it back around to 'will I be harming this organization more, or myself more?' With the answer quite obviously being "I am the only one who is hurt by doing this, as it in no way impedes their goals, and will only result in those with less concerns about privacy be those in charge."

Whether the organization is hurt by one's refusal or the one refusing is hurt by refusing, is utterly irrelevant to whether aiding the unethical actions of an organization is or is not ethical. There is literally no connection between those points. Being unable to influence the actions of the organization in question by your refusal or experiencing some degree of personal loss because of it does not magically make going on to commit unethical actions, ethical.

Yes, it's one of the great pains in the ass about attempting to put ethical concerns at the forefront of one's decision making. All too often it means losing out on very advantageous things, or accepting that you've traded an ethical foundation for said advantages.

There's something to be said for the last bit -- infiltration, so to speak, is a thing -- but in that case a person's basically saying, "By committing little evils, I can prevent larger ones." That doesn't change th'fact that they're committing unethical action. It just means they've got a goal they consider worth the immorality. That goal may be worth it -- sometimes it's even admirable, in a certain, that a person is willing to shoulder that burden in order to prevent a greater degree of immorality. That doesn't change the nature of the acts in question, nor does it entirely excuse the person in question for committing such acts.

[alway]

So here's the core problem: would you give $30k per year to an organization whose sole goals are to publicize the benefits of frogs in an ecosystem? No, you probably wouldn't, and you probably aren't. And yet, you're somehow surprised at the fact that other people aren't willing to do effectively the same thing. Because that's what turning down a good, out of college employer is doing; it's reducing your lifetime pay, ect and so forth. So the question is, if I see your cause as something no more worthy than spreading information about frogs to the general public, why would I give up huge sums of money to said cause?

If you're working for basically any company, you're going against another cause: wealth inequality. Something which, quite frankly, is as likely if not more so, to screw us all over than anything the NSA does. And yet, it's hardly seen as immoral to work at walmart.

Similarly, overfishing is a massive problem which will quite likely lead to extinctions of a large number of fish species within the next few decades. And yet, I feel no qualms about going out and buying salmon at the supermarket.

Or factory farmed meat.

They're all causes; all quite noble ones too; but I just don't care enough for it to even impact my daily behavior; let alone giving large sums of money for them.

[Frumple]

... who said a single thing about being surprised by it? What I've been noting is that sort of reasoning is exactly what leads people toward supporting unethical organizations (or at least the unethical actions of certain organizations) despite largely not being malicious, themselves.

It is immoral to work for walmart. It's immoral to shop at walmart. Their business practices are basically exactly what an ethically concerned economic system does not need. That doesn't stop many people -- myself included -- from doing just that. Other concerns supersede the fact that they're supporting an unethical organization. Short term considerations -- often necessarily, because you can't fix things if you can't eat -- override long term considerations. Just plain ignorance often factors in, too.

Again. That doesn't make the actions ethical. It doesn't even make them not unethical. It just means one's principles have a price. Not caring enough to -- or having strong justifications not to, or just being unwilling (or, to a degree, even unable) to investigate properly -- do anything about one's own unethical actions does not magically make them not unethical.

If that's not enough to change one's actions then. Fine, yeah? That is what it is. That's most of what needs be said of the person's ethical character. The horse is a horse.

[SalmonGod]

All you're saying is exactly what I already said.  That it's a complicated issue.  It's not easy to balance ethics vs livelihood in today's world.  That doesn't mean ethics gets a hand-wave, either.  I think people should internalize and admit to themselves the full meaning and consequence of the things they do. 

The only thing I'm taking issue with you on is that you seem to be saying it's too bothersome to care and those who do anyway are a powerless minority, so we should stop talking about the fact that we care.  Or something along those lines seems to be your message.

So here's the core problem: would you give $30k per year to an organization whose sole goals are to publicize the benefits of frogs in an ecosystem? No, you probably wouldn't, and you probably aren't. And yet, you're somehow surprised at the fact that other people aren't willing to do effectively the same thing. Because that's what turning down a good, out of college employer is doing; it's reducing your lifetime pay, ect and so forth. So the question is, if I see your cause as something no more worthy than spreading information about frogs to the general public, why would I give up huge sums of money to said cause?

Serving people who cause problems so that you can make money to spend on raising awareness about the problems you helped cause is a pretty fucked up way to go about effecting change.  Not saying that having a job isn't necessary, but I am saying that hand-waving ethics as a concern if you have any ability at all to turn down an unethical employer just because you'll be able to throw some money back at the problem you're helping to create is incredibly fucked up.

You also don't seem to understand what I'm saying about all those other issues you bring up.

Surveillance is used to shut down social movements and activism.  It is almost completely impossible for those things to be effective as long as the issue of surveillance remains as large as it is.  This makes it top priority as a matter of practical necessity before we can even begin to work on those other things.

[lue]

Anyway, what do you mean in your amendment by "limited to"? That could conceivably cause problems.

I put that in there to prevent "we limit the people's constitutional rights to snail mail and phone calls" as well as "we exclude Internet from those rights" type things. (I should point out at this point I'm not a lawyer, much less a constitutional one. I just typed it up somewhat quickly as a demonstration.)

To the topic at hand,

So here's the core problem: would you give $30k per year to an organization whose sole goals are to publicize the benefits of frogs in an ecosystem? No, you probably wouldn't, and you probably aren't. And yet, you're somehow surprised at the fact that other people aren't willing to do effectively the same thing. Because that's what turning down a good, out of college employer is doing; it's reducing your lifetime pay, ect and so forth. So the question is, if I see your cause as something no more worthy than spreading information about frogs to the general public, why would I give up huge sums of money to said cause?

If you're working for basically any company, you're going against another cause: wealth inequality. Something which, quite frankly, is as likely if not more so, to screw us all over than anything the NSA does. And yet, it's hardly seen as immoral to work at walmart.

Similarly, overfishing is a massive problem which will quite likely lead to extinctions of a large number of fish species within the next few decades. And yet, I feel no qualms about going out and buying salmon at the supermarket.

Or factory farmed meat.

They're all causes; all quite noble ones too; but I just don't care enough for it to even impact my daily behavior; let alone giving large sums of money for them.

You seem to be conflating "giving money to someone" with "not taking money from someone", which aren't equivalent concepts in my mind. But I do see the point you're making.

I'm completely fine if you're not motivated by the cause for privacy and accept the job from the NSA. Some people, however, are too bothered by the NSA's dealings to be able to accept a job with them. It doesn't doom you to a lifetime of guaranteed lesser pay and benefits (nor does taking the job guarantee a lifetime of greater pay and benefits over other jobs).

That being said, just because you accept a job that does what by my definition is unethical doesn't make me call you an amoral person. It's the people that are in charge who we should be inquiring with, not people who are doing the work.

By the way, I'm still interested in hearing concrete examples of the benefits and drawbacks of the NSA's programs. Right now it seems to be entirely theoretical, which is almost silly for something that is currently operational and almost certainly generating concrete examples.

[SalmonGod]

Further clarifying note.  When I said self-fulfilling prophecy, I meant it in terms of employment in general, not just employment with the NSA.  The situation we're in which forces us to do work for unethical organizations is a problem that we're going to have to face if we ever want to change the unethical things that are happening, and it's not ever going to be easy.  However, we can start by doing everything possible to weaken those organizations which concern themselves directly with maintaining this status quo.

By the way, I'm still interested in hearing concrete examples of the benefits and drawbacks of the NSA's programs. Right now it seems to be entirely theoretical, which is almost silly for something that is currently operational and almost certainly generating concrete examples.

I've provided plenty of concrete info on the drawbacks.  I'd like to see some on the benefits, because I've never seen any.  Spokespeople will sometimes say "We stop lots of terrorists!", but never provide any further details beyond that statement.  The couple of times that they have, further research into the claim has revealed people who weren't really terrorists or people who were extremely unlikely to ever commit a terrorist act if not for very aggressive entrapment operations.

[alexandertnt]

Maby they stop terrorists and bad guys, but keep it secret for whatever reason (the information might lead to more people joining or something), So all we see is the bad stuff and assume thats all they do.

*insert X-Files theme*

[Bauglir]

Necessity doesn't turn a wrong thing into a right thing. It's fine to say, "I did this because I had to", but not to append, ", so it was okay." It just changes the degree to which you should feel guilt and shame, and probably the manner in which punishment is due (probably to "Not at all"). But it's important to remain aware of the wrongs you commit, even by necessity, so that you can make amends if the opportunity arises and take steps to avoid finding yourself in similar situations in the future, to whatever extent either of those are possible.

[Evil Knievel]

I'd like to put forward a solution to the whole dilemma, which sounds cynic but is not really.

http://wirelessbordercams.com/

In analogy, make a Xkeyscore/Prism-client program available to every US citizen for home use.

(There needs to be some kind of privacy protection for US citizens, like replacing real names by a number or disallowing spying on them altogether. I guess the law requires that.)

Everybody with a patriot heart can help in defending the country against terrorist threats, listening to conversations, profiling suspects (and their food preferences) and click the "report"-button when they feel that they spotted something relevant (every report that leads to a successful detention/drone strike is rewarded with 2000$ max), and at the same time, the transparency issue is out of the way.

And for the rest of the world, nothing would change.

[alexandertnt]

Thats an awful idea. At least with the NSA I know only a small number of people are going to spy on me in some form.

That would mean absolutely anyone could spy on me. Even if they dont know my name, its still really creepy.

[GlyphGryph]

Better everyone than the NSA, in my opinion. My concern about the abuse of privacy has always been that it's one-way power imbalance and a corrupting force on the US government (which is hard to deny at this point). A tool of oppression. This is why even as they argue that our secrets our worthless and we shouldn't be allowed to hide them from the government, since we have nothing to hide if we've done nothing wrong, they need to be allowed to hide everything - we have no permission to know what they are doing, although it is ostensibly on our behalf.

Now, since alway doesn't seem to understand ethics or the role it plays in government, I'd like to touch on that a little bit. Ethics, they are a weird thing. With the right incentive, it's in no ones own best interest to behave ethically - they are almost guaranteed to engage in unethical behaviour. However, it is in most people's best interest for the vast bulk of other people to behave ethically. As such, in the United States we have built-in-adversarial systems, checks and balances, conflicting incentives and public exposure.

It is never in the best interests of Congress to do what benefits their constituency unless that constituency has some leverage that incentivizes them to do so. It is not in the best interests of the President to follow Congress's restrictions and laws and limitations, unless the system is designed for that to be so. It is not in the best interest of a Judge to rule against his employer in a situation where he can be removed without anyone ever knowing of the injustice, so we guarantee a right to public trials and leave determinations of guilt to a jury made up of the public. The police want to be able to acquire and use evidence however they wish, but the courts disallow evidence acquired in violation of the law.

People are not naturally inclined to act ethically when they benefit from doing the inverse. Very few people are Edward Snowden. And so we try to separate things. We try to insure that there are sufficient incentives to encourage ethical behaviour in others because it is better for ourselves if they behave ethically, by developing systems where unethical behaviour is no longer profitable or possible and where the incentives result in a system that acts the way we want it to - because otherwise our own personal actions will likely end up being unethical, since the alternative is a system that rewards those who act unethically.

When you give people power without oversight, and strong incentives to behave poorly - when we wrap things in secrecy and set up incentives that invite abuse and unethical behaviour - we are damaging the entire system of government under which we are supposed to operate, hurting not just our principles but the long term success of our society. We are building a society where we cannot trust those in power, because we know they work within a system that encourages them to act against our interests. The NSA is just a single system of that problem, but it cuts across our government in many ways now, and it is one of the most serious. We cannot even trust it to be reformed, because the incentives that created it in its current, bloated, immoral and abusive state are still exactly the same.

[sjm9876]

With relevance to the first paragraph:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2849

[kaijyuu]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2849

Not sure I like that argument. I'll agree about the end result (selective enforcement), but "benign breaking of laws and taboo" sounds... well the issue is that the law and/or taboo is dumb. If you can benignly break a law or taboo, that law or taboo shouldn't exist (or be modified for the benign exceptions). That's the root issue there.