Interest in Islam ≠ being a Muslim. I'm interested in Islam and not a Muslim. In fact I'd say most Trump supporters, hell most Americans of any political/religious persuasion even, have some amount of interest in Islam. I'm being somewhat facetious, but also not entirely - the point being that I don't think these consumer profiles could easily be converted into Muslim registries.
But it's also all pretty moot - if Trump's anti-muslim policies are implemented, I highly doubt the CBP et al will need resources beyond what the US intelligence community already possesses.
There is a big difference between advertising to users interested in Islam and shipping that dataset (or clicks, or people who use certain keywords in messages) to the government.
Well we could all say we were interested in Islam so that people who actually are could be interested without fear of incrimination because of it, at the same time we could educate users about putting their interests online and what it means.
It's a lovely gesture, and an important sign of solidarity; however, it'a merely that, just a gesture.
I hope that SV and the tech industry leverages its wealth and technical legal capabilities to fight these sorts of actions in court, unlike their responses to privacy intrusions by the federal government, British intelligence, and other foreign groups.
Gestures aren't nothing, they start a conversation, spark a reframing of priorities, and signal to others that it's OK to concur -- or, as you say, a sign of solidarity.
We focus on decision makers because that's the easiest point of observation. That we are much more limited in observing the chain of gestures and other non-decisive actions that influence decisions doesn't mean that gestures are nothing. More importantly, gestures are a way to be engaged and increase engagement, as you gradually position yourself to be in the right place at the right time to make impact. If everyone waited until they were established/rich enough before they acted at all on their convictions...well, there's a reason why "The establishment" is used as a perjorative.
And as an obvious example, our president-elect made many gestures that he'll be unlikely to fulfill. But that was signal enough to get him to be where he is.
I object to the idea that this is a gesture. These are people pledging their reputations to quit their jobs if their employers don't prevent the data they collect from being abused. It's not just possible but likely that people will quit jobs in the next couple years because of this.
The objection that the pledge doesn't solve the problem is easy to make because it's true: the pledge alone won't solve anything. But make no mistake: this isn't a petition. Whether 10 people or 1,000,000 people sign a petition, the effort fails if the target ignores it. But a single person can sign a pledge and, in honoring their commitment, do something significant in support of their cause. It's not up to the employers; it's about the workers.
I think this kind of bottom-up effort is both promising and overdue. More people should consider signing. What's the threshold we'd need to reach in our profession for a pledge like this to meaningfully impact decisionmaking? I think it's much less than 51%.
A public commitment is not a gesture, but an act. It may be small for your tastes, but it's something.
I certainly hope people fight aggressively in court. But waiting for that encourages a passive, helpless attitude at a time when we can be doing a lot. And it places too much faith in the legal system and rule of law.
Right now the most effective way to make political change happen in our industry is by applying collective pressure from within. Tech employees are expensive and difficult to replace.
Over 1000 people, some of them very prominent, have pledged to quit their jobs if they are asked to do unethical things. How is that "merely a gesture"?
If you read any of the pieces discussing the late Thomas Schelling's contribution to game theory, you know that making a pledge to do X if Y occurs is a perfectly sound strategy to discourage Y from happening.
The book IBM and the Holocaust[0] gives an interesting historical perspective on the misuse of databases and database technology. One fascinating point with modern echoes is how often sensitive information (such as having Jewish ancestry) was simply volunteered to officials such as census-takers.
Unfortunately, with firearms registration and no-fly lists, Muslim registries are part of the slope we've set precedent for. A citizen should _never_ have to register with the government to exercise a freedom explicitly granted in the constitution.
It's an interesting argument. How could that work for things like driving, where you need to prove competency before you are legally allowed to do something?
Sadly, there will always be tech workers willing to do this for the right price. As I get older, I'm starting to wonder if not following my "tech morals" would've brought more success.
I'm playing the devil's advocate here but there are also a lot of tech workers who do not regard building such a database as unethical. A common fallacy on HN is to assume people who hold differing views necessarily do so egoistically, which is sometimes true but not always.
01:17:25 -Chris. -I'm all right.
01:17:32 -They took everything. -Kent's tracking system is gone!
01:17:39 How could you build that mirror?!
01:17:50 He lied to us.
01:17:53 It's easy to lie to you, Mitch.
I'm distressed at the amount of fatalism and hopelessness in this thread. Every professional has agency and the ability to act ethically. They can choose to stand up for people's rights or not; the best guess is that these ethics will be tested by the next administration. Large scale human rights violations require the complicity of a lot of people who may be uncertain about how to act in the face of moral ambiguity, and a public pledge to not be complicit can help a lot.
People are making a public pledge. Other people who haven't signed the pledge might read it and get encouraged by it, or see a name on there of someone they look up to, and decide that everything isn't hopeless, or decide to act ethically in the face of questionable decisions.
I'm glad this is getting attention, but I urgently need to correct their headline.
What tech workers pledged to do:
1. Not to participate in the creation of these kinds of databases.
2. To use every lawful method available to them to stop the misuse of these databases where they exist.
3. To sever their connections with their employers if efforts to prevent misuse at those employers fails.
Lots of people are reacting to this by saying "the databases already exist". The people who wrote this pledge are aware of that.
This is not a "petition" to convince Google and Facebook to stop building databases. It's not a petition at all. It doesn't demand that companies do anything. It's not up to the companies; it's up to the employees who sign. That's the point of a pledge.
This database essentially already exists as part of Facebook and another companies producing social graph data, and in the nodes and interstices of networked communications.
Nevertheless doctors worked in concentration camps, were experimenting on humans, work as executioners currently in the US, work and worked in torture chambers, sell their patients to big pharma for Rolex watches and on and on and on.
This pledge may be a statement but is practically worth nothing.
Good luck getting Facebook or the US Census to do that. This is a useless gesture that means very little. I guess some people get to feel better about themselves.
The first step would be some reforms in consumer protection laws dealing with privacy and information sharing. Just watch how much certain SV firms spend to opposed those changes.
That is an interesting headline, when I read it I immediately thought the coda would be, "... but advertising networks offer to share theirs."
There is absolutely technology already out there that, without your voluntary participation, puts you into arbitrarily precise boxes. One need only look at the targeting options on a Facebook ad to realize just how deep that data goes.
Adtech companies have invested billions in ways, legal, sketchy, and sometimes downright illegal to put together databases on everyone who ever connects with the Internet in any way on any platform. They do that because being able to target ads accurately makes them more money.
Of course it already exists. For example on facebook. For example in the mosques.
Everybody was warned, everybody could have seen this coming. But most people didn't give a fuck. Welcome is post privacy. I didn't need have to be that way. We can still turn this into post-post-privacy. But only if we face what we have already done.
Well, to be honest, the title is highly misleading.
Sure, they pledged to refuse to participate in the creation of such database, but that's just one of the things stated in the full pledge. I would emphasize more on the following parts of the pledge:
* to scale back existing datasets with unnecessary racial, ethnic, and national origin data.
* to implement security and privacy best practices, in particular, for end-to-end encryption to be the default wherever possible.
* If we cannot stop these practices, we will exercise our rights and responsibilities to speak out publicly and engage in responsible whistleblowing without endangering users.
Right, The database already exists and it is called facebook. It can identify you by information you provide, by people you have relationships with, by your conversations, and by the largest database of photos of the world, many of which contain faces and are automatically tagged by the camera with a location and a time.
Bought firearms with a background check? Thanks, now they know to send in SWAT instead of regular uniforms. You carry your tracking device with you at all times and keep it charged every night right? You've helpfully identified yourself as a subversive by encrypting your communications right? All your finances, communications, and your ability to navigate depends on government controlled networks and institutions right?
- All network connected software is surveillance software
- The reason for creating information is irrelevant to how it is used
- Technology is being used activly by rulers for surveillance, repression, and assassination
There's definitely going to be a database of visa overstayers. The plan to match entries and exits from the US is coming back. It's not like that should be hard.
A database of Muslims is not a special kind of database...You can use any old off the shelf DB software for this. I'm not sure what the point of this pledge is.
It is one thing to say that publicly but real test with be when NSA will come with all their weapons. May be NSA can say give me all your data and we will do something like s/mohammad/target/g.
The bigotry and utter disrespect for the privacy and freedom of own citizens is the larger problem that is not just Tech industry's issue here.
[+] [-] Raed667|9 years ago|reply
[0] http://i.imgur.com/NOrGA2N.png
---
Edit: Direct link
[+] [-] MaxfordAndSons|9 years ago|reply
But it's also all pretty moot - if Trump's anti-muslim policies are implemented, I highly doubt the CBP et al will need resources beyond what the US intelligence community already possesses.
[+] [-] kevinburke|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codyb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wjossey|9 years ago|reply
I hope that SV and the tech industry leverages its wealth and technical legal capabilities to fight these sorts of actions in court, unlike their responses to privacy intrusions by the federal government, British intelligence, and other foreign groups.
[+] [-] danso|9 years ago|reply
We focus on decision makers because that's the easiest point of observation. That we are much more limited in observing the chain of gestures and other non-decisive actions that influence decisions doesn't mean that gestures are nothing. More importantly, gestures are a way to be engaged and increase engagement, as you gradually position yourself to be in the right place at the right time to make impact. If everyone waited until they were established/rich enough before they acted at all on their convictions...well, there's a reason why "The establishment" is used as a perjorative.
And as an obvious example, our president-elect made many gestures that he'll be unlikely to fulfill. But that was signal enough to get him to be where he is.
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
The objection that the pledge doesn't solve the problem is easy to make because it's true: the pledge alone won't solve anything. But make no mistake: this isn't a petition. Whether 10 people or 1,000,000 people sign a petition, the effort fails if the target ignores it. But a single person can sign a pledge and, in honoring their commitment, do something significant in support of their cause. It's not up to the employers; it's about the workers.
I think this kind of bottom-up effort is both promising and overdue. More people should consider signing. What's the threshold we'd need to reach in our profession for a pledge like this to meaningfully impact decisionmaking? I think it's much less than 51%.
[+] [-] idlewords|9 years ago|reply
I certainly hope people fight aggressively in court. But waiting for that encourages a passive, helpless attitude at a time when we can be doing a lot. And it places too much faith in the legal system and rule of law.
Right now the most effective way to make political change happen in our industry is by applying collective pressure from within. Tech employees are expensive and difficult to replace.
[+] [-] kevinburke|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mundo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yclept|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marchenko|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
[+] [-] exabrial|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woofyman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marchenko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucaspiller|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] this-dang-guy|9 years ago|reply
Things like aid and whatnot should really be isolated and broken off to prevent mass collection dbs.
[+] [-] dmritard96|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] milge|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olalonde|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeroxfe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hprotagonist|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fomite|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] probably_wrong|9 years ago|reply
(With apologies to Nathaniel Borenstein. Also, it's true)
[+] [-] kevinburke|9 years ago|reply
People are making a public pledge. Other people who haven't signed the pledge might read it and get encouraged by it, or see a name on there of someone they look up to, and decide that everything isn't hopeless, or decide to act ethically in the face of questionable decisions.
[+] [-] tptacek|9 years ago|reply
What tech workers pledged to do:
1. Not to participate in the creation of these kinds of databases.
2. To use every lawful method available to them to stop the misuse of these databases where they exist.
3. To sever their connections with their employers if efforts to prevent misuse at those employers fails.
Lots of people are reacting to this by saying "the databases already exist". The people who wrote this pledge are aware of that.
This is not a "petition" to convince Google and Facebook to stop building databases. It's not a petition at all. It doesn't demand that companies do anything. It's not up to the companies; it's up to the employees who sign. That's the point of a pledge.
[+] [-] marchenko|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _Codemonkeyism|9 years ago|reply
Nevertheless doctors worked in concentration camps, were experimenting on humans, work as executioners currently in the US, work and worked in torture chambers, sell their patients to big pharma for Rolex watches and on and on and on.
This pledge may be a statement but is practically worth nothing.
[+] [-] bwreilly|9 years ago|reply
> to scale back existing datasets with unnecessary racial, ethnic, and national origin data.
> Responsibly destroy high-risk data sets and backups
[+] [-] protomyth|9 years ago|reply
The first step would be some reforms in consumer protection laws dealing with privacy and information sharing. Just watch how much certain SV firms spend to opposed those changes.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
There is absolutely technology already out there that, without your voluntary participation, puts you into arbitrarily precise boxes. One need only look at the targeting options on a Facebook ad to realize just how deep that data goes.
Adtech companies have invested billions in ways, legal, sketchy, and sometimes downright illegal to put together databases on everyone who ever connects with the Internet in any way on any platform. They do that because being able to target ads accurately makes them more money.
[+] [-] 1ris|9 years ago|reply
Of course it already exists. For example on facebook. For example in the mosques.
Everybody was warned, everybody could have seen this coming. But most people didn't give a fuck. Welcome is post privacy. I didn't need have to be that way. We can still turn this into post-post-privacy. But only if we face what we have already done.
[+] [-] r3bl|9 years ago|reply
Sure, they pledged to refuse to participate in the creation of such database, but that's just one of the things stated in the full pledge. I would emphasize more on the following parts of the pledge:
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
There has been nothing coming. Trumps pre-election stuff was BS, nothing will be done. Check back in 4 years.
Besides government agencies obviously already have detailed profiles of such things, going far beyond the religion of a subject.
[+] [-] idlewords|9 years ago|reply
Facebook has all this data. We're trying to do something about it. What are you doing?
[+] [-] elevensies|9 years ago|reply
Bought firearms with a background check? Thanks, now they know to send in SWAT instead of regular uniforms. You carry your tracking device with you at all times and keep it charged every night right? You've helpfully identified yourself as a subversive by encrypting your communications right? All your finances, communications, and your ability to navigate depends on government controlled networks and institutions right?
- All network connected software is surveillance software
- The reason for creating information is irrelevant to how it is used
- Technology is being used activly by rulers for surveillance, repression, and assassination
[+] [-] mozumder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ori_b|9 years ago|reply
I suspect that this is largely posturing, and when push comes to shove people will comply.
[+] [-] ris|9 years ago|reply
(I inevitably invite anyone with a beef against certain database technologies to suggest some possibilities)
[+] [-] fixermark|9 years ago|reply
It's not enough to just vow not to build them; the databases that exist would need to be data-jammed. If everyone is Muslim, then no-one is.
[+] [-] sharkweek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darawk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tn13|9 years ago|reply
The bigotry and utter disrespect for the privacy and freedom of own citizens is the larger problem that is not just Tech industry's issue here.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply