I don't think the author is suggesting we shouldn't build useful things. He's saying to the people who built the military system that they shouldn't be doing that.
It's the last step that's the problem, not the people who built all the things they stand on. Otherwise we'd be suggesting that no one build a database engine or a digital camera or a computer ever again in case they're used to build evil tech.
All technology can be weaponized. It can also be de-weaponized.
One of my favorite late-night thought experiments, is "what would it take to turn an AK47 or an AR15 into a water pump?" .. the possibilities are endless.
The only difference between peaceful technology and a weapon is the intention of the user. The very real spiritual intention.
De-weaponization starts with the human being. Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. There are so many examples of the tool-makers winning harder and at greater scale than the bomb-manufacturer. We wouldn't be here now if the balance was the other way - our world is however threatened by having this scale weighed heavily, by those who think murder is the solution to anything.
It's a spirit thing. Not spiritu-al, a spirit thing. What is the spirit of the designer? If they want to help humanity, it will be difficult technology to weaponize (although not impossible). It will be easy to de-weaponize, also.
We need to focus more on the spirit of help, and less on hurt.
Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most.
Imagine if they could be used to drop a copy of archive.org, anywhere in the world, in any language.
Imagine if those ships were being used to bring power to the villages that need it most. Instead of glide bombs, we have glide libraries. Instead of cluster musicians, cluster medical kits! Oh, the glory to be had by those who would do this - the allies in the poor and weak of the world to be found! Imagine this happening, changing the intention from hate and fear, to respect and love.
All it takes is the spirit, a bit of imagination, and any and all technology can be de-weaponized. It is the warrior narcissist who stand in the way of this. Disarm them too. Drop books, not bombs!
I think there's a distinction between creating generic info-gathering technology that helps them gather their own data from their own users, and you gathering data that the government can then ask (force) you to hand over.
It might actually be wise [1] to create a new, slightly less permissioned license for open source wherein the open is defined as anything that isn’t in a kill or surveillance chain or, more broadly, for military use…
Why do you want the people risking their lives to protect your freedom to have worse artillery? I don't understand this thinking at all. If my country is going to shoot something, I want them to be able to control what actually gets hit. I swear, people take borderline religious stances on things to the point that they no longer make sense.
> Why do you want the people risking their lives to protect your freedom to have worse artillery
If better artillery is being built on open source tech then everyone has better artillery. Not just the people "protecting you" but also the people trying to kill those people
That wouldn't be open source. OSI includes the clause "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"[0] for its definition of open source. Famously, the JSON license[1] has a clause "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil," so the Free Software Foundation considers it nonfree.[2]
The idea that a defense manufacturer would be stopped by this is too funny. The code won't be auditable by you so how will you know? Secondly even if you did find out the most you'd get is a payout. Thirdly if you believe that missile aren't running GNU/Linux I have a bridge to sell you.
I've contemplated writing an email to RMS asking him how he feels about the use of GNU software in military and surveillance systems and if he could do it over if he would do things differently to alllow users to put a clause in their OSS licenses that forbid such things.
I doubt this is enforceable. Are you going to sue a government secret program because they used some open source code in a way that violates some weird clause?
Yes, citizens should sue the government when the government takes actions which are grounds for suit. The government sure will come after your money if you do things they say you shouldn't, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You won't know, they'll say it's for national security so licenses don't matter, and then if you keep going they'll make sure your life is a living hell and your bank accounts closed.
I'm begging tech bros to understand that abusive governments _do not care about abusing you_
You seem to be suggesting that it's impossible to successfully sue the federal government, which is provably untrue. Yes the government abuses the rights of its citizens and will vehemently defend itself if challenged, but suit is the one of the more potent peaceful means we have to redress grievances with them.
As this is a civil discussion, being rude is uncalled for. Maybe go for a walk in nature and get your head back on straight.
No one is saying you can't sue the government. You can in fact. What we're saying is you won't get the outcome you desire. The fact that you think they will simply stop production because you sued them is frankly laughably naive. That's not being rude. It's just reality.
On the other hand, it may be worth publicly and unambiguously stating a position even if unenforceable. This seems to be what most modern protest movements are based on. For instance, how many software repos "stand with Ukraine", even though they won't make an impact on frontline military reality?
Ah yes, they're carpet bombing people and indiscriminately killing fighters, adults and children, but they're going to be stopped because... the software they use is two clause GPL.
The other rule here is that you cannot avoid politics if you want to create a better world. If you want the freedom to develop technology without worrying it will be used by a police state, you need to put in the work to make sure a police state doesn't happen - you cannot ignore politics and just "focus on technology."
On the other hand, a few heuristics will get you pretty far:
Don't build technology that interacts with people in ways they did't consent to. Don't build skinner boxes. Let the user decide who gets whatever data they generate while using the thing. Let the user control how it will work, insofar as it doesn't contradict the other heuristics.
These are political principles, but they're pretty basic. You don't have to keep up to date with the news, just check in with your morals once in a while.
Yeah, there’s definitely good design principles, but as others have pointed out, it’s extremely difficult to build technologies that are not trivially dual-use.
And, to be clear, I’m not saying “politics” as in “did you hear what Trump said?” I’m saying politics as in “what is your city council doing, how are your neighbors doing, and what are the consequences of your work and economic choices and who’s paying them.” Most of the news is a circus; that stuff is not.
How do you make sure a police state doesn't happen? Block traffic? Tweet? Cut off ties with friends and family that don't share your political beliefs?
Of course you can avoid politics. Just be a good person. Vote for who you think is the best candidate at the time. And move on with your life.
Ironically the people most involved in politics don't have their own house in order. They're often mentally ill, over educated, underemployed and without meaningful ties in their life (e.g. family, real life community, etc).
By being durably involved in your community and by being aware of and not ignoring the consequences of your actions, of the policies you advocate for, the actions of the politicians you endorse, etc. By not just voting once and moving on.
There's a deep failed idea here. It's the idea that technology is an alternative to politics, period. I think that whole idea has failed.
You can't avoid building technologies that could be used by a police state, because literally everything can be used for warfare or aggression. The first person who sharpened a stick or a rock created a weapon. Everything is a weapon. Everything is dual-use.
If you want to prevent a police state or any other undesirable political outcome, you have to confront the politics directly. "Change the tools and you change the rules," an old saying from 1990s cyber-culture, is an idea that I think has failed. Instead what happens is that the rules determine what's done with the tools. Those 90s cyber-hippie and cyber-libertarian types vastly underestimated the power of the political to the point of making a category error.
Cryptocurrency is a great case in point. It started as an attempt to create a technology that would act as an escape hatch from corrupt casino capitalism and state-backed financialization. Instead it became an insane absurdist parody of those things. The same types of corrupt individuals who profited off "too big to fail" and the rest of it simply took cryptocurrency and used it to implement the same type of system but on a block chain. The rules (and rulers) changed the tools, not the other way around.
I mean you kind of can. The whole premise of AI is basically that we'll make white collar administrative compliance work dirt cheap in the long run and we'll all be richer for it and we'll sidestep the whole "fight with all those industries" step because the sheer economics of it will make it happen and as those industries become cheaper/poorer there will be even less reason to not kick them to the curb. Kind of like how once certain state shed a lot of their manufacturing or agriculture, adopting policy that's bad for the rest became easier. Or how now that solar is cheap we mostly DGAF about coal.
The Marxists were wrong about the inevitability of history no matter which direction or by what mechanism one wants to assert it. You’ve gotta put in the work no matter what, there’s no eliding the actual effort of politics.
Recently my wife got locked out of her bank account - all cards blocked, unable to log in to the website or app, so effectively her whole finances were frozen - because she was trying to order a new bank card over the phone and some system couldnt do voice recognition (which we did not know they even used). We were getting ready to get on a plane to NYC, from California (she banks with TD bank) but after a tearful session of phoning anyone and everyone we could at TD, suddenly it magically got reversed.
The problem is not just the tech, its building systems where humans are essentially slaves to the system, with no recourse or power over whats happening.
Few things are more important in modern life than access to your money. That's why I would never use an online bank. I use a local credit union but "local" with actual branch offices you can walk into and talk to a human are the important thing.
I'm in the UK and it always seems weird to me how in the USA its totally normal to publically register yourself as either a Democrat or a Republican. To me seems like the kind of thing that should be private. In the UK I might choose to be a member of a political party but no-one needs to know that except that particular party. Or I can just join no party and vote in private on polling day.
It seems quite weird. Our parties are generally quite weird because were are not supposed to exist in the first place and so most of the rules are sort of ad-hoc.
The automobile, the transistor, the Internet, and basically every other technology ~could~ be used by a police state. I'm not sure how that is a helpful rule at all.
The article says the same. I think the point is to be aware and try to build things in a way to minimize the chance for abuse. There's nuance and the author says as much.
The sad irony of "Share this post on..." with neat list of all the services doing exactly what the post warns against. They can and often are already used by police state.
Defaulting to discussing the US here: let's start with reducing the state's size - it shouldn't be the world's largest employer, it shouldn't be able to run an unfathomably large deficit, it shouldn't be able to declare war without congressional approval. Technology to run a police state is just the last step in a long line of ridiculously unacceptable steps.
It won’t work for any country. They all want more control, and also create a class of people depending on government money to be on their side. Only people losing out are the powerless ordinary citizens and taxpayers
I've been arguing with folks on Reddit about this lately when it comes to Google's changes to Android (where they've made it more difficult to install any software on your device without Google first tracking the identity of the developer). My argument ultimately comes down to the fact that Google (and Apple already) have built a technology that gives them immense power to control individual computing freedoms, and no matter their internal policy, they still must follow US law. No amount of promises or legit good faith on their part matter, they've made a dangerous technology and are behold to a government that is very eager to censor anything it doesn't like. It's so disappointing to see 1. Google engineers build such a thing, and 2. For people to support it.
Has this philosophical approach ever worked? It's a commonplace in the hard sciences and engineering fields (ie, refusing to work on weapons systems), but weapons systems are elite and well-compensated engineering projects that don't have any trouble finding talent. The same thing goes for NSA, which has a line out the door from elite academia.
I'm not dismissing the sentiment here. It's morally sound. You should act in accordance with your principles and it useful to be reminded how those principles intersect the world. I have similar guardrails (probably not the same as the author's). I just wouldn't want people to overestimate what can be accomplished with this approach.
A significant number of people in positions of power in the AI industry get their moral framework from science fiction books and a particular Harry Potter fanfiction. It’s hard to predict what ideas and philosophies will become important.
Like others have said, I don't think it's possible to create technology that cannot be weaponized. I think it's possible (mostly) to design technology so that abuse requires more people, requires the leaving of evidence / paper trail, needs checks, etc.
But still, it's not possible to prevent abuse altogether and sometimes we even applaud breaking the rules (the movie Hunt for Red October for example kicks off with the Soviet captain jumping the guardrails).
Also, the most "benign" public infrastructure is usually the most impactful, e.g., water systems and electrical systems. Don't like the people in that one town who keep protesting and voting against you? Turn off their power, water, and also make it so that their trash doesn't get picked up for a year. See how they like it.
This is missing the "(2013)" at the end of the HN link, but it does seem weirdly prescient as we say a rise of more polarised politics across the World, just 13 years later.
I find it frusrating how the conversation around this almost always focuses on one side of the equation. Why is it always about preventing tools from being built in case authoritarians comes to power rather than preventing those authoritarians from coming to power in the first place? I'm far more scared off the authoritarian aspect than the tech. The Nazis didn't need Flock cameras to kill millions. It seems like focusing on the actual bad guys is going to be more effective because if the state wants to bear its weight on you, it rarely requires tech to do it.
>The Nazis didn't need Flock cameras to kill millions.
No, but they were extremely happy to hop over to France and realize that we kept lists that indirectly listed jews. Actions have consequences that we may not be able to predict.
Libertarianism has its moments but it generally hasn't caught on because state capacity is unique and useful. And virtually every last bit of it can be used to facilitate a police state because it's... a state.
Sure, we could all live without IDs and use motio belli for defence but this arrangement will be soon replaced by someone more organized because there is a huge return to that organization despite its risks.
> There will always be someone willing to build that thing
… with sufficient time and money. As opposed to the minimal time and money required if the baddies are just pulling an existing solution off the shelf.
Just because someone is willing to build it doesn't mean it has to be you.
We may all play some part in societies that have some degree of monstrous outcomes, but I feel like staying on the "tragic civilian casualty" side versus the "legitimate target" side of a freedom fighter's bombing campaign is probably the way to go.
I hope you are joking, or haven't thought this through! If you sincerely believe and act on what you're saying here, you should be shunned from polite society.
It's not about someone willing or not, it's about you, an ostensibly grown adult who should think in terms of your own responsibilities instead of others'.
Terrible argument. You can say ”why not work as a concentration camp guard? There will always be someone willing to do it so you might as well cash in”
this is an important topic, and i hate that people forget how difficult it is. in any political conversation, it's pretty easy to pull this thread to unravel anyone's adamant belief in one thing or another (e.g. gun control). my biggest concern is that people seem less willing than before to actually have those discussions.. they'll immediately just label you as being opposed to their views, "against" them.. when really we need these conversations to find viable policy solutions that wont easily be used in the exact opposite way that they were intended when implemented
"Civic hygiene isn't about saying we distrust our current government - it's about not trusting the next government." I've made similar points. Granting one government administration more power, is by extension granting it to all future administrations. Do so only with great care.
Technology is force multiplier. Everything could be used for oppression. Deal with it - the future is boot stomping on human face forever. There are lucky few that could choose whether they will be the face or foot. But it is inevitable.
Or we could stop all tech development. But it is not going to happen.
Companies that agree to work on Chat Control deserve a special place in hell. One company that was eager to participate, hoping this harmful law would pass, is Atos. Name and shame them.
Edit; wrote this comment before I realised this is a blog post from 2013. In 2013 I would've agreed 110% with this.
-----------
This is one of those things that make for great post title and gets you all riled up at first but when you think about it, it's really shallow.
Most civic databases can be abused by any sufficiently authoritarian government. A homeless shelter's records may contain exactly the sort of information that could be used to get "undesirables" off the street. But those same records are useful for coordinating beds, outreach, medical care, etc. Surely the conclusion isn't that the shelter shouldn't keep records.
It seems much more useful to focus on limiting what gets collected, who gets access to it, and how long it can be retained. In other words, boring things like data-minimisation and retention laws. Somewhat amusingly, that gets you pretty close to the sort of principles behind GDPR, which isn't exactly universally loved around here.
I don't really disagree with the blog post's moral intuition. What bothers me is the emphasis on individual moral choices by the people building these systems. I've seen plenty of my peers happily work for companies that have spent the last twenty years building exactly this kind of technology, there will always be someone willing to build it. That's not an argument for abandoning personal ethics, but it is an argument against treating personal ethics as any form of serious societal safeguard. "good engineers should refuse to build them" means nothing.
Assholes like this were all for the police state back when it was up to stop-the-spread “contact tracing”, real-time “fact-checking” my private messages, arresting people for facebook posts, and transing your kids.
Now that the red pedophiles are in charge instead of the blue ones, he changes his tune.
I think this runs into a basic issue that all large software systems that enforce the law contribute to locking down a society because laws tend to need be broken to be changed.
That a system can be avoided offends the investor who want their products to be ubiquitous.
The system that is not perfectly enforced offends the engineer who dislikes broken things.
Yet both are required if we as a society are to grow. I think the thing that it might be good to learn is when to say "I've done/had enough."
I think I could collect enough weight of books on "civil disobedience" at my local library that I could crush you underneath them, even if you didn't bother reading them.
the problem is Capitalism does not need Democracy to function or survive
many countries like Singapore, etc. prove this easily
Authoritarianism can even be desired by Capitalists if they know who to bribe to remove regulations and get approvals
and no surprise, that's exactly where the United States is right now, teetering on the edge of that hole, about to fall in
"AI" is going to be weaponized, already is, and any resistance against its abuse is simply overriden with threats to destroy profits or even company survival at all
There is some sort of "nerd naivete" that they are the ones with power to control those things.
If you're a nerd developing open source (not an insult; I'm in that category), our job is to develop effective technology.
If you want to do politics, go into law and/or politics (or into business, so you can fund/control politics).
>"But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. " -- Theo De Raadt
The article is not completely wrong in its premises, but phrased incorrectly.
This is not about technologies (after all, an authoritarian government will use many existing technologies, from the car to the computer), but about powers granted to a government, that could be used differently by the next party/majority in power.
The answer to that is to not grant government too much power in the first place.
Of course, this is often a contentious point for leftists, since they do want to grant government a lot of power in the first place; they're just concerned that the exact same powers will then be used by a different political side in a way that bothers a different category of people.
You will get downvoted to oblivion for even suggesting it here but it's so obviously a take that maps on cleanly to reality. Massive power centralization in government makes everything dual use in the service of a police state. The easiest thing to do is resist massive centralization of power in a government.
you get downvoted because to most people we don't care if its tyranny.gov or tyranny.com. "don't give powers to the government" just means they buy them from corporations. see: cellphone location data.
the solution is not to have the power exist at all, anywhere.
People cite Flock as an example of this. Yet the same people walk around with iPhones and Android devices that can record conversations (who talks to whom at what times and for how long), know our exact locations and log everything we do online.
If I had told you 30 years ago that we are going to build a surveillance network and make the people we are tracking pay for it all you would have laughed me out of the room. But that is what we have built. The modern Smart Phone.
Now we use our iPhones to complain about cameras on public roads as if they are watching us.
Very flawed argument, anyone can go for a walk without their phone on them and have a conversation, nobody would ask them why they don't have their phone on them.
[1] https://gdcvault.com/play/1012227/Development-Telemetry-in-V...
[2] https://www.army.mil/article/85934/solution_to_weapon_develo...
Eg. Flock cameras don’t help the military but do help the police state.
It's the last step that's the problem, not the people who built all the things they stand on. Otherwise we'd be suggesting that no one build a database engine or a digital camera or a computer ever again in case they're used to build evil tech.
But maybe easier than it sounds.
All technology can be weaponized. It can also be de-weaponized.
One of my favorite late-night thought experiments, is "what would it take to turn an AK47 or an AR15 into a water pump?" .. the possibilities are endless.
The only difference between peaceful technology and a weapon is the intention of the user. The very real spiritual intention.
De-weaponization starts with the human being. Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. There are so many examples of the tool-makers winning harder and at greater scale than the bomb-manufacturer. We wouldn't be here now if the balance was the other way - our world is however threatened by having this scale weighed heavily, by those who think murder is the solution to anything.
It's a spirit thing. Not spiritu-al, a spirit thing. What is the spirit of the designer? If they want to help humanity, it will be difficult technology to weaponize (although not impossible). It will be easy to de-weaponize, also.
We need to focus more on the spirit of help, and less on hurt.
Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most.
Imagine if they could be used to drop a copy of archive.org, anywhere in the world, in any language.
Imagine if those ships were being used to bring power to the villages that need it most. Instead of glide bombs, we have glide libraries. Instead of cluster musicians, cluster medical kits! Oh, the glory to be had by those who would do this - the allies in the poor and weak of the world to be found! Imagine this happening, changing the intention from hate and fear, to respect and love.
All it takes is the spirit, a bit of imagination, and any and all technology can be de-weaponized. It is the warrior narcissist who stand in the way of this. Disarm them too. Drop books, not bombs!
It might actually be wise [1] to create a new, slightly less permissioned license for open source wherein the open is defined as anything that isn’t in a kill or surveillance chain or, more broadly, for military use…
[1] for the community
If better artillery is being built on open source tech then everyone has better artillery. Not just the people "protecting you" but also the people trying to kill those people
[0]: https://opensource.org/osd
[1]: https://www.json.org/license.html
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#JSON
I'm begging tech bros to understand that abusive governments _do not care about abusing you_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control
As this is a civil discussion, being rude is uncalled for. Maybe go for a walk in nature and get your head back on straight.
Don't build technology that interacts with people in ways they did't consent to. Don't build skinner boxes. Let the user decide who gets whatever data they generate while using the thing. Let the user control how it will work, insofar as it doesn't contradict the other heuristics.
These are political principles, but they're pretty basic. You don't have to keep up to date with the news, just check in with your morals once in a while.
And, to be clear, I’m not saying “politics” as in “did you hear what Trump said?” I’m saying politics as in “what is your city council doing, how are your neighbors doing, and what are the consequences of your work and economic choices and who’s paying them.” Most of the news is a circus; that stuff is not.
Of course you can avoid politics. Just be a good person. Vote for who you think is the best candidate at the time. And move on with your life.
Ironically the people most involved in politics don't have their own house in order. They're often mentally ill, over educated, underemployed and without meaningful ties in their life (e.g. family, real life community, etc).
You can't avoid building technologies that could be used by a police state, because literally everything can be used for warfare or aggression. The first person who sharpened a stick or a rock created a weapon. Everything is a weapon. Everything is dual-use.
If you want to prevent a police state or any other undesirable political outcome, you have to confront the politics directly. "Change the tools and you change the rules," an old saying from 1990s cyber-culture, is an idea that I think has failed. Instead what happens is that the rules determine what's done with the tools. Those 90s cyber-hippie and cyber-libertarian types vastly underestimated the power of the political to the point of making a category error.
Cryptocurrency is a great case in point. It started as an attempt to create a technology that would act as an escape hatch from corrupt casino capitalism and state-backed financialization. Instead it became an insane absurdist parody of those things. The same types of corrupt individuals who profited off "too big to fail" and the rest of it simply took cryptocurrency and used it to implement the same type of system but on a block chain. The rules (and rulers) changed the tools, not the other way around.
The problem is not just the tech, its building systems where humans are essentially slaves to the system, with no recourse or power over whats happening.
I'm not dismissing the sentiment here. It's morally sound. You should act in accordance with your principles and it useful to be reminded how those principles intersect the world. I have similar guardrails (probably not the same as the author's). I just wouldn't want people to overestimate what can be accomplished with this approach.
But still, it's not possible to prevent abuse altogether and sometimes we even applaud breaking the rules (the movie Hunt for Red October for example kicks off with the Soviet captain jumping the guardrails).
Also, the most "benign" public infrastructure is usually the most impactful, e.g., water systems and electrical systems. Don't like the people in that one town who keep protesting and voting against you? Turn off their power, water, and also make it so that their trash doesn't get picked up for a year. See how they like it.
“Become ungovernable.”
see war on drugs and more
Don't create gradients you don't have dams for.
No, but they were extremely happy to hop over to France and realize that we kept lists that indirectly listed jews. Actions have consequences that we may not be able to predict.
Sure, we could all live without IDs and use motio belli for defence but this arrangement will be soon replaced by someone more organized because there is a huge return to that organization despite its risks.
It's embarassing for an adult to think like this. There will always be someone willing to build that thing (and that was true even before llms)
… with sufficient time and money. As opposed to the minimal time and money required if the baddies are just pulling an existing solution off the shelf.
We may all play some part in societies that have some degree of monstrous outcomes, but I feel like staying on the "tragic civilian casualty" side versus the "legitimate target" side of a freedom fighter's bombing campaign is probably the way to go.
Joe's gonna die anyway. I might as well kill him before someone else does.
It's embarassing for an adult to think like this.
“If war is not impossible, then every advance in scientific technique in an advance in mass murder”
As true today as then
You can replace war with “police state” and it’s the same message.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GzTlTVaYDtk
Or we could stop all tech development. But it is not going to happen.
-----------
This is one of those things that make for great post title and gets you all riled up at first but when you think about it, it's really shallow.
Most civic databases can be abused by any sufficiently authoritarian government. A homeless shelter's records may contain exactly the sort of information that could be used to get "undesirables" off the street. But those same records are useful for coordinating beds, outreach, medical care, etc. Surely the conclusion isn't that the shelter shouldn't keep records.
It seems much more useful to focus on limiting what gets collected, who gets access to it, and how long it can be retained. In other words, boring things like data-minimisation and retention laws. Somewhat amusingly, that gets you pretty close to the sort of principles behind GDPR, which isn't exactly universally loved around here.
I don't really disagree with the blog post's moral intuition. What bothers me is the emphasis on individual moral choices by the people building these systems. I've seen plenty of my peers happily work for companies that have spent the last twenty years building exactly this kind of technology, there will always be someone willing to build it. That's not an argument for abandoning personal ethics, but it is an argument against treating personal ethics as any form of serious societal safeguard. "good engineers should refuse to build them" means nothing.
Now that the red pedophiles are in charge instead of the blue ones, he changes his tune.
That a system can be avoided offends the investor who want their products to be ubiquitous.
The system that is not perfectly enforced offends the engineer who dislikes broken things.
Yet both are required if we as a society are to grow. I think the thing that it might be good to learn is when to say "I've done/had enough."
Nope.
many countries like Singapore, etc. prove this easily
Authoritarianism can even be desired by Capitalists if they know who to bribe to remove regulations and get approvals
and no surprise, that's exactly where the United States is right now, teetering on the edge of that hole, about to fall in
"AI" is going to be weaponized, already is, and any resistance against its abuse is simply overriden with threats to destroy profits or even company survival at all
Economic freedom is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political freedom.
If you're a nerd developing open source (not an insult; I'm in that category), our job is to develop effective technology.
If you want to do politics, go into law and/or politics (or into business, so you can fund/control politics).
>"But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia. " -- Theo De Raadt
This is not about technologies (after all, an authoritarian government will use many existing technologies, from the car to the computer), but about powers granted to a government, that could be used differently by the next party/majority in power.
The answer to that is to not grant government too much power in the first place.
Of course, this is often a contentious point for leftists, since they do want to grant government a lot of power in the first place; they're just concerned that the exact same powers will then be used by a different political side in a way that bothers a different category of people.
the solution is not to have the power exist at all, anywhere.
If I had told you 30 years ago that we are going to build a surveillance network and make the people we are tracking pay for it all you would have laughed me out of the room. But that is what we have built. The modern Smart Phone.
Now we use our iPhones to complain about cameras on public roads as if they are watching us.
Do you seriously think that governments need Flock cameras when they have Apple, Microsoft and Google?