Hacker News Reader

"It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a `DestroyBaghdad` procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a `DestroyCity' procedure, to which `Baghdad' could be given as a parameter."

– Nathaniel S. Borenstein

Integrity is a rare coin these days, but to be fair, it won't buy you much.

I still think it's worthwhile because...you know, be nice to people. But I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can be a sucker like that without serious consequences. I know that having integrity in the current market hurts me a bit, but I can afford it.

Maybe not everyone has that sort of option - maybe Uber's extra $20k keeps their mortgage above water or something. But I dunno, maybe that's also just being charitable. I'm getting pretty disillusioned these days.

Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option. I'm glad you're in a place where you don't have to test it and hope that I also won't find myself in a difficult place where it will have to be tested, but I do know that it's the only coin that is really worth anything.

Yeah, exactly. It's also much easier when you have a hierarchy that communicates and responds reasonably to criticism or questions.

Not everyone does, though. I feel like insurance companies should really start demanding independent 'inspector general' sort of offices to be retained by companies above a certain value. At some point, there just gets to be too much money at stake to trust people to act properly.

Some companies actually are starting to invest in that sort of thing, mostly because of all of the sexual harassment news flying around. I think it's a promising idea, to give employees a point of contact outside the company's usual chain of command, and it could help with all sorts of toxic power imbalances. I can also see how it could maybe cause issues, but I'm all for trying new things to see how they work.

> Integrity is always an option, but it's definitely not always an easy option.

Here's some anecdata:

I've been that shitbag without integrity, it's not actually any easier. (I actually think it's much harder.) Whatever energy you think you're saving by just going along with it, whatever profit you think you're getting out of it -- you're spending way more than that on maintaining the status quo.

I think a lot of the materialism and obsession with things like nice houses stems from the fact that when we step out of the shower and look in the mirror -- when we make eye contact with ourselves for that moment -- we're forced to admit that we just don't like the person we see. So we make the decorations around that moment nicer, obsessively, as if that will somehow change the encounter. This feeds into a cycle of needing every bigger fixes at ever greater expense to yourself, digging you deeper and deeper into dependence on it.

Whatever amount I'm "losing" in pay is worth it to change that reaction when I see myself -- to make the only required relationship in my life healthy and vibrant instead of toxic.

That said, I actually make more by being a trustworthy human that cares about the consequences of what he does, because it turns out that there's a) a need for that, since selfish behavior rapidly turns destructive in an organization and b) apparently a shortage of people willing to take the "easy" path.

>pretty disillusioned these days.

OJ Simpson's prosecutor posted a similar idea on Reddit:(1)

>Most of the prosecutors I know are good people who are committed to protecting us from those who would prey on us. But these days, I sometimes run into prosecutors who just don't seem to have the character we used to have 20-30 years ago. People need to understand that prosecutors are lawyers, and like my grandmama once told me, a law degree is a license to lie.

Personally I am sad to think we're currently in a slide away from constitutional rights and individual liberty, and how this relates to our cultural ideas about integrity.

Unfortunately, it's nobody's actual job to worry about this.

1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6oybbr/hi_reddit_i_am...

The same reason why most people work anywhere? It's hard to find a job these days, much less a well paying one.

So they tell themselves they have a right to a well paying job and that their right to a good livelihood is more important than the rights of the people Uber screws over?

...yes? people have done ethically questionable or outright evil things for money for all of history. Why would it stop now?

Tell us who is getting 'screwed over' by Uber?

It's 100's of millions of riders who come back day after day for more rides?

The drivers who actively come back to work for Uber but could stop at any moment?

If I were to present to you individual cases of people being knowingly screwed over by Uber, is your argument then that if millions of other people benefit it's all worth it?

Lets say many people are angry that Uber kept it hidden that their personal information was hacked and feel knowingly screwed over, to start with. Are you going to let Uber off the hook because a nice ride at a nice price is more than enough compensation?

There are tons of 'individuals' who have been screwed over by most large organizations. Does that make them all evil.

Many organizations have kept hacks secret. We also don't know about hacks which have not yet been made public or won't be. We don't know what was compromised - moreover - this is something that probably a very, very small team in Uber will contend with - it's not necessarily systematic.

Google steals my personal information all day long and sells it to the highest bidder - I'd much rather privacy from Google than anything from Uber.

I can ride another cab any time, Google is not easy to change away from.

Your defense basically boils down to "what about other companies?" or comparing the bad things Uber does to all the value it delivers. Maybe I'm missing something?

I can tolerate a company doing something bad, taking responsibility and paying its dues. I cannot tolerate a company where illegal and unethical activities are going on all the time yet management covers their own asses (Kalanick left, the board didn't formally fire him). If Kalanick had resigned when that self driving car, driving around without proper permits, ran that red light for example it would be easier to not get the feeling this is systemic.

This position is based on perception, hype, PR and spurious press reports.

Uber is generally not any worse than most other organizations - and so, yes, we all have to live with this ambiguity.

+ Hacks happen all the time. The vast majority are not reported.

+ All companies engage in aggressive capture of others IP. Google and FB are both notorious for working with companies long enough to find out their 'secret sauce' and then copying them. Uber's mistake - in your eyes - was naming the group dedicated to it, whilst at other companies, it's common operating procedure.

The fundamental difference between Google, FB and Uber mostly boils down to PR - that - and the fact that Uber has to actually employ large quantities of people in irregular situations.

I don't like Uber - but I feel safer with them than Google - who knows everything about me and will do as they please with that information.

>Our profession is about solving problems that makes people’s lives better,

since then? Have you seen resume of Leonardo da Vinci:

https://www.theladders.com/p/1523/leonardo-da-vincis-resume

"and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion. "

Duke's enemies, Uber competitors - at least in the latter case no people got killed nor were intended to be killed, looks like we're making progress. The technology has, primarily, always served the interests of the "Dukes", i.e. of the ones who pay. It probably has all the chances for the second oldest profession title.

I personally do not think weapons make people’s lives better, but if you would have the opinion that an armed defense force is a public good that’s a separate discussion.

What you have to ask yourself is ”Is this illegal? Could I tell my grandchildren 30 years later what I did as an engineer and feel proud?”

Don’t think I’m completely excluding the people who pay from all responsibility, however.

>armed defense force

do you mean the force managed by Department of Peace which buys only defensive bullets, bombs, missiles, etc. built by engineers possessing true integrity who would never build offensive bullets, bombs, missiles? Or do you think Leonardo was going to build only "defensive" cannons and bombs for the "saint" Duke?

And weapons not necessarily should explode. Trade, political and economic actions can do a lot of damage and cause death and suffering. And now days one can do a lot of damage by actions in cyberspace.

Working for an arms contractor is something I would never do because I don't want to make things that kill people, however if someone else thinks that the military is a necessary institution for public safety those engineers can also proudly tell their grandchildren 30 years from now what they did and why it was ethically justified to do so without resorting to "I had a mortgage".

When you just shrug and say "tragedy of the commons, I suppose" knowingly screwing people over in ways you wouldn't want to be treated yourself, then laugh all the way to the bank you're a part of the problem and the reason why some people feel the need of a defense force in the first place.

How many layers of indirection do need the money to pass through before you would feel ethical? That is, and using your example of "arms contractors" as an example an unethical business, would you feel comfortable working for a company who has arms contractors as customers? Or a company who has customers who have arms contractors for customers?

I ask this seriously. I personally often feel that there is no way to be a part of the modern economy without being complicit in an awful lot of evil. An issue that frequently bothers me is whether it's moral to make money by catering to the desires of those who made their money doing things that I would personally consider immoral. Then what about those who made their money doing business with those you find immoral?

Is there any solution other than abandoning morality or avoiding gainful employment? Are there useful references to read about these issues?

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to that question. I feel like two layers of inderiction is too little personally (i.e I don’t want to make things murderers use even though I’m technically not selling stuff to murderers or pull the trigger myself) but other people have other answers.

But I, and the law, is of the opinion that organizations are responsible entities by themselves. When you join an organization and knowingly help facilitate its illegal activities it’s 0 indirections. The solution is to avoid organizations doing this shit by acting like any rational actor is expected to do in the economy; researching the alternatives. If you don’t like what you find, I could point you to the nearest office to apply for a business permit.

There's probably a "boiling the frog" aspect in this too. You probably don't get to implement the shady stuff right after joining the company.

"Where’s your professional integrity is what I’m asking."

There are millions of happy Uber drivers and 10's of millions of happy Uber customers, it's beyond pale for you to even ask this question.

Uber treats is drivers reasonably well or else nobody would be driving for them.

"to mess with people’s lives in likely illegal ways?"

99.9% of Uber is just connecting drivers and riders, that's not 'messing with people's lives, likely in illegal ways'.

Facebook, Google/Youtube and Twitter are literally active channels for literal terrorists to promote mass murder - and you're worried about Uber?

I care about the 0.1& too. I don't believe in knowingly messing with people for the benefit of everyone else.

And if the last part of your argument is "why care about anything less than the worst things in the world?" I don't agree with that thinking, plain and simple. A company that big and influential being that completely disrespectful towards regulators, tax payers, riders, female engineers, drivers, competitors and investors is something we need to seriously mind.

"A company that big and influential being that completely disrespectful towards regulators, tax payers, riders, female engineers, drivers, competitors and investors is something we need to seriously mind."

This is both wrong and naive.

The only game that Uber has not played well lately is one of PR.

Uber - for all it's issues - treats female staffers basically the same as most other companies. The average person working at Uber, Google, Exxon or Maytag for that matter is not going to see some radical difference.

Uber aggressively pursues the IP of other companies the same way as any other company. Google will interview individuals, and make 'fake BD deals' with companies expressly for the purpose of gleaning (i.e. stealing) IP - this is common. It doesn't make it right - but it would be naive to indicate that this is something Uber is doing.

+ Uber is screwing over riders? How exactly? The reality is that millions of happy, recurring users flail this argument as emotional hyperbole. Uber is extremely well liked by it's users. "Oh this evil company screws over it's customers" - just as every day considerably more people opt to use it over alternatives ... I mean really.

+ Drivers - for the most part, they've been as good as any company. They change policies, which is normal, it's just that their policy disputes are public, whereas you don't see it with other groups.

Uber is mostly similar to any other high tech organization but they have access to considerably less information that entities such as Google and Facebook.