I know that more positive public interaction with the police is a Good Thing.
I just wonder why, as developers, we build tools that are used to oppress and capable of supporting oppression.
Unlike people who built large infrastructure in the past, we aren't slaves. We aren't starving indentured servants. So we have other options.
Why do we develop Prism. We do we develop tools to erode net neutrality. Why do we start hacking at the tools to erase police action before we understand the how and why behind the use of those tools.
The people who built PRISM, no doubt, believed that what they were doing was necessary for the good of the country, and probably still do. As you say - two sides to every story.
It's also entirely possible that the people who built the system did not do so thinking or believing that it would end up being used in the way it has been, and that their good faith was taken advantage of by incapable or self-serving managers unworthy of the trust that their positions require.
This touches on the rest of my half baked idea which I didn't write out. My original post isn't intended to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely interested. If somebody comes to you and says:
"Your code will, in the literal sense of the word 'literally', save people's lives."
How do you pass that opportunity up?
On the flip side, when have tools of power ever been given up voluntarily? [ I don't know how to say this. I mean this stuff is all a Pandora's Box. Once it's here, it's here. ]
It's kind of like land mines. When you put them down you may have a very noble and legitimate goal to save the lives of your troops. In 20 years, the mines are still lying around for anyone to find. But does that necessarily invalidate the immediate needs of the time? It would be tempting to simply think "In 20 years we'll have the land mine problem solved, let's try to save our lives today".
I really think I could argue it both ways.
[Update: Maybe a better way to express my thought(and stay on topic) is relating to security vulnerabilities. You don't just pass around exploits to people. Some of the people are genuinely interested, but others will do harm.
People who take the time to learn and solve problems themselves have a greater respect for the tools they've built. People who inherit things don't necessarily respect them the same way.
Seattle PD is trying to solve a tough problem, and I would trust them. I don't necessarily trust them in 15 years though, when all these tools just kind of "exist"]
That, too. It's entirely likely that someone who would be involved in a project like that would have faith in the government's intentions to begin with.
Unlike PRISM with it's dubious value of doing good (and the massive damage it did to related liberties), this has an actual public service (with relatively little potential damage).
If you are receiving medical care do you want everyone to know about it just because a cop walked into the room?
If you are a minor should your sealed records be more easily determined? (because a cop recorded them)
If you are a victim of a crime should your identity be made knowable to others who may wish to silence you? What about witnesses?
Note what the article said: The video must be released! Even if it's mostly blurred out. If it's suspicious then the police department can be sued to get the full video.
The problem is that we don't have the open source (or for that matter publicly available private technology) technology to easily deploy a verifiable DRM (which is what we want, we want to manage the digital rights of how this video is edited) system. The police of Seattle are willing to equip every officer with cameras "TODAY", "right NOW", except and besides some problems. This was a question of "how can we solve this problem so that we can do this thing". It doesn't have to be perfect.
Comments
I know there are two sides to every story.
I know that more positive public interaction with the police is a Good Thing.
I just wonder why, as developers, we build tools that are used to oppress and capable of supporting oppression.
Unlike people who built large infrastructure in the past, we aren't slaves. We aren't starving indentured servants. So we have other options.
Why do we develop Prism. We do we develop tools to erode net neutrality. Why do we start hacking at the tools to erase police action before we understand the how and why behind the use of those tools.
Maybe its just been a long Sunday.
The people who built PRISM, no doubt, believed that what they were doing was necessary for the good of the country, and probably still do. As you say - two sides to every story.
It's also entirely possible that the people who built the system did not do so thinking or believing that it would end up being used in the way it has been, and that their good faith was taken advantage of by incapable or self-serving managers unworthy of the trust that their positions require.
The human links tend to be the weakest ones.
This touches on the rest of my half baked idea which I didn't write out. My original post isn't intended to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely interested. If somebody comes to you and says:
"Your code will, in the literal sense of the word 'literally', save people's lives."
How do you pass that opportunity up?
On the flip side, when have tools of power ever been given up voluntarily? [ I don't know how to say this. I mean this stuff is all a Pandora's Box. Once it's here, it's here. ]
It's kind of like land mines. When you put them down you may have a very noble and legitimate goal to save the lives of your troops. In 20 years, the mines are still lying around for anyone to find. But does that necessarily invalidate the immediate needs of the time? It would be tempting to simply think "In 20 years we'll have the land mine problem solved, let's try to save our lives today".
I really think I could argue it both ways.
[Update: Maybe a better way to express my thought(and stay on topic) is relating to security vulnerabilities. You don't just pass around exploits to people. Some of the people are genuinely interested, but others will do harm.
People who take the time to learn and solve problems themselves have a greater respect for the tools they've built. People who inherit things don't necessarily respect them the same way.
Seattle PD is trying to solve a tough problem, and I would trust them. I don't necessarily trust them in 15 years though, when all these tools just kind of "exist"]
That, too. It's entirely likely that someone who would be involved in a project like that would have faith in the government's intentions to begin with.
Unlike PRISM with it's dubious value of doing good (and the massive damage it did to related liberties), this has an actual public service (with relatively little potential damage).
If you are receiving medical care do you want everyone to know about it just because a cop walked into the room?
If you are a minor should your sealed records be more easily determined? (because a cop recorded them)
If you are a victim of a crime should your identity be made knowable to others who may wish to silence you? What about witnesses?
Note what the article said: The video must be released! Even if it's mostly blurred out. If it's suspicious then the police department can be sued to get the full video.
The problem is that we don't have the open source (or for that matter publicly available private technology) technology to easily deploy a verifiable DRM (which is what we want, we want to manage the digital rights of how this video is edited) system. The police of Seattle are willing to equip every officer with cameras "TODAY", "right NOW", except and besides some problems. This was a question of "how can we solve this problem so that we can do this thing". It doesn't have to be perfect.