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.
Comments
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.