Given that nobody is being put in a position where they might have to use deadly force, the usual pacifist or religious arguments don't apply. While suspect it would be hard to extend the concept to the orders given to Apple, the fact that the engineers involved would even consider resignation make it clear how strongly they object to the order.
Unless they are atheist/agnostic and claim that this is a core belief for them. Not every atheist/agnostic is outspoken nor do they all share the same beliefs. It would be interesting to force the courts to make a judgement on the differences between the moral tenants atheists/agnostics follow and that of established religions.
If you only consider the subset of security related/conscious programmers they're fairly outspoken and on these particular issues they're probably more orthodox than comparable religious constituencies are on organized violence for which there have been pacifist exemptions. I'm not familiar with the law regarding conscientious objection (it's late, now I have my tangent reading for tomorrow) but I'd presume the first amendment would require that a secular philosophical objection would have to be as equally valid as a religiously motivated one?
That's correct, which is why I mentioned "pacifist or religious arguments". Various types of pacifist arguments have been recognized in the past, of both religious and secular origins.
From the Selective Service[1]:
WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature,
but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man’s reasons
for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency,
or self-interest. In general, the man’s lifestyle prior to making his claim must
reflect his current claims.
It's worth pointing out that being a conscientious objector doesn't necessarily excuse you from having to work for the government; as mentioned in [1], there are "alternate services" available for people that object to the usual draft.
I have no idea how any of this would apply to objecting to creating mass security vulnerabilities. It almost certainly requires a test case and judicial ruling.
> It's a bit like worrying about establishing your
> religious bona fides if you're a bishop
A better example would be trying to establish religious bona fides as a result of being a carpenter who makes church pews.
Though I probably would anyway.
- I'd like to think. It's hard to really know.