News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pastejacking by mrfusion on Monday May 23, 2016 @09:24PM (#11758339)
You should have refused
Re:Pastejacking by dawnerd on Monday May 23, 2016 @10:12PM (#11758537)
Believe me, there was lots of pushing back. It was right before Google dropped panda and basically killed ehow.
Re:Pastejacking by akshatpradhan on Monday May 23, 2016 @09:31PM (#11758363)
You shouldn't refuse. You should document the privacy impact and make sure everybody is aware of the privacy implications.
Re:Pastejacking by cpach on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @03:37AM (#11759613)
Moralizing about dawnerd’s employment doesn’t really add to the discussion, IMHO.
Re:Pastejacking by nitrogen on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @03:46AM (#11759642)
A new discussion of the ethics of software engineering might be valuable. Other professions have codes of ethics; maybe it's time for software, too.
Re:Pastejacking by HerpDerpLerp on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @04:10AM (#11759728)
Re:Pastejacking by jlgaddis on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @08:45AM (#11761068)
cf. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct: https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...
Re:Pastejacking by nitrogen on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @02:21PM (#11764164)
I like most of the ACM code. I think it could use an update with more direct prohibitions on modern forms of user harm, such as trading in private information and manipulating search results to promote low quality sites.
Re:Pastejacking by mannykannot on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @07:50AM (#11760743)
At least no underhanded techniques have been used to deliver it to you.