Exactly, some falsely assume all technologists somehow share an enthusiasm for morality. Many of the most successful technologists I know simply work for the highest pay from military/intelligence contracts.
> hacker: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
Using this definition, calling this site "Hacker News" is not exactly accurate, but also not too far-off. I think this website is 40% "Silicon Valley & Startup" News, 40% "Hacker" News, and 20% misc.
One of my favourite sites is the IKEAhackers.net (no affiliation). That site truly shows what a "hacker" does, in the furiture domain, but still, decomposing, redesigning, reusing.
Exactly like the RFC 1392 (aka "Internet Users' Glossary") as you mention. There is a distinction to the word "cracker" which shows malicious intent (what our dear friends on EF + NSA are doing).
This piece of news should also be a reminder to ALL, that these agencies that "protect" us (irrespective of flag) cannot and should not be trusted with/for anything. Especially not with the truth.
(I don't actually think this is what people should do, but I do think it might be a cool expirament.)
What you do with the guns is a different issue, but there's clearly many nations worldwide that focus on defense but not offense (maybe not US, but probably Switzerland).
Working in Silicon Valley, I would not agree with saying that engineers in general are involved in this for any immoral reasons. (One of the few exceptions is ad tracking experts, who dig like pigs for truffles through PII.) The reasons are not knowing history (ie. Crypto AG pwnage), and just a lack of intellectual curiosity.
I'd like to comment on the importance of metadata analysis.
This is not well-known, but before the British were able to decrypt German WW2 traffic, they used very detailed radio traffic metadata analysis to map everything they needed to know about ground troops. (The architect of that was given US citizenship after the war and built the US' system, but on a global scale.)
Details of that were classified long after the war in both countries. And it was just metadata.
This very clearly is not the case in the US.
> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
All the political terms - left, right, conservative, progressive, liberal, etc have definitions which vary greatly from country-to-country, over time, and by which group is using them. Clinton and Biden are representatives from American's dominant liberal party and represent views which are left-of-center when you do the sane thing and define center as "median voter in the country being discussed" and not "my group of friends" or whatever time or place you're imagining.
You might as well say 'Bill Gates is very poor, by any reasonable standard' (because unlike the rich people of 2,000 years ago, he can't raise an army that rivals that of his home nation-state or the rich of the future who take vacations on the moon).
Liberal & Conservative in the US usually have to do with what changes a person wants to make but Clinton, Romney, Obama, Biden, hell Bush are all literally conservative in the scope and amount.
Yes, they wouldn't be conservative for Saudi Arabia, but they would both continue to closely ally us with the Saudis and aid them in murdering Yemenis.
> center as "median voter in the country being discussed
Both Biden and Clinton, issue by issue, are well to the right of the median US citizen. It's pretty dishonest to restrict the people allowed to have their opinions considered to the people who thought that the distinction between Republican and Democratic administrations was important, when the argument being made is about whether both candidates are conservative. The median eligible voter is barely more likely to vote than not.
I know typing this is a waste of time.
Additionally, everything you listed is just exposition on your initial claim. Saying that you will "End Welfare As We Know It" sounds like a potentially wildly liberal plan - perhaps UBI, government-guaranteed employment, housing and healthcare or some other fundamental shift. The victims of crime are disproportionately the poor, people of color and people who are structurally disadvantaged so removing the threat of violent crime from their lives falls well within the standard goals of liberals (even if the actual implementation of the bill you're referencing had more mixed results).
Look at this polling of support of Bush vs Kerry by income level[1], as income rises support for Bush almost always rises, and support for Kerry almost always decreases.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/...
(On a side note, there's some smaller skew between voting Republican and having conservative political leanings. I'm conservative in fiscal policy, foreign policy, and favoring action at a local and state level, but liberal regarding most social policies, criminal justice reform, and environmental regulation. I think government enforced price transparency plus a German-style universal healthcare system via private insurance decoupled from employment is preferable to either a US model or a Canadian/UK-style single payer system. I've always registered as a Democrat.)
If the machine says "dude is terrorist based on XYZ" and the human cannot realistically verify all of that is factually correct (perhaps the subject's phone was lost as the subject walked by a mosque?), then it is much easier for the human to say "Data says this dude is terrorist" than it is to say "Data says this dude is terrorist, but the data is probably wrong and we shouldn't..."
The existence of the data itself is a threat against every subject the data includes, at a minimum.
The issue today is that the leadership (in many areas of life from business to military to government), who make the decision to kill/censor/interrupt business/etc or not, are saying "we have to follow the data" without having any understanding of what that really means.
Ultimately, this creates false confidence both in the decision-maker and those that are following their lead. I find it unlikely that there would be anywhere near the same willingness if the 'intelligence' many of these decisions were based on didn't seem as rich and unmistakably correct as it often does.
Of course, the practical effect here is that leadership gets to blame the algorithm/model/data instead of having to accept the blame themselves. If only those pesky engineers and nerds in the lab were better at the job we'd bomb less foreigners.
I'll give you an analogy that might help. Let's say that a personal investigator is following you. They have a GPS tracker on you. They can see where you go, who you talk to, for how long, what you buy, etc. The only thing is that they don't know what you are talking to people about or exactly what you buy (but they know where you bought it from). Would you feel comfortable with this person following you around?
I'm assuming not, because I don't know anyone that has answered yes. It feels like an invasion of your personal space, right? They can still learn a lot about you and your habits by doing this, right? But all they've gathered is metadata on you. So why do you feel uncomfortable?
Goal of metadata investigation isn't to directly target you, most of the time. It's to put you in the bucket of interesting people, that government will pay attention to.
It's exactly the same as ads on the internet - they maybe classifying you as a person potentially interested in computer security because you're visiting tech crunch. Are all people visiting it interested in computer security? Of course not. But you're many orders of magnitude more likely to be interested in it, than a random person from the internet.
> Even by that account, the scale of collection brought to mind an evocative phrase from legal scholar Paul Ohm. Any information in sufficient volume, he wrote, amounted to a “database of ruin.” It held personal secrets that “if revealed, would cause more than embarrassment or shame; it would lead to serious, concrete, devastating harm.” Nearly anyone in the developed world, he wrote, “can be linked to at least one fact in a computer database that an adversary could use for blackmail, discrimination, harassment, or financial or identity theft.” Revelations of “past conduct, health, or family shame,” for example, could cost a person their marriage, career, legal residence, or physical safety.
> Mere creation of such a database, especially in secret, profoundly changed the balance of power between government and governed. This was the Dark Mirror embodied, one side of the glass transparent and the other blacked out. If the power implications do not seem convincing, try inverting the relationship in your mind: What if a small group of citizens had secret access to the telephone logs and social networks of government officials? How might that privileged knowledge affect their power to shape events? How might their interactions change if they possessed the means to humiliate and destroy the careers of the persons in power? Capability matters, always, regardless of whether it is used. An unfired gun is no less lethal before it is drawn. And in fact, in history, capabilities do not go unused in the long term. Chekhov’s famous admonition to playwrights is apt not only in drama, but in the lived experience of humankind. The gun on display in the first act—nuclear warheads, weaponized disease, Orwellian cameras tracking faces on every street—must be fired in the last. The latent power of new inventions, no matter how repellent at first, does not lie forever dormant in government armories.
take a look at the history of the behavior of intelligence services through the 20th century and ask yourself how comfortable you are with this power being wielded by anybody.
you may not feel threatened by this arrangement now, but how confident do you feel that these tools will always be controlled by people you trust?
The comfortable upper middle-class are the most conservative elements of any society; they're providing the management and expertise to implement any dystopia that's coming. Beneath them are the tradespeople and unskilled laborers who choose between working or starving, and above them are morons.
Nobody who has spent more than a moment thinking about it fails to understand the dangers of metadata, they just don't think they it will be a problem for them. Hence the most common response is something about how their lives are boring, and how they have nothing to to hide. "Who cares if I'm at Starbucks at 2 o'clock?" Technologists know full well what they could do with that information, that's what they're paid to know, and they're who are going to be doing it, or they're going to have to find another job.