by sama on 5/2/17, 9:44 PM with 60 comments
by abstractbeliefs on 5/2/17, 10:09 PM
It seems very specifically about managing how the US govt. has interacted with specific companies holding user data, and also the current trends expressed by Trump regarding immigration.
These are both important issues, but it's hardly what I'd consider The Tech Pledge, being so narrow. I'd love to see a version that talks about, say, security practices, and endeavoring to put consumer privacy above business needs.
by tptacek on 5/2/17, 10:30 PM
It's nice if your company commits to something. But what's vital is that you commit to things, and that you organize around those commitments. As a profession, we have to stop looking to management and owners to own the ethics and conditions of our work.
Things like this are fine, but don't lose sight of where the real power is. It's the strongest market for tech talent I've seen in my entire career. Your company cannot survive without people like you. Don't ask them to do things. Organize with your peers and demand. You'll win, a lot of the time, and your wins will be durable.
This pledge is pretty clearly a response to NeverAgain.tech (look at the issues it cares about). NeverAgain.tech is about what members of our profession commit to doing; that pledge doesn't give a damn what companies say, because if employers contravene the pledge, the signatories have pledged to leave as soon as possible. That's meaningful. This is window dressing.
by mjg59 on 5/2/17, 10:51 PM
If the law changes such that companies can be compelled to hand over information that would be unethical to hand over, the pledge should require that companies stop collecting that information and delete what they already have. If there are countries that have existing laws that would permit them to insist on handing over information that would be unethical to provide, the pledge should require that companies cease doing business in those countries.
Right now this is simply a pledge not to engage in reprehensible behaviour. We shouldn't be providing rewards or encouragement not to act in reprehensible ways. We should be encouraging people to do better than the socially acceptable bare minimum. A pledge should be a promise to go above and beyond, and this is nothing of the sort.
by ThrustVectoring on 5/2/17, 10:12 PM
I'd strongly prefer something based off that rather than the actual pledge. It's fairly easy to lose a legal defense, go back on your pledge to produce a legal defense, or change owners to one not bound by the pledge. It's much more difficult to retroactively collect data.
by mjg59 on 5/2/17, 10:25 PM
by rhapsodic on 5/2/17, 10:41 PM
A flood of low-skilled, poorly educated immigrants definitely helps the rich who don't mow their own lawns or make their own beds, and corporations who benefit from the wage-suppressing effects of a huge surplus low-skilled and poorly educated workers. But it hurts American citizens who are themselves low-skilled and poorly educated.
I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I happen to think that US immigration policy should be crafted solely on what is in the US's best interests. Allowing highly-skilled and highly educated people in helps the country, but I don't really see how allowing a flood of low-skilled immigrants in helps the country in the larger picture. I understand how it does from the Adam Smith/Milton Friedman perspective, but I don't think that benefit justifies the harm done to the most vulnerable workers (or would-be workers) who are citizens and taxpayers and in many cases veterans of our military.
by pjmorris on 5/2/17, 10:33 PM
[0] http://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-co... [1] http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
by nostrademons on 5/2/17, 10:05 PM
by CM30 on 5/2/17, 10:24 PM
Only a small percentage of people in the tech world care about this stuff.
It sucks I know. But it's true. The vast majority of people out there simply want a paycheck and don't really care how they get it. As a result this means that anyone who does agree to the pledge will most likely be sacked in favour of the person who doesn't. And there are millions of people in tech who will throw everything and everyone under the bus as long as management says so and the money ends up on the table.
So how do you solve this? Well, good question. In a lot of fields, they solve it by either requiring accreditation or a union membership or god knows what else, which causes those who go against what's seen as 'ethical' in their field to have a very hard time finding new jobs afterwards.
That's not really a likely thing for the tech world, and I don't think most people would want it to be. But as a result, it means pledges like this are pretty much useless at the moment.
by steven777400 on 5/2/17, 10:31 PM
by andreyf on 5/2/17, 10:08 PM
How about dedicating resources to making sure everyone upgrades their devices, patches security vulns on internet-facing servers, uses password managers, etc?
How about at the very least asking "if we suffered a breach, how would we know?". Because ethics aside, there seems little incentive for startups to worry about it.
by CPLX on 5/2/17, 10:39 PM
With that said, the fact that there's no reference to the greatest problem facing our society, income inequality, is highly noticeable.
A pledge by tech companies to respect the rights of workers would actually be something notable and daring.
by tzs on 5/3/17, 12:28 AM
I'm guessing that this is just a temporary page that will be replaced once you have developed the final version of the the pledge. If that is NOT the case, then may I suggest that "May 2nd" be changed to "May 2nd, 2017"?
by codingdave on 5/2/17, 10:36 PM
by lacampbell on 5/2/17, 10:43 PM
by zeveb on 5/2/17, 10:37 PM
Otherwise it seems a reasonably unobjectionable document.
by sethbannon on 5/2/17, 10:37 PM
Something at the end like:
"Transparency: On an ongoing basis, we will offer our employees and our users reports on how we're fulfilling the above commitments."
by vinceguidry on 5/2/17, 10:49 PM
Consider making this a first-class effort.
by lucasmullens on 5/3/17, 12:00 AM
"Provide support", and not just "support"? So a startup that isn't actively involved in efforts around keeping the DACA policy would be breaking this pledge? This seems to only make sense for giant companies.
by EdSharkey on 5/3/17, 12:07 AM
Pass an actual labor law or gtfo on this indentured servitude you execs are so addicted to. Pay equivalent wages and allow imported labor to change employers or GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE! (Sorry to cuss, but I've got real hatred for the self-serving progressive leaders who profit so much from cheap imported labor.)
by colinsidoti on 5/2/17, 11:01 PM