Hey. Someone who briefly worked on the Stingray team here.
I left the company that develops the stingray (who’s name is mentioned in the article but I shall not say it) because I didn’t feel comfortable with the ethics of how it could potentially be easily abused without legal permission and/or repercussion. I fear these technologies will become more commonly used against Americans by low level law enforcement without good reason and without responsible usage.
The majority of us are well aware how these devices create a MITM attack against your phone, but is there anything you found particularly interesting or egregious that we should know about? Especially how LE are using them to abuse every group who desperately needs protection from these devices.
What kind of NDAs did they force on you? It's one thing to walk away silently, but you know they just filled your role with someone else with less morals.
The other option is scorched earth similar to the recent news articles where there were blog posts publicly shaming the company. Wondering what kind of in between options are available. Anonymous posts are a start at least to get the inquisitive types to look in that direction and/or add some weight to previous anonymous posts.
Edit: just read further down the list, and see others have essentially asked the same thing
Just a reminder that illegal contracts are unenforceable. An NDA to cover-up a conspiracy to infringe on civil rights by agents of the state won't stand up in court.
"A low level enforcement employee used unauthorized tools to locate our suspect. He has been reprimanded. However, once we surveilled the suspect we had the evidence to prove he was guilty unrelated to any prior cause. Case closed."
- In your opinion, is there a difference between an innocent person being materially and demonstrably harmed ("harmed," i.e. tort) by a stingray deployment and an innocent person harmed by any other tool misused in this way by the government?
- Do you think there's a better alternative to tort that could as clearly limit the tools government uses to fight crime?
- If harmless mass surveillance replaces concretely and plainly harmful mass surveillance (e.g. stop and frisk), did we come out ahead?
I'm not a blowhard and obviously do not want to live in a surveillance state. I'm not even advocating for the status quo. It's okay if the answer to these questions are basically, "I don't know."
Or go on and argue that stingrays in isolation of a malevolent government somehow materially harm people in some concrete way. It would be awesome to hear your perspective if that's the case.
Legality is, in general, a matter of fact. The legality or constitutionality of a matter is determined in the courts.
Morality is a matter of opinion, and, I believe, pretty much independent of legality.
That means a law can be both immoral and legal, depending on your perspective.
Policing technology is a constantly evolving marketplace and technologies that strike some as immoral frequently are tested in court where their legality is determined.
Many folks weighing in see the act of developing Stingray technology as an immoral act, and it seems that thereby, those who engage in such development are immoral people.
In my opinion, labeling others as immoral for engaging in something you don't approve of is a double edged sword and the more you wield it, the more jeopardy you put yourself in. Anyone who works for a mainstream technology company can have that same finger pointed at them for some facet of their employer's actions.
People who believe that this technology should not be deployed would find it just, if not moral, to pursue a political change rather than shaming those who see a valid purpose for what they are developing.
>Legality is, in general, a matter of fact. The legality or constitutionality of a matter is determined in the courts
This makes absolutely no sense. If it is a matter of fact, it should be independently provable not require courts to decide.
Legality is supposed to be the public's opinion of the morality of an action, but in reality it is the ruling class' opinion of how the action impacts them.
An employee knowingly assisting their company commit immoral acts should try to stop them, though a concern about you or your families well-being is a legitimate reason to just try and walk away. Don't delude yourself into thinking tools will be used legally so it is acceptable.
> This makes absolutely no sense. If it is a matter of fact, it should be independently provable not require courts to decide.
It makes plenty of sense once you realize that it's a fact that if a court decides something is illegal, the government may use its monopoly of force to enforce it. Don't confuse scientific fact with legal fact. Also don't confuse legal fact with a court's opinion as to whether the law was actually violated.
Supreme Court decisions come with majority and minority opinions because these things are clearly not facts. The government arbitrarily uses it's monopoly on force to entrench itself, leaving these "facts" to differ over time or by case.
I hope more people will follow your example and question their work. Not only at Harris Corporation, but in every part of what is called surveillance capitalism.
Is it enough that a few people like this simply turn their backs and walk away to different work? I would think their vacancies would be quickly and easily filled.
Is there really a shortage of people willing and able to do this kind of work for these companies and government agencies? I'm asking because I truly don't know.
And if not, could we think of some other ways people in these positions could exert some influence for change, even if it's only after they leave those jobs?
I understand that in principle it could have an effect, and I understand how.
I'm questioning whether that market for developers really is tight enough to matter, whether employers and top policy makers would even notice that some number of people withhold their skills in protest.
I'm wondering if perhaps there are other more powerful ways for these developers to exert their influence, whether in these positions or outside of them.
I was under the impression that lack of talent does matter- if top talent doesn't want to work for you, you can't replace top talent with less-top talent and expect to maintain your competitive edge. Especially if said top talent is now working for a competitor.
Would you please stop posting generic ideological comments to HN? It looks like you've been doing it repeatedly. It's against the site guidelines because it leads to repetitive threads which are tedious at best and nasty at worst. This site is supposed to be for curious conversation and those things are not compatible.
> Would you please stop posting generic ideological comments to HN?
If you explain to me how the comment I replied to isn't just as generic, and what you mean by "ideological" that is present in my comment and not in the parent, sure.
You allow a claim, coated in "wondering", an old chestnut trotted out time and time again -- and don't the clear refuting of it, by one of the greats in the field? There are no principles here you are applying fairly, it's utterly arbitrary. My point stands. Graying it out just adds the data that some people would rather bury and smear it, than learn. That's on them.
And no, it doesn't lead to any conversation of any kind, because agreement is expressed in upvotes, and I doubt anyone can muster a coherent rebuttal. I don't see you trying either, you just say what would have happened, if you hadn't made replying impossible. Weizenbaum is correct, and apparently, some people cannot let that stand.
> It's against the site guidelines because it leads to repetitive threads which are tedious at best and nasty at worst.
Which part of them?
> This site is supposed to be for curious conversation and those things are not compatible.
Saying "it" and "those things" doesn't make up for a clear definition of them.
Actually I missed that you were linking to a 1985 article by Weizenbaum. I agree, that's more interesting. Had I seen that I probably wouldn't have replied to you here.
On the other hand:
(1) "You can't change rape by being a good rapist" is just flamebait. Please don't.
(2) Your account has mostly been posting in ideological arguments and it all looks pretty generic to me. Please don't do that either.
If you want an explanation about why we don't want generic discussion on HN, and above all not generic ideological discussion, there are plenty at these links:
(For whatever it's worth, I was sincerely wondering because I don't know what the actual labor constraints on these companies/agencies might be. I suspected they aren't enough to make much of a difference when developers walk away in protest, and so I asked.)
(Also, I think it was clear that I was questioning strategy not morality.)
If a rapist stops being a rapist, does someone immediately turn around and pay someone else to become a rapist? No? Then the rape analogy isn't a perfect fit. The question is still valid, IMO.
To whomever flagged the sibling comment by throwaway_drt2: they were not being crude, they were referring to the cell site simulator called the Dirtbox. [1] Don't be so trigger-happy.
I left the company that develops the stingray (who’s name is mentioned in the article but I shall not say it) because I didn’t feel comfortable with the ethics of how it could potentially be easily abused without legal permission and/or repercussion. I fear these technologies will become more commonly used against Americans by low level law enforcement without good reason and without responsible usage.