[sarciszewski]

I recently had this conversation:

    Me, to CEO: Hey, think we should ever build a backdoor into any of our
                products that employ encryption to help the US government
                and law enforcement?
    
    CEO, to me: No, that's a terrible idea.
    
    Me, to CEO: Okay good, just making sure we're on the same page.

I don't think there are many honest and competent technology CEOs who would rally against encryption.

[tennysonmach]

That scenario becomes a lot more dire when the CEO says

  CEO, to me: Yes, because we are compelled by law 
              backed by jail time or hefty fines.

[sarciszewski]

I already discussed that scenario. We'd shut our doors, release all of our code as CC0+WTFPL, and start a new company fresh.

At the end of the day, we care about our integrity more than we do dollars.

[scrollaway]

I'd commend you for doing that but it's very easy to say early in the process when you're not faced with the situation.

Once three years of your life have been invested in the product and you have tens or hundreds of thousands of users, will your answer be the same?

[sarciszewski]

I appreciate the vote of confidence on our eventual success.

I can't predict the future. I'd like to say our answer won't change. If it does, we deserve to fail.

[scrollaway]

I get the feeling you are underestimating how difficult of a decision this is.

If you really care about doing the right thing down the line, I recommend thinking very long and very hard about it because, down the line if you do succeed, the time you have to take the decision will come and you will not be expecting it by then. Underestimating the situation is a sure-fire way to fail your own expectations.

Governments don't care about small startups with little reach. They will ask you when it's hard.

[sarciszewski]

Well, it's not my call. I'm not a decisionmaker ;P

[tomelders]

If you have shareholders, you can't legally make that call.

[sarciszewski]

We don't. :D

[s73v3r]

Easy to say now. Much harder to follow through when you're relying on your paycheck to pay your rent or buy you food.

[toomuchtodo]

One should always ensure their financial situation does not preclude one from exercising their ethics.

[s73v3r]

Should, but unfortunately one can't always forsee things that come up. If your spouse comes down with cancer, for instance, and you're reliant upon company insurance to pay for treatment, one might be tempted to put their spouse's treatment ahead of those ethics.

[sarciszewski]

It's hard to not parse your response as putting profits before people.

[s73v3r]

I'm not even really talking about profits, though. Just the basic amount needed to get by.