[1888franklin]

You state this as simple fact, but is it so? Delivering enterprise software is very hard. Matt suggests that USDS was necessary to rescue healthcare.gov, for example. The labor pool of skilled coders is smaller vs. demand than for many other professions. If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project?

I concede that we cannot prevent some software from being created. But there is a great qualitative difference between any software and effective software. And if there isn't, and our creativity/labor doesn't matter in creating such a difference, then what is all this talk on HN about?

besides...

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

[prostoalex]

> If the top 500 coders declined to participate in a project that savagely violates human rights - and encouraged this as a norm in our communities - isn't it plausible that doing so could either prevent, derail, or meaningfully weaken such a project?

Not sure what the top 500 vote totals were on this, but when Snowden's documents revealed existence of a massive domestic surveillance program that included large amounts of data collection, parsing and analysis, most people were surprised at the breadth, depth and sheer amount of data.

Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either, which spells doubt on the idea that top 500 were even invited to express their stance on the subject, which nevertheless did not force the project into derailment. For all we know, some might have participated, through a government or a third-party contract that did not specify exact goals of the project and provided limited view into the overarching theme.

One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code. It could be very bad indeed.

[throwanem]

> One thing that's hard to judge from the outside is the quality and efficiency of that code.

I've had the opportunity to work with a few ex-NSA software engineers. One in particular was among the smartest and most capable colleagues I've ever had. If, as is the impression I gathered, he's at all typical of the talent NSA has at its disposal, I would expect the limiting factors to be the volume and accuracy of the data available, rather than the quality of the software built to analyze it.

[matt4077]

That's why we need to more specifically show where software crosses ethical boundaries. With these NSA programs, I can easily see how you can work on them and never actually realise how bad what you're doing is – especially if your work followed a progressions.

Also, I can't resist, but:

> Worth noting that it was developed without any significant leaks either

...until is wasn't

[lern_too_spel]

Phone metadata isn't "large amounts of data," nor do the programs using it qualify as a "massive domestic surveillance program."

[prostoalex]

I admittedly have little visibility into the scope of NSA programs, so have to resort to media for subjective evaluation of what constitutes "massive" or "domestic".

BBC called it "extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964

Wired described "the vast scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs" in reference to Snowden leaks. https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

EFF refers to NSA's access to "large streams of domestic and international communications" https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/how-it-works

Assuming that journalists tend to sensationalize I'd agree to apply a grain a salt for these statements, but is there an argument suggesting NSA's operation was fairly small scale and is not indicative of their capability to build large systems?

[lern_too_spel]

The argument is to look at the primary documents that the journalists were working from, which shows collection that is far smaller than what the journalists claimed.