[jrockway]

"Just following orders" is a loaded expression. You're implying that they're committing genocide, when really all they're doing is helping some company make a product you don't think is particularly good. It's definitely not worth such harsh words.

[RansomStark]

I've never understood this argument. It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway, they are simply alluding to an extreme example of ignoring or justifying negative actions, to show that each of us has agency and should be held to account for their actions.

I always think it's an interesting juxtaposition because although the actions (in this case working for an AV company) are always so far removed from the extreme example, so too are the repercussions.

The "just following orders" soldier, had he refused to carry out his orders, or attempted to flee, would have been shot in the back for desertion. The penalty for following orders, or not following orders, is the same: death (at least in the canonical example).

Whereas with the situation being discussed here, it results in what? Maybe holding out for another job.

In the extreme we expect people to pay the ultimate price to prevent atrocities, which should serve to remind us that, in the everyday, we should engage our moral compass, endure a small hardship, and through that hardship, prevent a small amount injury from being inflicted on the world.

[jodrellblank]

From the first picture here[1] it says "Turn your PC's idle time into cash: show me how"

That appears to be opt-in. It's quite plausibly something people interested in crypto might actively want, namely a company they already do business with offering to make all the decisions about coins and wallets and stuff for a small fee. If a YC startup offered this, or it was added to the Dropbox client as an opt-in "let Dropbox make you some cash", people would love it. If Windows 11 or Edge included it, people would hate it. As an opt-in thing it's not a bad idea; not quit-your-job bad and certainly not "just following orders" Nazi trolling bad. It's Norton and AntiVirus's reputation which taint it.

"It is clear that nobody is implying a genocide is underway" - it at least implies that something strongly and obviously bad is underway that anyone with integrity should avoid. And that's not obviously the case either.

[1] https://community.norton.com/en/blogs/product-service-announ...

[voakbasda]

No, it absolutely does not imply committing genocide. It implies that following orders of a superior does not absolve you of guilt when committing any crime.

Even if this was not currently criminal, this behavior appears inexcusable. The software engineers building this software lacked the ethical stamina to stand up and say "no" to their masters. They deserve an equal share of the condemnation and consequences for their participation.

[avalys]

What if they worked at Norton but not specifically on this one feature you have an issue with?

[tadzik_]

If I worked at Norton and this happened I'd be handing in my resignation on the same day because I wouldn't want to be associated with these practices and for anyone, including future employers, to assume that I was involved in them.

Or rather, I would if this wasn't mostly FUD and blown out of proportion. According to other comments it's entirely opt-in.

[tombert]

Talk is cheap on this. Pretty much every government on earth has committed at least one atrocity, and usually many. Would you condemn a public defender for working for the US government, because the US government murdered millions of Native Americans?

I mean, that's a valid enough position to have, but I don't feel like you have really thought it through.

[tadzik_]

Talk is cheap, but so is switching jobs. The broader you go on this the harder it is to avoid, I still pay my taxes even though my government does terrible things with the money, but I don't have much of a choice. I have refused job offers from companies that do things I don't like though because it's not really that much of a loss.

And I don't know what kind of standards public defenders in the US have, but over here it's common than an abuse of power by the police force is followed by a wave of resignations.

[tombert]

I think you're missing my point, I don't think I made it terribly well.

My point is that if we take a job like a public defender, I think most people agree that the action of what they're doing is a good thing. Providing representation to people who cannot afford a lawyer is (I think) nearly universally regarded as "good". However, they are paid by the US government, who has done its share of very evil things. Does that mean I should condemn a public defender because the entity that signs their paychecks does evil stuff?

Personally, I think the answer is "no". Any sufficiently large entity has its share of bullshit, and I personally do not think that every individual that has ever associated with that entity is guilty-by-association by working with them. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would be surprised if everyone you like passes your purity test then.

[HPsquared]

Everyone, even the janitor?