[qxf2]

I am understanding it differently, may be because after much deliberation I fell into the same position. I interpret the parent comment to mean that the questions posed are very, very relevant and worth grappling with, but knowing the answers is not a pre-requisite to work in the chosen field.

I don't know about the original commenter, but I fell into this position as being the best for me based on, "I am overwhelmed by the number of things that I need to know to make a judgement of good/bad over here, but don't or cannot know. There is too much random chance in my life to figure out how my actions play out. Until I grow wiser, let me do what that chance has laid my way, knowing fully well that I am operating in the dark."

The big, muddying parameters for me to answer 'is what I am doing right?' were:

1. In what context?

2. Over what timeframe?

The larger the context, the longer the timeframe, the more the number of competing principles I had to prioritize, often in inconsistent ways over different aspects of life. In the end, I defaulted to the original commenter's position, with the blind optimism that I would somehow, somewhere in the future get more clarity and wisdom through experience.

[tptacek]

Exactly this. Alex Stamos' ethical strategy is perilous; it forces him to do a balancing act when asked to help companies like Narus or the USG, because his work for those organizations could help more than it hurt. I'm confident Alex can perform those ethical acrobatics, but I prefer to avoid them altogether.