Half of being a staff engineer is politics unfortunately, you need to build capital with "sponsors" in different areas of the business and use that to nudge change where you don't have direct control.
Quick coffee chats, trading favours and the like can get you pretty far in large orgs.
I tend to judge my impact as a staff engineer by the things I stop other engineers from shipping, as much as the things I "fix".
It's one thing to make architecture changes and features that people need, but being in the right conversation to say "don't do X, Y will cover 80% of your requirements for no extra tech debt" is afaic more valuable.
You've just taken a feature from a 3mth chunk to a 6 week chunk and thats a big thing.
Independent cameras, often not networked let alone internet connected are not the same thing as a single entity controlling a huge, internet capable, always on, cloud recording panopticon.
Logistically the first limits things like police access by units of both access and time (is it recording? Does the memory card overwrite? Did it expire before a warrant was issued?)
Putting that all in a convenient console and handing direct god eye view to police with a "oh you need a warrant first, wink wink", massively reduces friction for abuse of power.
When the police ask for video evidence, they simply ask. They do not need a warrant. They might need a subpoena to force someone to hand it over, but I’m guessing that’s incredibly rare because people and businesses with cameras generally want to help. The issue is the incredible waste of time and money. It is incredibly inefficient to send a team out to collect footage instead of simply checking Flock, Axon, etc. No doubt, that hurdle prevents abuse, but it also hinders legitimate investigations. I would prefer strong safeguards against abuse while still allowing for real investigative wins.
The knowledge wasn't obtained illegally or illicitly, immorally perhaps.
Illegal entry/trespass is a crime regardless of the method used however.
In your analogy copying the code (online content) isn't necessarily illegal, however using that knowledge without compensation, permission or attribution may be a crime (depending on copyright law, judges rulings etc).
Seeding is often considered the actual point of infringement, aka sharing copyrighted material without the right licence.
I should note I suppose that I don't agree with companies using artists or developers hard work for their own financial gain without compensation, whatever form that may take.
The problem as usual is the availability of legal loopholes when you have a team of lawyers and near infinite money.
It really depends the country, downloading a Hollywood movie via torrent is itself illegal in a lot of countries. The only exception I’m aware of is Switzerland
Which is completely irrelevant because as the government of the country they have the power to make laws, now and in the future which compel private entities to perform actions like AML (anti money laundering) and KYC (know your customers).
The end result is private entities taking money out of the system at some stage, and it doesn't shield you in any way from government incompetence or malice.
Suppose you have an actually decentralized payment system, like cash, or any digital system that preserves the same properties whether or not it involves a blockchain.
An example of one that doesn't would be a global decentralized protocol for transferring money. You're standing in a coffee shop in LA and want to pay for a coffee so you tell your bank to transfer $5 to their bank. It works the same if your bank is in Brazil and their bank is in Switzerland as if both banks are in Nebraska, involves no intermediary other than each party's bank, and their bank shows them the transfer immediately so they know to give you the coffee.
Then the panzers roll into Washington and der Führer wants to reintroduce financial surveillance to make sure nobody is covertly buying a computer that doesn't censor the internet. Obviously they can force the bank in Nebraska to inform on the dissidents, but your bank is in Brazil and the seller's bank is in Switzerland.
Unless the system allowing that is dismantled ahead of time so the dystopia can be switched on overnight instead of needing years to erode entrenched decentralized infrastructure.
"They could theoretically seize control of everything anyway, so we should just let them seize control of everything now without a fight" doesn't seem like a great argument to me.
Things like the constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, and decentralized control of communication and commerce serve as bulwarks against tyranny. That they all could be dismantled in the future is not an argument against doing our best to preserve them now. Tyranny is not a binary state, it's a gradient with many steps along the path thereto.
(Also, "taking money out of the system" is not optional; payment systems cost money to maintain whether it's done by a private entity or by government.)
Because good lord, does claude waffle when left to its own devices.
reply