Mitchell Kapor Leaves Groove Over TIA

Deao writes "Mitchell Kapor, one of the founders of the EFF, has quit Groove. Supposedly he has left to pursue open source software interests, but insiders say he is unhappy with Groove's products forming a crucial part of the Total Information Awareness project. Read all about it at the NYTimes (Free Registration required)."

Comments

Can you blame him for having a conscience?

[hafree]

"Mitch cares very much about the social impact of technology" - I think that really says it all here. How would you feel knowing that you are the reason certain civil liberties and rights to privacy no longer exist?

The world needs more good examples

[SolemnDragon]

1. He left his job because he was uncomfortable with what was happening with what they'd built.
Anybody remember the line that was used on production lines/ development for the atom bomb? "Our job is to build them, not to decide where they fall."

Take heart, folks. Add this one to the tiny corner of the bulletin board labelled "The world is not all bad." People really do sometimes help total strangers, people really do sometimes care about what their work is being used for, and frankly, i'm ALL IN FAVOUR of a guy who can turn around and quit based on what he thinks is an appropriate use of his work. (of course, i might not feel that way if he felt that what he was building SHOULD be spyware and they hadn't been headed there)I'm more willing to respect a belief the less it looks like it's going to mess with other people's- relatively innocent people's- lives. Granted, we can't all pay the rent if we walk off the job for moral reasons, so choose your battles carefully, and we don't all have a widespread fanbase to keep the world aware of what we've just done. (So when you choose them, do it as publicly as possible.) But sometimes, it's worth it, and i'll lead the cheer. Thanks!!!! Good example of what's not all wrong with the world.

Mod parent up!

[TopShelf]

All too often our first reaction to something that we don't approve of is to distance ourselves from it, and by doing so we relinquish any opportunity to effect change. In international affairs, consider the differences over the last 10-20 years between the US relationships with Russia and China, and our relationships with Cuba and North Korea. In the former, we've taken steps to open up the lines of commerce and seen those countries change dramatically. In the latter, we've taken a hard-line embargo position, and haven't seen an iota of positive result.

While I respect Kapor's stand, I'd encourage him to stay engaged and voice his opinions.

Re:Ethics

[PhxBlue]

If in the future I find myself coding something dubious for a government or corporation, what is the correct ethical choice?

If you're relying on someone else to answer that for you, then you've made the wrong choice already. Just follow whatever course of action is most ethical for you; because, at the end of the day, it's not your naysayers you'll see when you look in the mirror.

Re:Ethics

[gpinzone]

It's always a race. For example, if we don't come up with a method to crack 2,048 public key encryption, someone else will. You can't assume it could only happen by perfecting a quantum computer; someone could find a way to calculate products of primes quicker. The point is, it's not a matter of if, it's when.

Conscientious Brain Drain

[lucasw]

In Howard Rheingold's Tools For Thought it is mentioned that three decades ago many top scientists working on the government funded computer and communications projects left their posts out of dissatisfaction with government policy:

In 1970, a combination of growing opposition to the Vietnam war, and the militarization of all ARPA research, meant that an extraordinary collection of talent in the new fields of computer networks and interactive computing were looking for greener pastures...

Luckily, XEROX and other private companies were around to snatch them up and not let their talents go to waste.

This kind of phenomenon can't be do much good: It doesn't help legitimate national security interests, and scientists and engineers without the means to innovate don't benefit the economy. If young persons decide to avoid engineering or science completely when a perceived immoral government taints those fields, there's even more fallout...