I have found that as an individual software worker, with no union or professional association with the muscle to back me up, any ethical objections I may have are meaningless, as the only thing I can do to object is lose all my household income and be replaced by someone more pliant.<p>For instance, I find a user control that prevents the user from changing focus whenever the input is invalid to be unethical, or at least severely impolite.  It&#x27;s the equivalent of grabbing someone&#x27;s face while you&#x27;re talking to them.  Me: &quot;The control you propose is hostile to the user.&quot;  Customer: &quot;Do it the way we want, or your company loses the contract.&quot;<p>As it turns out, the customer would love to grab someone&#x27;s face, not just while they talk, but also as they yell, with a light rain of spittle falling gently onto the target&#x27;s visage.  That&#x27;s because they assume everyone is a complete idiot, whose only salvation is absolute obedience to those officially certified as more capable.  They fervently believe that you can order someone to not make mistakes.  So it should be no surprise that my ethical objection was meaningless to them.<p>The people paying for software and hardware enabling Panopticon-style universal surveillance have a completely alien system of ethics, and more than enough money to ignore your personal morality.  There will always be <i>someone</i> around in desperate enough financial straits that they will quash their own opinions and take the paycheck.<p>A cartel enforcer for software workers is the <i>only</i> way to significantly slow down technologies (you can&#x27;t actually stop progress) that the majority of those workers find to be unethical.  That enforcer has to be able to tell its members that they <i>cannot</i> do such work, no matter how well it pays, because otherwise, the buyers, for whom budget size is no obstacle, simply pay the higher price to those who need cash now more than self-respect later.<p>As long as there are mouths to feed and rent to be paid, the guy with deep pockets will be able to pay another to do his dirty work.<p>It isn&#x27;t the ethical <i>training</i> that makes the difference in medicine, but the ethical <i>enforcement</i>.  Doctors and lawyers can be decertified by their peers and elders, such that they cannot be rehired as a member of that profession.  That means that an employer cannot demand unethical behavior, unless it is willing to compensate to the tune of all the money those people could theoretically make over all the remaining years of their careers.<p>I would hope that enough software workers could agree that it is unethical to casually collect and retain information from anyone without their fully informed consent, which is diligently confirmed, and revocable on demand.  I further hope that we could agree that it is unethical to gather information to support any criminal investigation without reasonable suspicion that the target has actually committed a crime.  Those people who believe that adding more hay to the stack makes the needles easier to find can form their own cartel.<p>I happen to believe that ethically-limited surveillance is more efficient and effective than the heavy-handed dragnet approach.  I also think it is unethical to use an O(N^3) brute-force algorithm when an O(N log N) alternative is available.  But most customers only care whether something works, and is delivered on time and under budget.  They won&#x27;t <i>ever</i> care about our opinions regarding quality, ethics, or best practices until after we are capable of making them pay dearly for not caring.