While I like the idea of a tech pledge to identify what Right is, and then do the Right Thing, I can't help but feel that this particular implementation is extremely narrow in how it was designed and how it ended up scoped out.<p>It seems very specifically about managing how the US govt. has interacted with specific companies holding user data, and also the current trends expressed by Trump regarding immigration.<p>These are both important issues, but it's hardly what I'd consider <i>The</i> Tech Pledge, being so narrow. I'd love to see a version that talks about, say, security practices, and endeavoring to put consumer privacy above business needs.
A reminder:<p>It's nice if your company commits to something. But what's vital is that <i>you</i> commit to things, and that you <i>organize around those commitments</i>. As a profession, we have to stop looking to management and owners to own the ethics and conditions of our work.<p>Things like this are fine, but don't lose sight of where the real power is. It's the strongest market for tech talent I've seen in my entire career. Your company cannot survive without people like you. Don't ask them to do things. Organize with your peers and <i>demand</i>. You'll win, a lot of the time, and your wins will be durable.<p>This pledge is pretty clearly a response to NeverAgain.tech (look at the issues it cares about). NeverAgain.tech is about what <i>members of our profession commit to doing</i>; that pledge doesn't give a damn what companies say, because if employers contravene the pledge, the signatories have pledged to leave as soon as possible. That's meaningful. This is window dressing.
> We will only provide individual user data to governments under correct legal process.<p>If the law changes such that companies can be compelled to hand over information that would be unethical to hand over, the pledge should require that companies stop collecting that information and delete what they already have. If there are countries that have existing laws that would permit them to insist on handing over information that would be unethical to provide, the pledge should require that companies cease doing business in those countries.<p>Right now this is simply a pledge not to engage in reprehensible behaviour. We shouldn't be providing rewards or encouragement not to act in reprehensible ways. We should be encouraging people to do <i>better</i> than the socially acceptable bare minimum. A pledge should be a promise to go above and beyond, and this is nothing of the sort.
The principle of least privilege seems very applicable to keeping user data secure from the government. You cannot hand over data that you do not have. If your business model requires collecting data that would not be conscionable to hand over to the government upon demand, you should seriously reconsider your business model.<p>I'd strongly prefer something based off that rather than the actual pledge. It's fairly easy to lose a legal defense, go back on your pledge to produce a legal defense, or change owners to one not bound by the pledge. It's much more difficult to retroactively collect data.
I don't know why this pledge has to take a position on immigration policy.<p>A flood of low-skilled, poorly educated immigrants definitely helps the rich who don't mow their own lawns or make their own beds, and corporations who benefit from the wage-suppressing effects of a huge surplus low-skilled and poorly educated workers. But it hurts American citizens who are themselves low-skilled and poorly educated.<p>I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I happen to think that US immigration policy should be crafted solely on what is in the US's best interests. Allowing highly-skilled and highly educated people in helps the country, but I don't really see how allowing a flood of low-skilled immigrants in helps the country in the larger picture. I understand how it does from the Adam Smith/Milton Friedman perspective, but I don't think that benefit justifies the harm done to the most vulnerable workers (or would-be workers) who are citizens and taxpayers and in many cases veterans of our military.
My software engineering professor had us read the ACM [0] and IEEE [1] ethics codes. I vastly prefer the IEEE code (they both read like they were written by committees, but IEEE seems like it was addressed to a professional engineer, and ACM seems like it was written to a corporate drone.) Either one of the codes is significantly more thorough than the pledge, which seems focused on a few current issues, making it eventually irrelevant independent of whether its goals are achieved.<p>[0] <a href="http://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-code/" rel="nofollow">http://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-co...</a>
[1] <a href="http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html</a>
Many of these pledges require potentially expensive legal defense against the U.S. government. Will YCombinator commit to providing funding for the legal work committed to here? For their own portfolio companies only, or for any early-stage startup that finds themselves in the position of "sell out our users, or go bankrupt"?
It's a nice idea, and if people actually agreed to it, things could actually change for the better in the tech industry. However here's the issue:<p>Only a small percentage of people in the tech world care about this stuff.<p>It sucks I know. But it's true. The vast majority of people out there simply want a paycheck and don't really care how they get it. As a result this means that anyone who does agree to the pledge will most likely be sacked in favour of the person who doesn't. And there are millions of people in tech who will throw everything and everyone under the bus as long as management says so and the money ends up on the table.<p>So how do you solve this? Well, good question. In a lot of fields, they solve it by either requiring accreditation or a union membership or god knows what else, which causes those who go against what's seen as 'ethical' in their field to have a very hard time finding new jobs afterwards.<p>That's not really a likely thing for the tech world, and I don't think most people would want it to be. But as a result, it means pledges like this are pretty much useless at the moment.
Pledge 1 and 2 seem strangely distinct. It's odd to request someone to commit to both. Pledge #1 seems like basic ethics of technical practice, but pledge #2 is a specific position on a specific current political issue.
A tech pledge to support user privacy which ignores the risk and market dynamics of security breaches? The mind boggles...<p>How about dedicating resources to making sure everyone upgrades their devices, patches security vulns on internet-facing servers, uses password managers, etc?<p>How about at the very least asking "if we suffered a breach, how would we know?". Because ethics aside, there seems little incentive for startups to worry about it.
I think this is amazing, and the premise of it, which is to recognize the unprecedented power that is pooling in the tech sector and the responsibilities that come with it, is highly laudable.<p>With that said, the fact that there's no reference to the greatest problem facing our society, income inequality, is highly noticeable.<p>A pledge by tech companies to respect the rights of workers would actually be something notable and daring.
> We'd like to invite comments on this for a two week period, starting today, May 2nd.<p>I'm guessing that this is just a temporary page that will be replaced once you have developed the final version of the the pledge. If that is <i>NOT</i> the case, then may I suggest that "May 2nd" be changed to "May 2nd, 2017"?
"The Tech Pledge" is way too generic of a name for what this is. Be specific enough that it piques people's interest. Otherwise it is just poor branding. (And branding does matter on grass roots efforts, not just corporate efforts.)
How about a pledge to keep politics out of the work place? I am very tired of people dropping subtle and not so subtle hints about the strong political views they have in professional environments.
Placing 'We will provide support to efforts to keep the United States DACA policy in place' under the heading 'Supporting Legal Immigration' is misleading: DACA is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, i.e. it is a policy of tolerance for <i>illegal</i> aliens, not legal immigrants.<p>Otherwise it seems a reasonably unobjectionable document.
I'd suggest a transparency section. Without companies committing to this it'll be easy for them to sign on publicly but privately act differently.<p>Something at the end like:<p>"Transparency: On an ongoing basis, we will offer our employees and our users reports on how we're fulfilling the above commitments."
I did not know that this was a YC initiative until I read about it in the comments. Initiatives like this need all the help they can get in order to stand out above the noise. Everybody's got a manifesto. Only this one has YC backing.<p>Consider making this a first-class effort.
> We will provide support to efforts<p>"Provide support", and not just "support"? So a startup that isn't actively involved in efforts around keeping the DACA policy would be breaking this pledge? This seems to only make sense for giant companies.
Exactly, DACA's just a policy made with a pen and a phone - it's a legal phantasm that can easily be dispelled!<p>Pass an actual labor law or gtfo on this indentured servitude you execs are so addicted to. Pay equivalent wages and allow imported labor to change employers or GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE! (Sorry to cuss, but I've got real hatred for the self-serving progressive leaders who profit so much from cheap imported labor.)