Ideally, they'd consult a team of lawyers trained in ethics and make a decision based on that and the opinions of their customer base. I don't think that a company doing a freely offered...
Ideally, they'd consult a team of lawyers trained in ethics and make a decision based on that and the opinions of their customer base. I don't think that a company doing a freely offered government contract is necessarily a bad thing; sometimes companies have specific experience that can be useful to the government, and paying customers are not usually something they should refuse lightly.
Personally, I don't think the government should be offering these public contracts to begin with. As a military brat, I've lived in this odd intersection of public and private services all my life, and I've seen the effects of privatization myself. It almost always leads to a more expensive, lower quality solution, often with significant delays and bullshitting involved. An example off the top of my head is the house I live in; the private contractor here charges the military about $5000 per month in rent, or about $60,000 per year, more then an average citizen's entire salary for that year, simply because they know the military will pay that rate. And it's not a particularly nice house either, with the sagging washroom floor, incredibly icky tap water, and requirements that we do all of the moving in maintenance ourselves (despite the fact they were supposed to do it and were payed for it), or located in a desirable area. Even if a company does provide a solution in budget and on time, there are sometimes fundamental conflicts of interest; for example, Google or Apple providing their heavily branded products into schools, sometimes with advertising, that are designed to turn children into future customers in addition to actually filling the requirement of providing computers. While I can't in good faith tell Google they shouldn't take that contract, since it's a potentially large boost in customers both now and in the future, there is no way schools should be offering these contracts in the first place.
For as much horrible crap that governments do, there are tons of programs that are based in humanitarian efforts and require tech. For many small businesses in the US, government and specifically...
For as much horrible crap that governments do, there are tons of programs that are based in humanitarian efforts and require tech. For many small businesses in the US, government and specifically military funding are what gives the company life. The SBIR program for instance gives about $2.5 billion to small businesses. For me personally, I draw a line at what the tech that I develop will be used for. I am lucky enough to have a say in my company so while we bid on and subsequently develop tech with military funds, the tech will ultimately be used by non-military companies and universities for projects that are completely unrelated to military. While it would be possible for us to develop products that would be super helpful for departments like ICE, that is something that we don't want to do and so we have decided not to pursue that route. If I worked for a company like Google, I would have no problem making chromebooks that are used by the DMV, but I would have a problem developing drones for mass surveillance and identification.
I don't think this is true. Tech is a tool at the end of the day and can be used for good and evil. Census info that help Nazis gather Jews and others are also what helps to give minorities a...
I don't think this is true. Tech is a tool at the end of the day and can be used for good and evil. Census info that help Nazis gather Jews and others are also what helps to give minorities a voice now.
Of course that's not to say safeguards shouldn't be put to I place to protect the information and the people the government serves.
Ideally, they'd consult a team of lawyers trained in ethics and make a decision based on that and the opinions of their customer base. I don't think that a company doing a freely offered government contract is necessarily a bad thing; sometimes companies have specific experience that can be useful to the government, and paying customers are not usually something they should refuse lightly.
Personally, I don't think the government should be offering these public contracts to begin with. As a military brat, I've lived in this odd intersection of public and private services all my life, and I've seen the effects of privatization myself. It almost always leads to a more expensive, lower quality solution, often with significant delays and bullshitting involved. An example off the top of my head is the house I live in; the private contractor here charges the military about $5000 per month in rent, or about $60,000 per year, more then an average citizen's entire salary for that year, simply because they know the military will pay that rate. And it's not a particularly nice house either, with the sagging washroom floor, incredibly icky tap water, and requirements that we do all of the moving in maintenance ourselves (despite the fact they were supposed to do it and were payed for it), or located in a desirable area. Even if a company does provide a solution in budget and on time, there are sometimes fundamental conflicts of interest; for example, Google or Apple providing their heavily branded products into schools, sometimes with advertising, that are designed to turn children into future customers in addition to actually filling the requirement of providing computers. While I can't in good faith tell Google they shouldn't take that contract, since it's a potentially large boost in customers both now and in the future, there is no way schools should be offering these contracts in the first place.
General answer: always.
For as much horrible crap that governments do, there are tons of programs that are based in humanitarian efforts and require tech. For many small businesses in the US, government and specifically military funding are what gives the company life. The SBIR program for instance gives about $2.5 billion to small businesses. For me personally, I draw a line at what the tech that I develop will be used for. I am lucky enough to have a say in my company so while we bid on and subsequently develop tech with military funds, the tech will ultimately be used by non-military companies and universities for projects that are completely unrelated to military. While it would be possible for us to develop products that would be super helpful for departments like ICE, that is something that we don't want to do and so we have decided not to pursue that route. If I worked for a company like Google, I would have no problem making chromebooks that are used by the DMV, but I would have a problem developing drones for mass surveillance and identification.
I don't think this is true. Tech is a tool at the end of the day and can be used for good and evil. Census info that help Nazis gather Jews and others are also what helps to give minorities a voice now.
Of course that's not to say safeguards shouldn't be put to I place to protect the information and the people the government serves.