Here's a question: What should we expect from "technologists" (geeks) when they venture into matters of humanity? Should we expect them to be better or worse than the average Phd in Eithics when unravelling the ties between policy and consequences?

There is no one right answer, but factors to take into consideration are:
A) The consequences if the geek is wrong. Are we risking life and limb here (a big deal), or are we risking just getting shunned by society (not such a big deal).
B) How much do we value the fact that this geek has overcome the usual complacency, the tendency to retreat into one's compiler. If the phenomenon of a morally-aware geek is valuable in and of itself, if this quality will inspire others to also get out of their own shell(har har) and stand up for what they believe in, then this geek/ethicist combo deserves our supporteven if he is wrong.

Last month Wired Magazine (11.01) reported on the principles of Sergey Brin, of Google fame. Brin decided to apply his conscience to touchy matters on his company's plate. One issue was what to do about China filtering search results for their entire country. Another was how to act on complaints from Scientologists about Google displaying anti-Scientology pages in its results. Wired did a good job of reporting these facts as facts, and not placing their magazine in the position of passing judgement on Brin. They showed Brin simply acting according to his conscience and his stated company policy, which was "Don't be evil."

Was he right to do this, given that Google is the "best-loved search engine in the world?" The next issue of Wired printed letters which said essentially that Brin should go back to his compiler, stop messing around with matters that the big boys with Ethics degrees should handle. They have two main arguments: 1) Brin was just plain wrong in the actions he took, and 2) He shouldn't have been taking these actions in the first place. They obviously resent Brin's position of power, and view him as a sort of bug in society that needs to be fixed. One fix would be to make Google some sort of public utility that can be regulated and would therefore reflect everyone's judgement on these matters, not just Brin's.

I'd like to voice in on this debate, on the side of Brin, of course, with a "but." Brin's actions pass the test of my question at the top. Since B > A, it's just fine for him to be where he is and do what he did. We've proved that our country is willing to elect a trained actor as president. So much for our judgement. A geek is not any less qualified to make policy decisions that affect others. In fact, the logic of programming is more akin to formal ethics study than acting is, for certain. In fact, I'd like to see a PhD Ethicist do better than "Don't be evil."

I'm not saying Brin was right or wrong, only I applaud his leadership and willingness to loose his own constraints. Of all the people I know right now who are active in protesting the war, none of them are geeks. This could just be a coincidence, but people from all walks of life vote and pay taxes, and when it turns out not to matter, only a key few take to the streets, or write letters, or otherwise boost their citizenship responsibilities. It's brave to do this, it's an act of hope, and an active citizenship (B) is far more important than what could happen if they are wrong (A).

Here's the "but": this is not a slippery slope I'm proposing. If you screw up and start risking life and limb, then who cares if you're a geek/ethicist or a baker/activist. This is a problem. But mostly it's the small actions that people are so hesitant about, that they are so afraid what will others think of them. Hopefully Brin doesn't read his own hate mail, and manages to keep going.

More on hope and complacency in the audio link here (the text transcript doesn't cover Zinn's comments well)
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=957688).

comment []10:09:08 PM