And you're telling me at no point did any software engineer write the code that allows the pilot to fire a gun, or do calculations to account for the impact of "kickback" from firing a projectile on a drone's flight path, or...
Sure, they probably did and I'm not trying to argue that it's impossible to use technology for evil. In fact, I'm someone who has protested and left a project because of the ethical implications it posed.
My position, and the only point I'm trying to make is that these technologies aren't themselves sinister. It's their uses that we need to cast light on.
Saying that no one really "needs" facial recognition or photo tagging is obvious. For that matter, no one needs an iPhone, or a computer, or the internet, or books. But, it does open up new possibilities to have those technologies to work for us. Before now, there's no practical way you could query your family photo album for all photos of aunt Beulah from 1994-1998. Is it needed? No. But neither is having any recollection of your relatives.
I'd be interested in seeing what kind of criteria you can come up with for dichotomizing good and bad technology purely on technical grounds. That is, without taking into account usage and motivations for usage. I mean that sincerely and not jest.
I do agree with you that there should be some sort of "guild ethics" we adhere to, but not that we should ostracize certain technologies. We should refuse to work on certain projects or for certain organizations when we know they will be used for wrong. Firewall technology? Good. Great Firewall of China? Bad.
