I don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but you just described a famous experiment which essentially arrived at the same conclusion. It's worth a read for those not familiar with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Zimbardo has stated that he is still pained at the memories of the Stanford prison study, which had to be aborted prematurely because the vile characteristics it exposed in normal, healthy participants was going out of control. He reluctantly revisited the study in detail because he saw striking parallels to the torture and humiliation in the Abu Ghraib prison under US occupation. While he's at it he also reviews much other research into the psychology of authoritarianism, obedience, dehumanization and other facets of social psychology that add up to what may very reasonably be called Evil.

I might add that organizations like the CIA are well aware of these principles, and appears to have been working on ways of weaponizing them. It is my opinion that they are using them to corrupt individuals and whole social environments when that suits their ends. In fact, in spite of "The Lucifer Effect" being a fascinating read from beginning to end, one of the parts I found most interesting was the evidence indicating that US intelligence actively created the psychological conditions for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Highly recommended reading, and very relevant for much of the potential consequences of mass surveillance.

This interpretation isn't really any less disturbing, since it suggests that people will commit atrocities and simultaneously believe that they are doing the right thing. Perhaps it also says something about the general public's trust of, not necessarily authority figures, but rather scientists.

Reading up on this has been on my back-burner for a while, this interpretation might be well considered and discarded, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I believe this is related: http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/PAGEPUB/Milgram.htm

Perhaps the difference is if the doctors/nurses/vendors think that they can get away with it, not attracting the public's attention.

Now if we could get some prominent figures in tech with some authority to get more involved in these matters, but no - they're all a bit too comfortable in their well-paid, US-based jobs to risk anything.

PRISM people thought they were doing right. All NSA - based on all the official and unofficial responses - think they are doing right. That they help building a safer America. That they have to sacrifice privacy for safety. Etc, etc.

I don't think NSA people are evil. They believe that the things they do are for good.

Evil like in the movies doesn't exist. In the real-world evil is simply a lack of perspective (some would call it empathy instead).

No one ever wakes up and decides they want to be a villain. They always have some sort of logic that rationalizes their actions as being reasonable if not outright good. The more they act on that lack of perspective the greater the evil they perpetrate.

Some select quotes (minor spoiler alert):

"There is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan."

"It's all the same machine, right? The Pentagon, multinational corporations, the police. If you do one little job, you build a widget in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two miles under the desert, the essential component of a death machine."

Quentin: But why put people in it?

Worth: Because it's here. You have to use it, or you admit that it's pointless.

Quentin: But it is pointless.

Worth: Quentin... that's my point.

[1] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-cube/

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_(film)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cube_(film)

    DIN_FIV
    Escape To Reality
    Track #3 - "Conspiracy"

I worked with a sociopath in the past and have studied it in literature, and a sociopath by definition sees meeting their own needs as a priority. Regardless of the effect on those around them.

A sociopath is willing to inflict suffering on others for even minor gains of their own. Sociopaths seek out high-power positions and often thrive in them, and those working with them often suffer as a consequence.

Taking a step back, as far as I can see, a sociopath is someone who (either by choice or by nature) prioritises certain social drives over other social drives. The drives to be empathic and obey social expectations, norms and rules get ignored. However, the drives for status, money and power are prioritised above all others. These drives are still social in nature. They don't actually convey a fundamental biological advantage.

I personally choose to aim to be a warm and caring human being, and, as a consequence of that, I have a really great relationship with my girlfriend. When we have kids, our kids will grow up in a loving supportive environment and so will have a good chance of growing up strong and well balanced. Being a sociopath would probably get me more material possessions, but I would have had to settle for an emotionally weaker partner (who I could dominate) and I would end up with messed up kids with a lower chance of success and survival.

From my own personal experience, people who fit the sociopathic archetype aren't really like evil villains. They're more like computer game addicts, fixated on goals that don't bring them happiness, and that get in the way of forming genuine connections with other human beings. I can see why people who are the victims of their behaviour characterise it as selfish, because they see the world as a competition for money, status and power and they think they are losing out. However, that competition is just a game, and the grand prize is not happiness.

Although I find these points interesting, it does seem to me like this leads us into the age-old philosophy discussion on ethics. It seems like ethics can be argued to be based on intention, effect, something else, or all. I have read about sociopaths that are experienced by others as good people. However, a sociopath seem to have a stunted emotional life and I am sure this disability will always have numerous subtle negative effects on people that have an emotional relationship with them (e.g wife, kids, friends).

This is what I consider evil, and I think it's important to separate it from people who think what they are doing is ok. I.e. "Someone else would have done it anyways", a thief who steals from a bank because "they have insurance" or "they are rich assholes who don't deserve it", or a dictator who tries to do what he thinks is best for the country even though his policies are bad.

Tou keep saying that, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Evil in this case is an aggregation of actions by many parties, not individuals and is rarely committed by the tool makers. However, it's always justified by the perpetrators.

Yep. Of course if that engineer had perspective he would have to wonder if there was more to the story than just what he was being shown. It is easy to doubt the people we already think are wrong, the hard thing is to doubt the people we agree with.

I would add that I think much of the material Ed Snowden released, to the extent that it shows personal expressions, to me points more to these people viewing the Intelligence organization as the new "we", and /everybody/ outside, US citizen or not, as a bit less than fully human. That cheeky smiley on the sketches detailing how they broke Google's SSL? "TOR Stinks" and similar flippant expressions in the documents about attacking the integrity of TOR? And so on. To me that isn't the look of someone who thinks they're making difficult, serious choices to protect the greater good. It's the look of someone who thinks they're better than everyone else out there and they can do whatever they want, including having "a little fun" toying with those other inferior creatures, because they think no one can touch them. That, I think, is the general mindset we're dealing with. Allow for a fair deal of individual variation of course.

You don't need an ethical guidebook to consider the implications of the work you're doing. I don't think lack of explicit instructions is an excuse. I don't want to invoke Godwin just yet...but suffice to say, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of good. And there were people in the loop who had the ability to see what was going on.

And so they walk a famously paved road.

ACM Code of Ethics: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

So, the standards exist but people choose to ignore them. Which, I guess since you're not forced to be a member of either professional society as a "computer person", isn't all that unreasonable. But personal ethics should win out in these situations without someone else having to tell you that it's wrong.

1.7 Respect the privacy of others. ..

User data observed during the normal duties of system operation and maintenance must be treated with strictest confidentiality, except in cases where it is evidence for the violation of law, organizational regulations, or this Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that information must be disclosed only to proper authorities.

That specifically allows the kind of work done by PRISM.

2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its consequences.

Computing professionals have a responsibility to share technical knowledge with the public by encouraging understanding of computing, including the impacts of computer systems and their limitations. This imperative implies an obligation to counter any false views related to computing.

3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities.

Because organizations of all kinds have impacts on the public, they must accept responsibilities to society. Organizational procedures and attitudes oriented toward quality and the welfare of society will reduce harm to members of the public, thereby serving public interest and fulfilling social responsibility. Therefore,organizational leaders must encourage full participation in meeting social responsibilities as well as quality performance.

Or number one on IEEE?

1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

Given, what's "best for the public" is up for debate (at least according to the people doing the collecting).

That does not make our decisions inconsequential. And yes, we should talk a lot more about ethics in compsci courses.

As for people who work on things like PRISM, it often happen in small steps, one ethical shade of gray at a time. When you get to a PRISM, your worldview is so completely distorted, you think it's a natural thing to do.

It's almost like not everyone in the world shares your political views on privacy rights...

Seriously, you are baffled by this? The majority of the population doesn't value privacy at all.