Consider Also Listing Support for Sexual Orientation and Identity

[David E. Wheeler]

@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
   <li>We refuse to participate in the creation of
   databases of identifying information
   for the United States government
-  to target individuals based on race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation or identity.
+  to target individuals based on race, religion, or national origin.

   <li>We will advocate within our organizations:
     <ul>

If so, should probably also add it to the bullets under "We will advocate within our organizations".

[Stuart P. Bentley]

👍, though it's worth pointing out that you should probably get everybody who signed the list already to reaffirm their commitment to the amended text or remove their name (similar to the procedure around changing licenses without a CLA).

[Stuart P. Bentley]

@theory Nitpick: that patch (as written at time of this comment) is reversed (the - line should be the + and vice versa).

Also, I'd propose that, to allow room for future expansion without ambiguity (to address any future developments in discriminatory criteria that may be proposed), the terms should be thus:

@@ -69,7 +69,8 @@
   <li>We refuse to participate in the creation of
   databases of identifying information
   for the United States government
-  to target individuals based on race, religion, or national origin.
+  to target individuals based on aspects of personal identity, including but not limited to
+  race, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation or identity.

   <li>We will advocate within our organizations:
     <ul>

Indeed, I'd argue that this should go further than mere identity (a list of people with medical conditions, which extends beyond identity, has the potential to be repurposed on a eugenics basis), but that would involve a somewhat more involved change (as there could also be legitimate reasons to assemble such a database, eg. to implement a nationalized healthcare system, for which the benefits may outweigh the risks of misuse).

[David E. Wheeler]

@stuartpb D'oh!

[David E. Wheeler]

If there was the chance of getting a nationalized healthcare system, that would be a conversation worth having. Alas, it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Besides, you could make the same argument for ethnic identity (think tracking Tay-Sachs disease or Sickle Cell Anemia).

[Erin Marshall]

It would be interesting to make this as wide as possible by talking about "any PII that enables systematic targeting of a group".

[Stuart P. Bentley]

"any PII that enables systematic targeting of a group".

"Targeting of a group" is too broad. That would preclude engineers from working on a system that implements tax brackets or means-adjusted benefits programs.

[khm]

I thought long and hard before attempting to sign this pledge. In the end I did so because the goals are achievable. I'm not sure if that would still be true if this change were made. For instance: just about every dating site would be hands-off after signing a pledge with the proposed modifications. Charitable organizations with an LGBT focus would be very hard to contribute to. These are only examples; there are worlds more.

I think these other issues are important but it is not necessarily wise to broaden the scope of this pledge due to the risks of unintended consequences. As it stands, the goal is clear and the specific class of travesty we intend to avoid is well-targeted.

I encourage someone to start a second pledge for this topic. Even if neveragain.tech hosts it, it would be wise to separate these concerns so domain experts in each area can work to refine the language and intent of a specific topic.

I also strongly, strongly recommend against modifying pledge texts after more than a few people have signed. It undermines trust and reduces the credibility of the pledge.

[Liz Fong-Jones]

We cannot update the pledge text (see above #1579 ); however, a forked version 2 of the pledge could be created in future with a reset list of signatories.