Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#161

Post by hajile »

darawk wrote: post #132
hajile wrote: post #22

Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? Salesforce is a platform (albeit a horrible one I never want to work with again) and provides services to whoever pays. Illegal actions are between the local government and the user. Criminals lie. They could claim to be a humanitarian company while trafficking. The only way for Salesforce to know would be to manually investigate all th…

> Then again, in lots of jurisdictions today, a landlord can be held liable for the tenant committing a crime. Whoa, is that true? Can you give a citation for that? That seems insane to me.

https://realestate.findlaw.com/landlord-tenant-law/faq-landl...

IANAL, but a simple google for something like "landlord responsible for tenant crime" should turn up loads of results on the topic.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#162

Post by chrischen »

will_brown wrote: post #57
asdffdsa wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the facts suggest SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities" source?

The article we are commenting on... >“Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it," according to the complaint. Allegedly salesforce had a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution and knew backpage was in the business of facilitating the same when it elected to do business with backpage and that their software would specifically be used to facilitate…

How does one judge if Salesforce didn't take the profit from Backpage using its product to help fund the PR campaign against its shady practices? If that was the case, is it still immoral?

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#163

Post by koboll »

mcguire wrote: post #17
koboll wrote: post #4

It's impossible to evaluate the legitimacy of this without more technical details. "Providing customized database tools" could mean all sorts of things.

Salesforce allegedly helped them with their "trafficker and pimp database". On one hand, that's Salesforce doing their job well. On the other, seems like they would know what's going on.

That would almost certainly require them to be snooping on their customers' data, which would be a whole other scandal.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#164

Post by will_brown »

gnicholas wrote: post #138
will_brown wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive. The law doesn’t require a seller of goods/services to investigate a buyers intent, but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the…

> but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. It does? I’m a (former) lawyer and this is news to me. Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting? accomplice liability? conspiracy?) I’m not sure how any of these quite fit. Would love to be enlightened!

>Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting?

I didn’t say it was a crime I said it creates liability, this is a civil case about civil liability after all.

For example there are tons of civil cases against businesses that sell ammunition, there are endless such cases against Walmart alone, where the ammunition ends up being used in the commission of a crime.

More often than not Walmart prevails in the ammo cases because there is usually no evidence showing Walmart knew or should have known the buyers intent to use the bullets in a crime (it’s probably true that many times the buyers had not such intent when the bought the ammo). Still there are cases where plaintiffs can prove the seller did in fact know, should have known or even could have predicted the intent of the buyer to use the ammo in a crime.

All that said it’s also true, though far less likely the liability could raise to a criminal level.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#165

Post by _bfhp »

nabnob wrote: post #90
milemi wrote: post #27

Since it wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, whoever has been paying attention knows that shutting down backpage has made sex workers less safe and more dependent on pimps. Prostitution should be completely legal and brought into the light, not pushed into the shadows.

Full legalization increases trafficking and allows brothels, which are basically pimps who are able to operate legally. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Neumayer_Legalized_Prostitu... The Nordic Model - decriminalization of selling, with criminalization of purchasing - protects sex workers from pimps and has been very successful in the countries that have instituted it.

I'm happily surprised that the model has been mentioned at all... it's worth diving into the motivation. The moral reasoning behind non-conservative, sex-positive proponents of the model is in asking: from the perspective of the buyer, how do you know the seller isn't poor or threatened by a pimp? How can you assume "yes means yes" when money is involved? Some people dismiss this question (in my experience "scoff" is a better descriptor), and it's a debate that should happen in good faith within the left-of-center.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#166

Post by caconym_ »

hajile wrote: post #22

Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? Salesforce is a platform (albeit a horrible one I never want to work with again) and provides services to whoever pays. Illegal actions are between the local government and the user. Criminals lie. They could claim to be a humanitarian company while trafficking. The only way for Salesforce to know would be to manually investigate all th…

> Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows?

When Microsoft has specific knowledge of which of their customers are criminals, and details of their criminal activity, and is actively engaged in the development of new features to support said criminal activity... yes.

My understanding of the article is that the allegations against SF are on that level. Very different from taking money, handing over a binary and a license (or whatever), and ending the transaction there.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#167

Post by aznpwnzor »

You can't claim to be as a Service if you don't want all the downsides associated with it.

You can sell tools as is (not as a service), and if it is used for nefarious purposes, your hands are morally and legally clean. you can seek to make that specific tool illegal, but until then, everything's fair game, e.g. you can try to ban automatic weapons but you can't charge companies for selling them.

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#168

Post by knotdeven »

calimac wrote: post #36
knotdeven wrote: post #12

Big data will be used to identify, track, isolate, and then indoctrinate the most vulnerable members of society. You will be shadow banned and gas lit into a pipeline that serves to supply the insidious demands of those who see humans only as resources. We coders will unwittingly(poorly compensated) or wittingly(well compensated) algorithmically functionalize the pimp psychology and business practice into a system of…

Beautiful description of whats happening. Few can see what you describe through their lense of bias and rationalization

There's an algorithm out there looking for girls who don't ever get phone calls or texts from their dads...

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#169

Post by clavalle »

milemi wrote: post #27

Since it wasn't mentioned in the bloomberg article, whoever has been paying attention knows that shutting down backpage has made sex workers less safe and more dependent on pimps. Prostitution should be completely legal and brought into the light, not pushed into the shadows.

I would agree with you only if those that choose prostitution are doing it completely of their own free will.

This means not only not being actively forced but passively forced through desperate circumstances.

I don't think our social safety net in the US is nearly strong enough to ensure that such passive desperation is not a driving factor in the decision.

The last thing in the world I'd want to see is a desperate single mother go to get welfare benefits and getting asked 'So...did you even /apply/ to the brothel down the street?'

Re: Fifty Women Say Salesforce Helped Sex Traffickers Exploit Them

#170

Post by gnicholas »

will_brown wrote: post #164
gnicholas wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. It does? I’m a (former) lawyer and this is news to me. Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting? accomplice liability? conspiracy?) I’m not sure how any of these quite fit. Would love to be enlightened!

>Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting? I didn’t say it was a crime I said it creates liability, this is a civil case about civil liability after all. For example there are tons of civil cases against businesses that sell ammunition, there are endless such cases against Walmart alone, where the ammunition ends up being used in the commission of a crime. More often than not Walma…

Would the civil liability be under tort law or something else? The first requirement for tort liability is that the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. There are some exceptions to this, but I’d be curious to know the theory here. I understand that people sue Walmart for ammo sales and such, but is there any chance that a shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability? The shop owner has no legal duty (even civil) to the potential victim, who may not even be identified at the time of sale. how would the shop owner be liable? I’m still not seeing it. If you can just point me to the ammo cases then I can just read up on how these cases work.
Post reply on HN