Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE • Hacker News Board

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#81

Post by Porthos9K » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:46 PM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #44

tr33house wrote: post #19

Regarding the deleted Ruby gems: I think it's unprofessional for developers to try and bring down production services just because they disagree with a company move. It's also a bit immature. The thing to do in this case is to quit. Down your tools and quit, but don't destroy the hard work of your teammates and betray the trust of all your investors and customers.

More fundamentally, this was an attempt to damage the customers of a former employer. In effect, it's no different from logic bombs and tech vandalism in general. While there may be a case for "their public work, they can do whatever" I'd put money on this person announcing their intent to take down customer systems which makes it malicious.

I'm OK with sabotage that does not resort in injuries or loss of life as a means of nonviolent protest.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#82

Post by ng12 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

shakezula wrote: post #62

frakkingcylons wrote: post #7

I took the liberty of invoking Godwin's Law and re-purposed this template, it should make you consider how weak this statement really is. """ While I understand that many of you and many of our community members would prefer we had no business relationship with the Third Reich, I have made a principled decision, with the support of the IBM executive team, to work with the institutions of our government, regardless of…

I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head with this. This is the most accurate and succinct way to show how this looks.

Godwin's Law is supposed to demonstrate the reductive nature of comparing everything to Nazism, it's supposed to be a logical fallacy.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#83

Post by ng12 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

Porthos9K wrote: post #73

commandlinefan wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Third Reich Not to get hyperbolic, but... you don't actually think that the U.S. government is equivalent to the Third Reich, do you?

We're a hell of a lot closer than we should be. The Japanese-American internment camps during WWII were bad enough, but this? This is worse because these refugees we're mistreating are fleeing the consequences of our dealings in Latin America. If these refugees are indeed a problem, they are a problem we brought upon ourselves, and we are making it worse .

Ok, but in this example the Japanese Americans are not Americans and they traveled thousands of miles to voluntarily join the internment camps.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#84

Post by RickJWagner » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

Gee, what about companies that supply things to Planned Parenthood?

There are a lot of people that think PP is immoral (especially given the origins in eugenics). Should employees of those companies rise up and try to harm their employers, too?

For the record, I am against such action. Firmly against. Politics is personal and should not extend beyond your personal rights.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#85

Post by JoshTriplett » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #74

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper is an interchangeable commodity with many suppliers. Specific software products often are not. Furthermore, there's a difference between "someone bought this commodity from a distributor" and "we have a contract specifically with this entity".

If every paper company got together and denied service to ICE, then ICE would be forced to limp along without paper. They wouldn't cease to operate - even if they wanted to, they couldn't; that's not up to them. They would just operate inefficiently. It would be frustrating to the DHS officers, but actively detrimental to the immigrants in their custody, slowing things down even more. Unless you actually believe that…

"If we don't sell to XYZ someone else will" is not an argument to keep selling to XYZ, unless you already agree with (or are indifferent to) XYZ and their activities.

"XYZ is doing bad things but it'd be even worse if they did bad things less efficiently" is not an argument to keep selling to XYZ, unless you already agree with (or are indifferent to) XYZ and their activities.

Making an organization less efficient, or otherwise slowing an organization down, is not going to single-handedly stop it, but that doesn't make it pointless or counterproductive.

For the concrete example here, you haven't provided evidence that "less efficient" or "slower" applies only (or disproportionately) to activities that stop hurting people rather than activities that hurt people.

Also, you've created a false dichotomy, dismissing the existence of people who agree with portions of a branch of law but disagree with how that law is enforced.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#86

Post by weare138 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

notus wrote: post #2

Terrible response, companies totally can pick and choose who they work with and who their customers are. > I want to be clear that this decision is not about contract value — it is about maintaining a consistent and fair business approach in these volatile times. Doublespeak for, this decision is 100% about contract value. I am interested more in the former employee that removed the ruby gem though. Cool form of prot…

Calling that a terrible answer is a little extreme. It's a really complicated issue and I'd be lying if I said I had the answer to it. Would you agree that religious fundamentalists should have the right to deny services to people they find morally objectionable? Should a medical service provider deny LGBTQ people vital services because they "morally" object to it? Obviously not. What if landing a contract like this is the only way to keep the business financially afloat? Laying off employees also has moral implications. Should we single out this company when major tech companies like Microsoft have contracts with ICE? Why aren't we boycotting MS over this?

Personally I don't agree with Chef's decision and sure as hell don't agree with ICE. Seriously, f*ck ICE. I'm descended from immigrants. It's a free country and anyone who thinks I shouldn't be here or any other immigrant for that matter is free to kiss my Irish ass. I just don't agree this is the way to change things. We should be fighting for what's right ourselves rather then admonishing someone else for not doing it for us but if we are going to admonish corporations for their associations with ICE, it should be all of them.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#87

Post by shakezula » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

sdinsn wrote: post #78

shakezula wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head with this. This is the most accurate and succinct way to show how this looks.

Except it's not. ICE is not the Third Reich, period.

Except ICE is doing the same thing as the Third Reich - running concentration camps.

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#88

Post by IdontRememberIt » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

Where is the limit? Linux is certainly used somewhere by criminal rings to sell drugs killing children. PHP is certainly used by criminal groups advertising escorts victim of human trafficking.

Are open source projects now at risk? Will phpmyadmin break because an antispecist contributor discovered that McDonalds is using this tool? Will ubuntu break because an anti-vaxxer contributor has discovered that GSK is using this os?

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#89

Post by shakezula » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #82

shakezula wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head with this. This is the most accurate and succinct way to show how this looks.

Godwin's Law is supposed to demonstrate the reductive nature of comparing everything to Nazism, it's supposed to be a logical fallacy.

[flagged]

Re: Chef CEO Defends Contract with ICE

#90

Post by ng12 » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

shakezula wrote: post #89

ng12 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godwin's Law is supposed to demonstrate the reductive nature of comparing everything to Nazism, it's supposed to be a logical fallacy.

[flagged]

The lazy mis-characterization of our border facilities as concentration camps is exactly what I'm talking about, while also being a wildly inappropriate comparison in a country with many Holocaust survivors.