After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract • Hacker News Board

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#161

Post by cyphar » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

My problem with this argument is that it (if applied uniformly) means that you couldn't hold IBM culpable for their role in the Holocaust. After all, "all they did" was help create a computerised census system for the democratically elected German government[1]. In reality, their computerisation of the census allowed the Nazis to far more efficiently catalogue and track Jewish people throughout the Third Reich.

And before anyone invokes Godwin's Law, ICE has been recently discovered to have literally poisoned detainees by using toxic cleaning chemicals in close proximity to detainees without giving them any protection or sufficient ventilation[2].

But even if you think it is unreasonable or overblown to call ICE nazis or fascists, I still question the premise that companies should not be held morally responsible for the people they knowingly and willingly do business with. If GitHub was selling software to known terrorists, you'd better believe that the American government (and hopefully most people) wouldn't see it as being fair game.

I agree that the lasting way to stop the abuses by ICE is through legislative and administrative changes, but I disagree with the argument that "refusing to sell software to ICE won't stop them from committing abuses, so I'll just sell them software anyway" is ethically justified. Now, GitHub is obviously free to do whatever they like but the public should also be free to point this out whenever they try to take the moral high ground.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust [2]: https://thecrimereport.org/2020/06/11/ice-spraying-disinfect...

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#162

Post by coffeemaniac » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.

Why is this lunacy? If government entities suddenly are under the impression that they'll have a difficult time finding business partners if they're consistently caught doing human rights violations.. seems like a win-win. If anything it would attract negative attention for the next company willing to do business with them.

> We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.

We're doing that too. There's no reason only one form of action should be followed.

> But I can't see how this helps improve immigration

It helps by making ICE expend their resources on finding new businesses to provide hosting services they need, or if they can't find any, rolling their own.

I see that some commenters are suggesting that github should use its position to influence ICE and maybe that's contributing to some confusion. This was never about improving ICE -- the goal is to cripple and dismantle them.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#163

Post by newacct583 » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy.

In a working society, maybe. In a properly functioning government it's the job of the executive branch to find some kind of compromise and operate the government for the benefit of and according to the priorities of a reasonable approximation of all the citizens.

But that's not possible with ICE. Right now there's a large fraction of society that supports inhumane mass deportation, human rights disaster camps across the border, family separation policies (though that got rolled back, thankfully), no-knock armed police raids for visa violations etc....

And there's another large fraction of society, including the Github workers, who find that hateful and immoral. And those folks have no ability to affect policy absent waiting to vote again. Their desires and needs simply aren't being heard.

In previous administrations, that kind of hyper-partisan policymaking by the executive branch simply wouldn't have happened. Either because it's bad politics or because of some sense of order on the part of the policymakers. But it's not true now.

The root cause, basically, is that one political party in the US decided to make an "enemy" out of a population (hispanic immigrants) in order to gin up votes from people that don't like them. And the resulting skew in civic priorities has made a big mess. This is how you get civil unrest, which we're seeing right now in all sorts of contexts.

But the mess isn't the fault of the protestors or the github folks, really. You can't run a country according to the parochial needs of your half of the electorate and tell everyone else to fuck off. They start flipping tables.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#164

Post by Latty » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

lurknn wrote: post #99

If working with ICE is so reprehensible, why are none of these employees taking advantage of their in-demand skillset and moving on to companies that better respect their values? I'm sympathetic with those who point out that corporations typically have more leverage than individual employees, and that changing jobs is not so easy for those who are less privileged. That category, though, of "less privileged" with rega…

It seems weird to expect them to jump directly to the nuclear option of quitting. Making a demand like this is a first step, and it may turn out not to be necessary to quit if the employer caves.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#165

Post by jfoster » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #111

marpstar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP didn't say they should be required to work with certain entities, only that it could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities.

> could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities That would, of course, be a terrible and illegal abuse of power and essentially be the government policing political speech by private individuals. What an indictment of our government (and I don't mean a single person, but of the system itself) that this seems to be an uncontroversial statement. Because I agree, it's true, and it's the mark of…

Choosing business partners based on the degree to which you can expect stability & reliability from them is not corrupt.

Not everything has to be political & tribal.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#166

Post by cblackthornekc » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

People always think unions are for benefits, pay, and safety. Tech needs a union that can fight for ethical coding. Workers need a way to band together and say no, we cannot in good faith work on a project.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#167

Post by seph-reed » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

Private agencies are the only field in which we have any real democratic say. This is the part of Capitalism that is good, when we can vote with our dollars.

IMO, if it wasn't for anti-competition lobbyists and government contracts, it would be much much easier to get private companies to take a stand every once in a while.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#168

Post by tresfaim » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

Why can't you see this helping? Can you not see the rally that is happening in the corporate world in favor of the BLM movement? Even if corporations are posturing this stance with no real action at the moment, if bigger entities make real actions like this, it will catch on, and then it will trickle down to smaller businesses, and it will seep into lobbying circles. This has leaderships around the world forced to make visible, impactful actions. Fear of disruption keeps the status quo in place.

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#169

Post by downvoteme1 » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

staticassertion wrote: post #117

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

Microsoft already banned the police from using Rekognition. I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities" people are mostly going to be OK with you cutting the contract.

Also the ban is for one year. Amazon’s plan is to suspend selling while the public opinion is against it. Once this issue is forgotten, they will begin selling Rekognition again to the government .

Re: After GitHub CEO backs Black Lives Matter, workers demand an end to ICE contract

#170

Post by brabel » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

jobeirne wrote: post #48

rattray wrote: post #14

What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it. I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies). But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a pri…

> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. Um, think you've got this backwards. Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?), but publicly-funded institutions shouldn't be able to deny service o…

I am strongly against a private business being able to refuse service to a person/organization on political grounds, even when the "victim" may seem to be performing evil actions, as long as it is not breaking any laws. One should not discriminate on the basis of race, political orientation, gender, origin or religion. Refusing service is clearly a form of discrimination. When you aim that towards your own Government, it may look like a heroic action to your supporters, but to those who are not, you're performing discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation against an organization that is following, as it is obliged to, the law of the Land. If you think the ICE is doing terrible things, you should lob the Government to take action and bring them to justice, but given the Government is, as I understand it, actually mandating such terrible things, you're aiming your fury at the wrong place. You should be protesting against the Government who is mandating these terrible things.

Imagine for a moment that things change completely, and the ICE starts refusing to follow the orders of the Government - but now the Government is leaning towards the far-left, and wants the ICE to open borders to all. The ICE would no doubt have a lot of supporters, but disobeying the Government in such case would ALSO be wrong because in a democracy, the Government represents the people - by not following the orders of the Government, you're basically advancing anarchy. In both cases, the correct attitude is to fight for a Government change. It's not democratic for a Government organization to take its own stance on a topic despite the Government's policies.