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

EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#61

Post by gnoway »

higherpurpose wrote: post #5
jessaustin wrote: post #2

There might be some network equipment vendors nervously observing this case. They probably haven't done anything as awful as building a bespoke apparatus of apartheid, and arguably they've done nothing technically different than Room 641A. However, there are probably some dissidents who would make convincing plaintiff's witnesses, were they ever to get out of the dungeons and into an American courtroom.

Cisco is probably feeling pretty nervous about this. Some may say "but why does this matter now ? It's all in the past." The problem is I think we're going to see many more such cases in the next couple of decades (at least). There are already companies that knowingly help governments spy on their citizens and help them catch dissidents or even kill journalists (think the self-driving cars of the future or cars that…

The only thing wrong with this comment (IMO) is the assertion that companies help governments kill journalists. I'm not asserting they don't, but I don't consider it common knowledge that they do, i.e. please provide a source.

I upvoted.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#62

Post by mikegioia »

foxhill wrote: post #50
ahelwer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is, frankly, ignorant and ignores the entire field of business ethics. You ought to read the SEP article[0]. [0] - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-business

ignorant? tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions? if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.

Here's one of your assertions I challenge:

    if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it.
How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.

Here's another thing you said:

    IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but
    it is not a person [...] but a company does not have 
    morals.
If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.

You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics. I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#63

Post by HillRat »

yellowapple wrote: post #47
SG- wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you didn't read the article, they dedicated the third paragraph explaining why it isn't the case of simply going after general-purpose technology that could be used.

It sounds like you didn't read the parent comment, then, which pointed out multiple examples of technologies that would also fit the criteria being used to chastise IBM. IBM creating citizen tracking software - in both the Nazi German and Apartheid South African scenarios - is equivalent to a company building engines for tanks or parts for machine guns. Does the EFF plan on suing every last one of those companies? An…

(In reply to Icebraining (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9030542))

I think the key here is whether the ATS requires a cause of action to arise in the US in order to enable a claim under ATS (any international-law specialists in the audience?). In the mid-1980s, IBM created a "sanctions-buster," ISM, that was its South African subsidiary under a different flag; activist shareholder efforts to stop sales to ISM in the 1980s were defeated. ISM, in turn, didn't sell directly to the Apartheid state (something that IBM's James C. Reilly used to defend the company's behavior in South Africa), but it did form a joint enterprise with Barlow Rand, which was a major munitions supplier to the South African state.

The problem is that all this was well-known at the time, and no actions were taken against IBM for what was effectively (if not legally, in a technical sense) an evasion of section 304 prohibition (and, perhaps -- not knowing what controls were in place at IBM -- also a more direct violation of 304(b)(1) end-user verification requirements). If the plaintiffs have to argue IBM's violation of US law in order to get to the ATS argument, this could be a very difficult path to take.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#64

Post by GauntletWizard »

yellowapple wrote: post #56
GauntletWizard wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hereby accuse Hackernews user vinceguidry of war crimes for the publishing of propaganda. His trial will be held in one paragraphs time. In light over overwhelming evidence that vinceguidry has published news that is fallacious and quite frankly silly (The idea that GWB and Tony Blair are being held accountable for War Crimes because some self-appointed group of people in some backwards state can hold a war crimes…

I'm honestly failing to see why you're being downvoted and the parent comment isn't, considering that you're pretty much spot on as to why the KLWCC is pretty much irrelevant. Even the U.N. doesn't recognize them to be legitimate.

Because I used snark, which is no longer an acceptable means of communication as more companies introduce "No Jerks" (I.E. No dissent, no judgement) policies.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#65

Post by foxhill »

mikegioia wrote: post #62
foxhill wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignorant? tell me, what do you disagree with? why do you disagree with it? what evidence do you have to back up your assertions? if i am wrong correct me. but to brandish me as ignorant because you don't agree with what i say is just you, spreading dogma.

Here's one of your assertions I challenge: if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it. How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. Here's another thing you said: IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person [...] but a company does not have morals. If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) peopl…

> How do you know that? How can you prove that?

come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that.

> Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point.

why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that.

> If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM doesn't (read: can't) have morals? A collection of people acting on behalf of a corporation does not absolve that corporation from any moral corruption it causes.

it's simple, being immoral allows more profits to be made. companies do this all the time. how many companies have token offices in remote islands? it's legal. if they don't do it, they're literally leaving money on the table. why would they not do it?

> You speak about this as if you've never read any of the comprehensive literature on business ethics.

you're correct, i haven't. i don't claim to know anything.

> I think you're being downvoted because you're coming off arrogant in a topic (business ethics) you don't project knowing much about.

most text does, i don't mean to come across as arrogant. but if people don't make an effort to correct me (and linking to an incredibly long article doesn't exactly help), how else might my opinion be changed? i don't feel that people owe me an explanation, but saying "you're wrong" and downvoting isn't.. well, it's not how i'd treat someone else, so i don't appreciate it when i am treated that way.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#66

Post by foxhill »

knz42 wrote: post #51
foxhill wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers. why though? it's people that fire the guns. there will always be someone out there with a sharper stick. i mean this is literally where the term "arms race" comes from..! > Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century. do google do bad things? yes. but comparing them to Lockheed Martin ? either you vastly underestimat…

> i'm saying we need to stop immoral behaviour when it is happening. we can't define morals in law, and the law is the only thing corporations understand. we can't change laws and retroactively apply them. Two things: a) you can definitely capture part of your morals in law, like "don't kill". Our anti-genocide legal system is built for this purpose and applies to corporations as well as to individuals. b) at the tim…

> you can definitely capture part of your morals in law, like "don't kill"

ah! but you can't!

for instance, if someone was about to kill your partner - is it illegal to kill them before they succeed? yes. immoral..? grey.

the law is a rough cookie cutter shape that somewhat follows the edge of the fractal-like surface of morality. you can't capture morality in it's entirety into a legal document.

> at the time of the Apartheid, unlike during WWII, crimes against humanity were already prosecutable "anywhere on earth".

i don't know much about apartheid, but at the time, the SA gov't believed it to be legal (of course). the US didn't recognise it as wrong for a long time (late 80s?), and even then, that doesn't necessarily mean it was recognised as a crime against humanity. and it's hard to see from the article the dates of the specific actions that EFF are complaining about.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#67

Post by ahelwer »

foxhill wrote: post #65
mikegioia wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one of your assertions I challenge: if IBM didn't do it, another company would have done it. How do you know that? How can you prove that? Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. Here's another thing you said: IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person [...] but a company does not have morals. If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) peopl…

> How do you know that? How can you prove that? come on, there's no need to be disingenuous - of course i cannot prove that. > Honestly, I wouldn't blame someone for stopping to read at that point. why? i don't believe that it's unreasonable to believe that another company would pick up a contract like that. > If (a) IBM is a company made up of people, and (b) people have morality, on what basis are you claiming IBM…

Your statements reflect fundamental flaws in your understanding of the subject matter. Expecting people to donate time to teach you the subject is pure entitlement. Read the SEP article. It's very easy to understand. Section 2.1 - the very first body section - is titled "Is the corporation a moral agent?" and should at least give you pause in publicly asserting they are not.

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#69

Post by _dke7 »

taltman1 wrote: post #9

For those who might want a fuller description of IBM's active facilitation of these kinds of crimes, you should read Edwin Black's book, "IBM and the Holocaust". Those tattoo's on Holocaust victim's arms? They were serial numbers directly tied to IBM punchcards designed by IBM for the Third Reich. It gives context to former NSA chief Michael Hayden's comment, "We kill people with metadata".

Quite ironic that now IBM has a role in the occupation of Palestine [1]. IBM is sometimes mentioned in the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions).

http://www.cjpmo.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=1081

Re: EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid

#70

Post by otakucode »

taltman1 wrote: post #9

For those who might want a fuller description of IBM's active facilitation of these kinds of crimes, you should read Edwin Black's book, "IBM and the Holocaust". Those tattoo's on Holocaust victim's arms? They were serial numbers directly tied to IBM punchcards designed by IBM for the Third Reich. It gives context to former NSA chief Michael Hayden's comment, "We kill people with metadata".

Anyone who is tempted to believe that "we were just doing our jobs" should be a reasonable moral dodge should keep in mind that "I was just doing my job" is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to saying "I just did it for money."
Post reply on HN