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

81–90 of 96 posts

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

#81

Post by yellowapple »

otakucode wrote: post #70
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."

Which really isn't that despicable of a stance; money is a dependency of survival (or at least survival with decent physical and psychological health) in all but the most anarchic environments (where money is trumped by "I have a gun and will kill you if you don't give me what I want, and only someone with a bigger gun can stop me").

There are many cases where people have done something they knew was wrong, but were afraid to stop doing them (or refuse to do them in the first place) because the risk of not being able to eat (or - worse - their children not being able to eat) was far greater than the risk of being punished for committing such a moral atrocity.

This is probably not a reasonable context for IBM's actions, but to paint all people who "were just doing [their] jobs" or "were just doing it for money" with the same brush of indignation and scorn is incredibly unfair to those who actually needed the money.

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

#82

Post by yellowapple »

_dke7 wrote: post #69
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

I don't think it's ironic at all, at least when looking at the bigger picture. The trend in IBM's dealings is not a propensity to go after customers with poor human rights track records, but to go after customers that will make them a lot of money. Governments - like those of Germany and South Africa - are a big target of IBM's sales, whether they're literally genocidal maniacs or poster-children of world peace.

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

#83

Post by scintill76 »

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…

> 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?

Well, setting aside everything else, I think it's fair to note that tanks and machine guns are generally out of the EFF's "scope", so it wouldn't be hypocritical per se for them to not act on such situations. I think I understand your point and it's worth discussing, but not specifically in the context of what EFF should or shouldn't do about non-"electronic frontier" issues.

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

#84

Post by yellowapple »

Aloha wrote: post #79
yellowapple wrote: post #53

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see how IBM actively facilitated anything other than being able to more effectively process information on citizens - something that most modern countries either already have or very strongly desire. the national identification system was highly customized, requiring close collaboration with the South African government; So are most IBM products on a large scale. This is no different fro…

I agree with you, the charge holds about as much water as a colander. I feel much the same way about the charges against IBM and the Holocaust.

I somewhat disagree with you on that second part, since it sounds like (I haven't really looked into this, and I haven't read the book in question) IBM was indeed aware of the Third Reich's genocidal intentions, and that the systems IBM developed were indeed specifically designed for the processing of Jews and other targeted demographics.

I do agree that trying to single-out IBM for designing products of war is unfair to IBM when various companies have done that (and, in many cases, have done that exclusively) without any particular complaint.

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

#85

Post by yellowapple »

gnoway wrote: post #61
higherpurpose wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that commenter is referring to military drones (and the manufacturers thereof), though I'm not sure about the journalists being killed.

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

#86

Post by dalke »

Karunamon wrote: post #34
URSpider94 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, by your logic, if evidence surfaces after 30 years that solves an open murder case, we shouldn't prosecute the suspect, because they've changed a lot in that time?

Same person, though. Without going all philosophical about it though, here's an example: let's assume there are two companies, one a sole proprietorship, the other a corporation with 10 employees. Both companies commit the same crime, the nature of which is unimportant. It takes 30+ years for the case to enter the judicial system. In the meantime, the guy running the first company is still there, while the 10 employe…

Corporations exist to move liability from the owners to the company, not as a way to escape liability, which seems to be your proposal. Your argument seems to be that so long as people pass through a company quickly enough, there's no long-term liability for the company?

The company must maintain the liabilities of its history. If a refining company dumped waste directly into the ground, then 30+ years later it should still be held responsible for clean up, even if all of the people involved have retired. Otherwise, who is responsible for the cleanup?

Or, suppose that we find that Disney had illegally acquired the copyrights and trademarks to Mickey Mouse from Person X. All of the people involved are long dead, though the inheritors of the estate of Person X were successful in their lawsuit. Under your view, it seems that the inheritors could not sue Disney because none of the people now at Disney committed the original crime. That's an absurd conclusion.

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

#87

Post by sroerick »

foxhill wrote: post #45
sroerick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm telling you the economic justification for a corporation. I don't like it either, but denying economies of scale as a reality of our world is silly. I would be fine with abolishing arms manufacturers. Have you stopped using Google yet? Because they are the Lockheed Martin of the 21st century. I agree with you that corporations are psychopathic. But to suggest that fact abdicates us from all responsibility of tryi…

> 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…

Laws can only be applied retroactively. That's how laws work. That's why courts exist.

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

#88

Post by foxhill »

ahelwer wrote: post #80
foxhill wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your statements reflect fundamental flaws in your understanding of the subject matter. my opinions are based on my observations. i observe companies being immoral all the time. there are a few notable exceptions - i think google are generally good, tesla, valve, recently (and only recently) microsoft, maybe some others. bear in mind, throughout my replies, i've given various (uncited, but i believe easily verifiabl…

Consider the question of why someone would want to teach you this subject, when you are combative at every turn. I did not assert corporations are moral agents. This is not a debate beyond an invitation to adopt intellectual humility on this subject, about which you do not claim to know anything.

> Consider the question of why someone would want to teach you this subject, when you are combative at every turn.

i do not post opinions as invitations or expectations to lecture. only to discuss.

if i disagree with you, it is a mistake to interpret that as combative.

> I did not assert corporations are moral agents.

my OP was saying that companies have no morals. your initial response was to tell me i'm ignorant of the field of business ethics (a statement not entirely without merit, i concede). i did not interpret that as an agreement, just a rude disagreement. and if you disagree with the statement "corporations are not moral agents" this implies (to me) that you are asserting the opposite, i.e, they are.

> This is not a debate beyond an invitation to adopt intellectual humility on this subject, about which you do not claim to know anything.

at the risk of sounding rude (and i have no intention of sounding that way), you're suggesting i adopt intellectual humility - i have already claimed to know little, all i have asked is that you justify why you disagree with what i am saying. if you are suggesting that you are a field expert, and that i should agree with you for that reason alone, well, that's essentially a "proof" by authority[1].

[1] - http://staffhome.ecm.uwa.edu.au/~00043886/humour/invalid.pro...

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

#89

Post by shawnhermans »

Aloha wrote: post #78
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".

I've read the Edwin Black book - he makes a reasonably compelling but nearly completely circumstantial case. The case against IBM could be made against any multinational of the era, like Ford and General Motors. The fact that IBM's business was information processing does not add or subtract to their level of supposed conspiracy. From the time of declaration of war (against the US), all american companies were hands…

I haven't read the book, but I did read the EFF's brief (https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-ibm-ats-claim) which seems to rely a lot on the alleged Nazi connections. Based upon what I have read so far, there is no "smoking gun" that indicates IBM did anything to knowingly aid the Holocaust or Apartheid.

In the case of South Africa, it seems IBM aided in the creation of South Africa's national ID system. What I can't tell from the evidence presented is if this aid was illegal or unethical at the time it took place. As a reminder, the United States didn't officially outlaw segregation until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I really haven't made up my mind one way or another about this, but I do think people have a tendency to interpret historical events using the knowledge and ideology of the present day.

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

#90

Post by jessaustin »

zingar wrote: post #38
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.

I'm not saying you intended this, but to be clear to anyone else: there are no apartheid "dungeons" remaining, the system was dismantled 20 years ago. The obstacle to victims making their way to the US is the innocuous but still effective lack of funds to do so (now we can ask ourselves whether voices silenced by poverty are less deserving of justice than voices silenced by violence).

Yeah I don't blame any network equipment for apartheid. Rather, I'm thinking of MITM equipment like Iran used to leverage their DigiNotar attack. I'm not aware of particular people that were taken into custody as a result, but it seems likely that those people exist.
Post reply on HN