EFF Files Brief in Case to Hold IBM Responsible for Facilitating Apartheid • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by hindsightbias » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 3:54 AM UTC

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…

> spy on their citizens

Mass surveillance has only become possible via scale-out solutions. The NSA isn't running HP-UX, Solaris, AIX or Windows to track your metadata - they're running Linux.

What responsibilities do distro of scale-out solution contributors hold? Are they immune while scale-up platform execs and developers should be swinging in the Hague?

What happens when Google maps are used in a war zone by ISIL? Or twitter search engines are used to target protestors? We're dropping bombs today on people via targeting from the their android phones.

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

#92

Post by fit2rule » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 7:40 AM UTC

sroerick wrote: post #27

fit2rule wrote: post #18

I think the writing on the wall is this: we're all in some database, somewhere, which can be used to exterminate us from the face of the planet. Someone gets into power, they don't like those 'upstart hackers' .. well then, HN seems like a pretty good resource for who goes up against the wall, then ..

I wrote an outline for a short story that begins with the drone extermination of all dissident hackers.

Sounds interesting and to be frank .. not at all far-fetched.

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

#93

Post by URSpider94 » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 7:47 AM UTC

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…

When you prosecute a company, you're penalizing the owners, not the employees. If there's a judgment against IBM, it's likely that nobody who works there will lose their job. Certainly, nobody will go to jail. Instead, the company will make less money, which may push the stock price down.

Most significantly, going forward, corporations will weigh the potential costs of litigation against the profit of doing business with regimes committing crimes against humanity. Which is what we want.

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

#94

Post by URSpider94 » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 8:01 AM UTC

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…

>> and the equipment was leased. >What does this have to do with anything?

I believe the point is that IBM retained title to the equipment and was part of an ongoing business relationship. If they'd sold equipment to the South Africans, then anything after that was out of their hands (excepting perhaps a support contract). With a lease, every time it came up for renewal, they would have the option not to renew and pull back the equipment.

In general, I feel like you're looking at this as if it were a single over-the-counter transaction at a moment in time. Reality for an installation like this is that IBM were likely engaged directly with the S.A. government for a period of years, over which time it's likely that they got SOME sense of what the government was using this system for.

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

#95

Post by URSpider94 » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 8:06 AM UTC

foxhill wrote: post #33

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?

a person is a single conscious entity. there is no change in 30 years. a company will have almost entirely changed in 30 years - the son should not have to pay for the sins of the father, etc.

Nonsense.

If the company signed a 100-year lease 30 years ago, should it no longer have to honor it?

If the company agreed to pay pensions to its employees 30 years ago, should it get to stop paying them?

If the CEO of Chrysler retires, can I stop paying the loan on my car?

The point of a corporation is that it's a durable entity (NOT a person, but a person is a good analogy much of the time). That's why corporations can own property, be insured, get loans from the bank, and otherwise enter into contracts -- because there will be an entity there tomorrow that will be accountable for those transactions -- regardless of who owns its shares or who is on the payroll.

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

#96

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

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

Is there some reason you believe corporations, composed of human beings, are exempt from the human vulnerabilities documented by people like Zimbardo and Milgram?

That's the whole problem: if someone refuses to go along with your plan, all you have to do is ask somebody else. You will be (un)pleasantly surprised at just how few people, or by extension corporations, you have to approach with your proposal. There's nothing to "prove."