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

In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#21

Post by nickpsecurity »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #18
nickpsecurity wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. konne88 is calling out most of this forum. I agree with the comment in that, while I will buy less evil stuff if I can, I don't abstain from online activities because of indirect consequences. That means I willingly choose them. I accept that. Anyone who acts like they're pro environment, anti-rights-abuse, and so on while using lots of technology is full of shit given its supply chain and corporate support.…

The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? How many would be able to name any other compatible chip brand that is conflict-free? Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is…

"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? "

That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now.

"Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor"."

I disagree as many people in U.S. know about what capitalism, cheap labor, and other things result in. Just talk to a bunch of them sometime if you doubt that. What you'll see is they know to some degree but put it out of their mind. It's a problem but not their problem. It's called an externality in economics but I call it not giving a shit.

In any case, I said I'd go with your version of things. So, now readers know all kinds of horrible shit might have gone into their electronics to get them here. Which person fighting for good is now (a) intentionally harming people for the greater good or (b) disconnecting and selling their devices to prevent harm? They know now. So, the choice is informed and intentional.

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#22

Post by _yosefk »

Cyph0n wrote: post #20
_yosefk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about operating in the US, which on average kills 3-4 civilians per 1 enemy combatant (Israel kills 1) and starts wars for no apparent reason (what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 - that's more than 100,000 people killed, do you have an idea how much more that is compared to people killed by the IDF in the last decades? Why support "rebels" in Libya or Syria?)

I agree with that as well. However I think Israel is a different case.

"Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?)

Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#23

Post by babayega2 »

wyager wrote: post #3
crishoj wrote: post #2

Does this also entail that no Saudi Arabian [0] or American fossil fuels will be used in the entire supply chain? [0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...

Everything upsets someone. "Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.

Exactly. Also, I've seen a pictures of minerals being weighted in Kigali, Rwanda. Everyone knows Rwanda hasn't so much minerals ressources, but all those came from Easter DRC [1]. So it says something about the process.

[1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#24

Post by lazaroclapp »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #21
lazaroclapp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? How many would be able to name any other compatible chip brand that is conflict-free? Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is…

"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? " That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now. "Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized worl…

Well, after this article, I actually know there are electronic manufacturers that do check their supply chains for at least some types of abuses (namely Intel, and there is hope they are not the only ones). Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible.

My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.

[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#25

Post by [deleted] »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #21
lazaroclapp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? How many would be able to name any other compatible chip brand that is conflict-free? Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is…

"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? " That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now. "Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized worl…

[deleted]

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#26

Post by Cyph0n »

_yosefk wrote: post #22
Cyph0n wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that as well. However I think Israel is a different case.

"Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?) Also - why single out Intel?…

Well for me it goes all the way back to the forceful creation of the state of Israel, so you're talking to the wrong guy. However in modern times, I think the Gaza blockade and regular "wars" against it, the general mistreatment of Palestinians residing in Israel, the attempts at taking full control of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the general racism towards Arabs exhibited by Israeli leaders over the years are good enough reasons for me to put Israel in the spotlight compared to the USA or Russia.

But I still agree with your sentiments regarding the Gulf countries, the US, and Russia. I just believe that the shameful actions they are perpetrating are of a different nature. To that list I'd add Iran.

Disclaimer: I am an Arab Muslim.

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#27

Post by _yosefk »

Cyph0n wrote: post #26
_yosefk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?) Also - why single out Intel?…

Well for me it goes all the way back to the forceful creation of the state of Israel, so you're talking to the wrong guy. However in modern times, I think the Gaza blockade and regular "wars" against it, the general mistreatment of Palestinians residing in Israel, the attempts at taking full control of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the general racism towards Arabs exhibited by Israeli leaders over the years are good enough rea…

I figured you were an Arab Muslim. FYI, Israel has affirmative action where Arabs have a lower standard of admission into medical schools, for example; "racism", perhaps, but of a different sort (which is not to say that no Israelis exist who are racist, just that most aren't and that the state isn't, at least not in comparison to most others.) Where you heard about taking control of Al Aqsa I can only guess; of course 99.99% of Israelis don't want it nor did the state ever attempt it and we let the Waqf destroy Jewish and Muslim archeological artefacts alike as they please there. In general Israel is the hundredth probem on the list of any Arab state, and putting it closer to #1 by singling it out as the one state to be excluded from supply chains etc. is IMO unlikely to help with the first 99. But then again I'm more than a little biased...

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#28

Post by nickpsecurity »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #24
nickpsecurity wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? " That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now. "Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized worl…

Well, after this article, I actually know there are electronic manufacturers that do check their supply chains for at least some types of abuses (namely Intel, and there is hope they are not the only ones). Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefe…

"Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible."

Very reasonable position.

"My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]."

My experience in activism for civil rights, privacy, less corruption, and so on suggests people just don't care. It has to literally take almost no mental effort in America or most won't lift a finger. Unless it's one of those hot button issues. They'll at least talk a lot about it on Facebook while some take action. Apathy reigns supreme here, though, as we've seen time after time.

"(even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard)"

Haha. Low standards reign, too.

"involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries;"

TPP shows it going in the opposite direction with more concentration of power into elites' hands and reinforcement of prior stuff. Individual companies might do better, though, hopefully.

Re: In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

#29

Post by cma »

_yosefk wrote: post #7
Cyph0n wrote: post #5

Impossible unfortunately, as long as it's operating in Israel.

How about operating in the US, which on average kills 3-4 civilians per 1 enemy combatant (Israel kills 1) and starts wars for no apparent reason (what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 - that's more than 100,000 people killed, do you have an idea how much more that is compared to people killed by the IDF in the last decades? Why support "rebels" in Libya or Syria?)

In drone strikes, the US classifies fighting age males as combatants regardless of if they were armed, etc., "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Do they do that for all their statistics? Does Isreal do the same?
Post reply on HN