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

31–40 of 96 posts

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

#31

Post by sroerick »

URSpider94 wrote: post #25
Karunamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is. The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's. Is the IBM of today the same…

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?

Or perhaps "All their cells have recycled over the last 7 years, so we can't prosecute."

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

#32

Post by foxhill »

sroerick wrote: post #23
foxhill wrote: post #17

i'm sorry but this is utterly ridiculous. IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..). it is a paper-clip maximiser, only instead of paperclips, it's cash. it does not have morals, it does not have a conscience, irrelevant of the fact that the people that make it up do. to blame a company for doing exactly what it was made to do is madness. if…

This is the most absurd, depressing thing that I've read in a while. The point of a corporation is not to have a legal person without morals. The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. The argument that we should not punish transgress…

i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans.

> The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals.

noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm whilst cycling to work, by a driver who was on their phone and caused them to run a red light?

> We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder.

oh, so we should abolish arms manufacturers?

> We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder.

you should tell this to BAE, or Lockheed Martin, or.. well, literally anyone on this list; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_contractors

> The argument that we should not punish transgressions just because some corporations are not punished for transgressions is cowardice in the highest degree.

absolutely not. there is no cowardice in that statement at all. it's a recognition of what companies in this world behave like. look at the actions of pretty much every big company. ask yourself - is your world view more accurate, or is mine?

again, i don't like it. it's sickening. but to hate these creations for doing exactly what they are made to do (again, make cash) is just.. senseless.

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

#33

Post by foxhill »

URSpider94 wrote: post #25
Karunamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is. The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's. Is the IBM of today the same…

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.

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

#34

Post by Karunamon »

URSpider94 wrote: post #25
Karunamon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not sure I agree with your overall thesis (a company is made up of people at the end of the day), I do feel there is a point to be made here: Is the IBM of today the IBM of 20-40 years ago? A person is not controlled by different beings at different times of their life, a corporation is. The legal brief, from a quick skim, appear to reference actions taken in the 70's and 80's. Is the IBM of today the same…

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 employees of the second company are no longer the original 10.

Is it as fair to prosecute the second one as the first one? I don't think so, because at that point you're assigning way too much value to the legal fiction of personhood. A company is made up of people, and I really don't see how there is any justice to be served in prosecuting people who didn't actually commit any crimes just because they work at a place with a certain name.

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

#35

Post by sroerick »

foxhill wrote: post #32
sroerick wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most absurd, depressing thing that I've read in a while. The point of a corporation is not to have a legal person without morals. The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. The argument that we should not punish transgress…

i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans. > The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm wh…

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 trying to return agency to the individual is foolish.

We have the power to say no. We have the ability to reshape the world whatever way we want it. Recognizing the evil that is conducted isn't cowardly. But refusing to do anything because "That's just the way things are" is.

EDIT: a don't

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

#36

Post by schoen »

foxhill wrote: post #32
sroerick wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most absurd, depressing thing that I've read in a while. The point of a corporation is not to have a legal person without morals. The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. We can expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. We should expect corporations not to facilitate mass murder. The argument that we should not punish transgress…

i don't like it. in fact i think it's the most abhorrent practise we do as humans. > The point of a corporation is to allocate resources more efficiently than could be done by legal individuals. noise. tell me - which is more "efficient" (i.e profitable), avoiding paying out insurance claims over insignificant inaccuracies, or caring about the family of 5 with a household income of $30,000, who's dad broke his arm wh…

If you suppose that companies only ever respond to financial incentives, then you can imagine changing that behavior by creating a financial disincentive for it, such as legal liability and payment of money damages. The companies don't have to have a sense of morality for this theory to work.

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

#37

Post by vinceguidry »

Karunamon wrote: post #13
vinceguidry wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One does not even need jurisdiction in order to try someone for war crimes. The Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission tried and convicted George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "crimes against peace" in 2011 under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Their sentence was to be entered into a register of war criminals to be published worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commiss...

The other guy said it more cynically, but how does this "trial" hold any weight? A backwater nation, trial held in absentia.. doesn't seem very legitimate, yknow?

The idea behind universal jurisdiction is that some crimes pose so much of a threat to the global order that no nation should give perpetrators safe harbor. The need for a way to try people for acts that would be considered horrific crimes elsewhere was quite pressing and universal jurisdiction was considered a way of dealing with it in a sort of vigilante style. The setting up of the International Criminal Court in 2002 alleviated much of the concern, though apparently not all of it.

Such questions as which crimes are sufficiently serious to warrant violation of sovereignty and what constitutes commission of them, the burden of proof required for conviction, due process rules such as whether in absentia trials are valid, and the like seem to get little consideration.

As a result, good-faith efforts like the KLWCC's to raise awareness wind up not being very convincing and are easy to dismiss as political posturing. The KLWCC was set up by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has long been a strident critic of US foreign policy, even going so far to suggest that the 9/11 terror attacks were staged by the US Government. So you can guess as to the impartiality of the judicial proceedings. There's an interesting analysis here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105...

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

#38

Post by zingar »

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).

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

#39

Post by ahelwer »

foxhill wrote: post #17

i'm sorry but this is utterly ridiculous. IBM is a company, an entity. it is made of people, but it is not a person (although americans might try to disagree..). it is a paper-clip maximiser, only instead of paperclips, it's cash. it does not have morals, it does not have a conscience, irrelevant of the fact that the people that make it up do. to blame a company for doing exactly what it was made to do is madness. if…

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

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

#40

Post by rfrank »

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…

> Cisco is probably feeling pretty nervous about this.

Or the folks at Palantir and comparable companies that help enable mass surveillance of populations.

Post reply on HN