
In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free - Hjugo
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3055066/change-generation/in-2016-intels-entire-supply-chain-will-be-conflict-free
======
konne88
I'd take a cheaper processor over a "conflict free" one every day.

~~~
jonesb6
I wonder how many of the people who "downvoted" this comment used a device
with an Intel chip.

In reality many of us only care because it is fashionable to do so.

~~~
nickpsecurity
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. Better admit they're willing to let some kids and people
suffer to advance their agenda. I will. I don't like it but the situation is
complex and warrants it.

Suddenly, the good and bad people in such a situation ain't so black and
white. Rarely is but I think many activists think it is for them. They just
ignore the underlying realities except for their causes.

~~~
lazaroclapp
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 not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than
pay a bit more for my processor". Maybe that's the "price signal" you send,
but that doesn't imply that it is your conscious ethical decision. You may be
more than willing to support laws that forbid conflict chips from being sold
in your country, even if those laws cause a surge in computing equipment
prices.

Maybe go one step less than that and sell conflict chips like we sell
cigarettes: with a huge picture of some kid with their leg blown up in the
box. If people still buy them then (despite conflict-free alternatives
existing), then you can make the argument that they are implicitly (but
consciously) deciding cheap chips matter more than dying people.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"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.

~~~
lazaroclapp
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).

~~~
nickpsecurity
"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.

------
tim333
Trouble is most of the products are fungible. You buy the stuff from a
reputable mine and the other buyers will just buy the same stuff from the
conflict zone. Its a way to feel better but the practical way to stop the
thugs with guns stealing resources in the conflict zones is to do it more
directly.

------
numair
Although it's clear that Intel is addressing the very valid concerns people
have always had about coltan, there are a lot of good comments in this thread
about the vagueness of "conflict free." Perhaps a more interesting and useful
metric would be a "living wage supply chain," where everyone involved has been
paid enough money to lead at least a lower-middle-class lifestyle. I don't
have any clue how this would work, but hey -- this is an online comment, not
an economics paper!

Of course you'd have companies claiming that $1/day is middle class in certain
countries, etc, so maybe you'd have to set some sort of standardized chart
based on CPI, but y'all get what I'm saying here. I think it would be more
informative than "conflict-free", especially since it gets to the root of
ensuring a lack of slave-labor-like conditions for workers. Most of the
fashion industry, for example, would never manage to hold itself to such a
standard. "Made in Italy" is a lot more expensive when you can't pay table
scraps to your Chinese "guest workers"...

------
Cyph0n
Impossible unfortunately, as long as it's operating in Israel.

~~~
_yosefk
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?)

~~~
outside1234
The two of you have proven why this is basically meaningless.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Better response than mine haha.

------
crishoj
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/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2015/nov/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-right-saudi-arabia-more-
focused-con/)

~~~
wyager
Everything upsets someone.

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

~~~
azinman2
Exactly. Says nothing about the toxicity to get the materials out, the wages
paid, whether there were bribes or not, etc etc.

But hey, better than nothing.

