
Internal Email Shows GitHub Plans to Renew ICE Contract - elorant
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjw4az/internal-email-github-plans-to-renew-ice-immigration-customs-enforcement-contract
======
katet
Now, I actually find this a reasonable way to phrase their position:

> "We respect the fact that for those of us in the United States, we live in a
> democratic republic in which the public elects our officials and they
> decide, pursuant to the rule of law, the policies the government will
> pursue."

(They do go on to say they disapprove, in the interests of quoting fairly)

But to clarify, as a Brit, I feel this way about our own government and
Brexit. I disagree with brexit. I disagree with many of our government's
actions.

But.

They were voted in. People voted for Boris, they voted for Trump. Even now,
the Conservative party is _15 points ahead_ in some polls.

A small, unlikable part of me says we shall "reap what we sow", but at some
point, I'm going to have to reconcile the fact that a large segment of my
fellow citizens _like_ what they're sowing.

I don't really have a point to this. It's a shame that as a democracy we vote
in individuals who pursue policies that some of us personally find
reprehensible. However, I am getting a unique and unasked-for insight into how
it must have felt for those individuals with non-PC viewpoints for all those
years.

I guess that might be the point: this is the world we live in. Some people
find this OK, even preferable. We can't pretend otherwise any more. And that's
rather sobering.

~~~
geofft
I think that's also a reasonable and consistent position, but,

1) Did the same analysis apply to Dehomag? Was it okay to provide big data
analytics to power the Holocaust because the Holocaust was entirely legal
under domestic law too, because it was enacted by a party that gained power
democratically?

2) Why is GitHub donating over 100% of the revenue from this contract to
charity, instead of either canceling it or just accepting the revenue if they
are really okay with letting democracy do its thing?

3) How should GitHub management reconcile their views with those of employees
who disagree?

~~~
toasterlovin
ICE is not exterminating people in death camps. Working for ICE is not even
remotely comparable to supporting the Holocaust.

~~~
geofft
That is not the question I'm asking. The question is what ethical principles
distinguish these cases. How do we get a consistent decision process out of
this?

One consistent answer is, Dehomag did nothing wrong, if the legitimate German
government wants to commit genocide, that's a matter for perhaps international
law, and local companies should cooperate. (I think that's a horrid moral
position, but it is, at least, a well-defined one.)

One answer is simply that extermination camps are beyond the pale but all
other activities are fine. But then there's a weird case-by-case problem: if a
government treats slavery as legal, is it okay to power their slave-catching
program? If they run electroshock therapy for gay deconversion, is it okay to
support that infrastructure? Basically, when we say "Never again," is it
tautological—are we _defining_ the Holocaust as unique to ensure it never
again could happen?

Or is there a common ethical principle that Dehomag could have applied before
the Holocaust, when the programs were merely deportation/relocation and not
genocide, to say "Wait, we don't need to make money from this," and if so, is
it relevant today?

As I said, we can always reach the conclusion that ICE is not perpetuating
crimes against humanity, that their work is morally acceptable. But if we
believe that, why try to purchase morality offsets for it?

~~~
toasterlovin
I guess if you think people have an inalienable right to cross whatever
national border they want, then ICE is perpetuating crimes against humanity.
If you believe otherwise (which I think is the generally accepted reasonable
stance), then ICE is engaged in the difficult task of dealing with an influx
of illegal border crossers whose identity and nationality is not known, with a
subset of those illegal border crossers being children for whom it is not easy
or straightforward to determine their legal guardians. To most people, that is
not at all comparable to any of the abhorrent crimes you mentioned.

So why even mention them?

~~~
geofft
Because clearly GitHub thinks there's something wrong with what ICE is doing:
they're donating more than the revenue of the contract to anti-ICE
organizations, they're suing ICE, etc. Why should they do any of that, if ICE
is simply doing an important and difficult job?

Again, I am not asking about your opinion of ICE, or mine - I am asking about
ethical frameworks in general, and GitHub's opinion. What is the ethical
framework under which GitHub decided to offset the value of their contract?

~~~
toasterlovin
I get your point now. Thanks for clarifying.

------
thoughtstheseus
Hopefully Github is/continues to be a good, cost effective partner so more
money and time can be spent on areas of concern.

------
tomohawk
Vice - the mouth piece of cancel culture.

