

Are Apple and Other U.S. Companies Responsible For Foxconn’s Crimes? - alexandros
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/18/foxconn-apple-crime-journalist-attack/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

======
pvg
The Techcrunch article describes this as if it happened in downtown Big City,
USA. Some guards gave a journalist a hard time for a bit and he easily walked
away from the incident, these are the crimes Apple and other US companies are
responsible for?

We're talking about a country that runs the largest internet censoring project
on the planet, imprisons thousands of political and religious dissenters, now
they have to answer for the unspeakable crime of kicking a Reuters reporter in
the shin. Sense of perspective is arguably not what techcrunch is about but
come on.

~~~
maxklein
I don't think Chairman Hu sent a note to the company guard to kick a reporter
in the leg. This was a guard who was just trying to keep his job, and did
something in the moment. It's not a big chinese conspiracy against shins.

~~~
pvg
I don't think I said or even implied any of these things.

~~~
pistoriusp
I don't think he was arguing against you? I believe he was agreeing with you
and adding fuel to your fire.

------
maxklein
First of all, Foxconn is taiwanese company, it's not run by the china that the
U.S seems to be on a big PR push against, it's run by the _other_ china.

Secondly, this factory is in the most competitive and cutthroat area of
mainland china, and it's producing the most secretive goods that can be
produced. If the livelyhood of your entire business depends on the secrecy
required (for marketing purposes) by companies from the UNITED STATES, then I
think it is reasonable that you will take steps to stop people from standing
outside and photographing into your company.

And they did not try to execute the man or put him on a prison in an island
for 5 years without trial, they just took steps to make sure he did not have
pictures that would compromise their factory.

Tens of thousands of people owe their daily bread to the secrecy. In this
idealistic world view promoted by the article, kicking a man in the leg is a
worse crime than letting 10 thousand people lose their job.

In the U.S, guards routinely shoot 10.000 volts of current into people.
Kicking someone on the leg is nothing compared to that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If the livelyhood of your entire business depends on the secrecy required
(for marketing purposes) by companies from the UNITED STATES, then I think it
is reasonable that you will take steps to stop people from standing outside
and photographing into your company._

Indeed. I'd build opaque fences and windowless buildings. I might also situate
my factory out of sight from the main road. I would not, however, commit
assault.

 _In the U.S, guards routinely shoot 10.000 volts of current into people._

And when they do, we criticize them for it rather than make excuses for their
bad acts. (Note that the top story on HN right now is criticism of the US
government for spying.)

[edit: really curious why I'm being downmodded for suggesting I would not
commit assault.]

~~~
shpxnvz
From a semi-recent example, we actually seem to react by making it an internet
meme and national joke, and printing up snarky t-shirts.

ex. <http://www.bustedtees.com/donttasemebro>

------
eli
It's almost as if these Chinese security guards think the First Amendment
doesn't apply to them!

~~~
jrockway
It's almost as if paying someone to commit a crime on your behalf is a crime
itself! (Apple can't kick reporters in the shins, but apparently they are just
fine paying Foxconn to do it.)

------
pistoriusp
"Because next time someone (else) may end up dead after an interaction with
Foxconn."

Maybe? Maybe not? Why speculate. Let's just decide that they are guilty now.

And, just to make another point, 1000's of people commit suicide every year -
Should we blame their employers as well? It's all a bit too circumstantial for
me.

~~~
CodeMage
They _are_ guilty, at least when it comes to assaulting that journalist. And
there's the fact that the police said that Foxconn has "special status". The
rest might be speculation, but those two things hold. The question is: should
their American customers (Apple and the rest) stop dealing with them over it?

~~~
maxklein
Police in china are there to keep the peace. Not to uphold rights.

The U.S mentality is one of justice - if someone slaps my child, I have to
have justice, imprison them, take them to court, etc. The U.S police will also
encourage you to do so.

The chinese mentality is to try to mediate so that there will be peace and
harmony. The cops will try to make you guys agree with each other, not force
you to fight each other even more.

~~~
CodeMage
That's an interesting mentality, but I think it tries to paint a nice picture
of a not-so-nice reality.

The flaw in your argument is your assumption that justice is about forcing
people to fight each other even more. Ideally, justice should be about more
than mere retribution. In practice, justice often falls short of that ideal.

I find it difficult to imagine that there can be harmony in a society where
injustice is left alone so as to avoid disturbing the peace. Sooner or later,
injustice breeds violence, out of bitterness and resentment.

------
j_baker
If there are sweatshop-like conditions as the article implies there might be,
yes Foxconn's clients deserve some kind of action (most likely a boycott).

However, should they be held responsible for guards assaulting a reporter who
was likely trying to get information he shouldn't have been? I don't think so.
It would be _very_ hard to find a contractor if you were held responsible for
every crime they committed.

I suppose it would be reasonable to hold Apple responsible somehow if you
could prove they ordered something like this, but I don't think that would be
likely (occam's razor and all).

~~~
davidw
> trying to get information he shouldn't have been

Reporters' jobs are to get information and disseminate it. He was doing his
job, and not doing anything illegal or even unethical, it seems to me.

~~~
j_baker
We're talking about a _potential_ new Apple product here, not Watergate. Were
the guards justified in assaulting the reporter? Absolutely not. Did the
reporter have reason to suspect that the guards might frown on that kind of
behavior? Yes.

My point isn't to say that the reporter was necessarily doing anything wrong
or the guards were correct. My point is that this is hardly an international
incident that has much implication for Apple or any of the other named
corporations.

------
kerringtonx
This is wrong. I don't think their actions are justifiable in any way, but
that's my justice-prevails-US-POV. But this line from an officer is crazy:
“But this is Foxconn and they have a special status here. Please understand.”
Just represents their altered state of operations over there. _shrugs_ I'm
just happy the reporter didn't suffer major injuries.

