
Developers join call for GitHub to cancel its ICE contract - jna_sh
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-12-04/github-open-source-developers-ice-contract
======
llamataboot
Whether you agree with it or not, it is /absolutely appropriate/ to pressure
corporations to not do business with other companies or organizations or
governments you find morally reprehensible.

If it was Boeing providing bombers to the PRC to use against civilian
populations, many people inside and outside of Boeing would be pressuring that
contract to be cancelled.

What exactly is the problem with applying pressure to get a corporation to
stop taking money from an organization/corporation/government/person that you
find immoral?

The company doesn't have to /care/. The company can go after their almighty
dollars for their shareholder if they want. And people can then choose to
target that company in different ways, or target other companies that do
business with that company, etc.

Boycotts, strikes, sabotage, sit-ins, work slowdowns, etc has all been used to
pressure companies to take actions because of political reasons.

~~~
zer00eyz
Github isn't a bomber and ICE isn't the PRC.

This is more like CAT refusing to sell road construction equipment to the
highway department in the PRC.

The only thing the cancelation of this contract will do is make those within
GitHub who are dissatisfied feel better that they have "done something". It
actually accomplishes very little, and I would argue nothing at all.

~~~
ksec
> It actually accomplishes very little, and I would argue nothing at all.

Yes, I am not from US so I have very little understanding of ICE other than a
few policy problems on the surface.

Since it would achieve very little, but wouldn't it be better to actually have
the contract and has all its profits funded to an organisation against ICE?

After all it is not that ICE in itself that is wrong, it is the policy maker
or the government. ( Forgive me if this is not correct )

Funding a political side that abolish ICE, wouldn't that be better?

~~~
zer00eyz
The people who are going to use this software likely had their jobs before
this administration and will likely have them after.

ICE was less of an issue under the previous administration.

All this energy and effort would be better spent on getting the current admin
out. It is how things work in our top down democracy. The problem is that the
votes of most Bay Area companies are going toward people who already align
with these goals.

TO that end the effort could be better spent on contributing TO organizations
that will help advocate for the changes they want. That might be money or time
or technical talent...

~~~
Goladus
_All this energy and effort would be better spent on getting the current admin
out._

For what it's worth, getting the Republicans out is almost certainly what this
stunt is about. Maybe not consciously, but the groundwork of propaganda that
led to villainization of ICE is certainly oriented around combating Trump and
his policies, not actually disbanding ICE. Something like this is a way to
help supporters feel engaged, passionate, and committed to the left's
immigration policies (or at least attacking the right's), so that they will be
more likely to vote and vote favorably in the next election.

Breaking up a contract like this won't directly accomplish any other realistic
political goals.

------
cronix
I'm sure they'll also be disheartened to know that their OS and other
softwares like SQL Server are being used by various militaries around the
world to kill people. And terrorists. How many terrorists are in MS databases?
How can they sleep at night by creating these nefarious tools?

How many other open source projects are used in ways the authors didn't
intend? Lots of military hardware running mysql and the like. "MySQL Cluster
is used by the US Navy to power the flight deck and operations management
system on US Navy aircraft carriers.[1] I wonder how many men, women and
children were killed by aircraft launched from those carriers powered by
mysql.

"The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) alone hosts 665 SQL Server databases
and, of course, NCMI is just part of the DOD ecosystem. As a public affairs
spokesperson for the Defense Information Systems Agency said, “[SQL Server]
supports hundreds of applications, including email, content management,
document management, enterprise search, business intelligence and workflow
management.”"[2]

[1]
[https://www.mysql.com/industry/government/](https://www.mysql.com/industry/government/)

[2] [https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2016/03/army-and-navy-
us...](https://fedtechmagazine.com/article/2016/03/army-and-navy-use-sql-
server-and-battlefield)

Grow up, kids. You can't control what others do with your tech. In fact, you
helped to create this world. Your works are being used for evil. And "this" is
the battle you choose to fight? You're SJW hypocrites.

~~~
dang
You have a good point but you've ruined it at the end with "Grow up kids" and
"SJW hypocrites". Would you please review the site guidelines and stick to the
rules when posting here? They explicitly ask you not to do things like that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
SolaceQuantum
What I find super interesting is that software development activism is not a
new phenomenon (Eg. FOSS, letsencrypt, dragonfly) but that the activism has
spread as the scope of technology has spread. Who you work for and where you
work is itself a political act, which reminds me of being a “scab” (aiding
anti-union efforts by accepting employment from a company who is trying to
continue functioning during an ongoing labor strike, thereby weakening the
union effort) which must’ve also been highly controversial at the time!

I don’t really know what will come from this but I’m super interested in
seeing what will happen.

~~~
Goladus
It's not that the activism has spread, it's that the activism has become
externally imposed on developers based on the politics of agitators, as
opposed to internal industry politics and competition, and the tactics used
have become much more hostile and aggressive.

Richard Stallman, for example, is extremely political. But any implied call
for boycots and other sorts of direct action has always been with clear and
specific reason that usually has to do with active moral violations by the
company itself and not guilt by association. He clearly articulates what he
considers to be moral violations on the part of companies such as Netflix and
LinkedIn, and none of those violations involve merely doing business with an
unpopular (among some) government agency. They almost entirely involve abuses
of the provider/consumer relationship.

Meanwhile, he loudly advocates engaging in positive support of causes he cares
about and rarely (if ever) advocates canceling an organization for mere
association.

The change is not scope. The change is in how easy it has become to quickly
organize a mob of people to lash out at a perceived enemy with the most
convenient economic sanctions available.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_” It 's not that the activism has spread, it's that the activism has become
externally imposed on developers based on the politics of agitators,”_

Are these developers external?

~~~
Goladus
The politics are external. The US-Mexico border situation is a controversial,
hot-button political issue that has nothing to do with software except insofar
as software is a generic essential element of operations at any businesses and
government agency

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Are the politics external when it’s coming from developers discussing things
the industry is doing?

~~~
username90
Lets say that the developers were calling for Github to stop any associations
with hospitals providing abortions, would you still say that it is fine for
companies to join in on politics? This is an extremely slippery slope, if you
want your democracy to function then you don't want this kind of activism to
exist.

It is warranted when the democracy is failing, but as far as I know USA is
still holding fair elections at regular intervals.

------
jakelazaroff
To anyone dissatisfied with the ethical lapses of GitHub and GitLab, check out
sourcehut [1]. It's an independent Git/Mercurial host (plus builds, issue
tracking and a bunch of other features) made by Drew DeVault (creator of
sway). Their business model is "customers first, investors never" [2]

(I have no affiliation — I was just impressed by it when I moved a couple
repos over after getting frustrated with GitHub and GitLab.)

[1] [https://sourcehut.org](https://sourcehut.org)

[2] [https://sourcehut.org/blog/2019-10-23-srht-puts-users-
first/](https://sourcehut.org/blog/2019-10-23-srht-puts-users-first/)

------
shiohime
Wow, some open source developers trying to flex on GH for not appealing to
their woke politics that get amplified by their own media bubbles. This kind
of behavior really is becoming incredibly tiresome. I look forward to GH not
caring, and seeing these devs continue to use their platform despite the
hollow threats of possibly pulling their repos, which they clearly won't go
through the trouble of doing. Even if they follow through with it nothing of
value is lost.

------
romaaeterna
The LA Times has a (pay)-wall that keeps me from illegally reading their
content, so I don't know what this article says.

But I personally think that uncontrolled migration flows lead to horrific
human trafficking problems. The rapes and murders that get committed along
this flow because we don't control our border as well as we did 20 years ago
are unconscionable.

Yes, the next generation will vote Democrat, due to America's birthright
citizen situation. But is that really worth the cost?

Github should help ICE do the best job that it can.

~~~
drewbug01
If ICE simply did their job in a humane but effective fashion, I think
conversation around the agency would be far different.

However, the agency has - in the course of their duties - committed horrible
acts that fly in the face of what Americans claim to value. They continue to
do so, and the "Dear Github" letter linked in the article outlines them:
[https://github.com/drop-ice/dear-github-2.0/](https://github.com/drop-
ice/dear-github-2.0/)

The problem isn't simply that they're enforcing immigration law. It's _how_
they're doing it.

~~~
downerending
Re "horrible acts", this doesn't sound likely, considering the general lack of
documentation or bipartisan outrage.

Do you have a preferred link with a stolid, well-documented account of the
worst abuses?

~~~
openasocket
This biggest one for me is this: [https://www.aclu.org/cases/damus-v-
mcaleenan](https://www.aclu.org/cases/damus-v-mcaleenan) . ICE's position is
that they should be able to detain all people who are legally petitioning for
asylum without any bail hearings.

~~~
culot
So if you don't detain them you do what then? Let them roam free? Considering
the amount of fraud related to asylum claims, with entire legal entities
dedicated to coaching aliens to provide fake testimony, letting them roam free
is a definite risk for citizens. Especially as they are coming from one of the
most violent warlord-controlled warzones in the hemisphere.

~~~
zo1
This whole problem could be precluded by doing a few simple steps:

1\. Build a wall to control flow.

2\. Allow _anyone_ to come to the border and seek asylum.

3\. Have enough humane beds/housing to store them _at the border_ while their
application is processed.

4\. Hire enough officials and judges to process all claims timeously.

5\. Fingerprint, photograph and document anyone that applies.

6\. Turn away all individuals that re-apply _without new evidence_ and attempt
to clog the system by creating too much load.

Oh and 7: If they come as a family, let them stay together under monitoring.

And corollary to 7 would be 8: Do DNA tests on all family groups to affirm
family status to prevent trafficking

At this point, if no hiccups arise, the wall is only necessary for those that
wish to bypass a well-functioning system designed to treat people humanely and
allow them to get refuge if they are being persecuted.

Edit: fixed formatting.

------
sremani
>> signed by 44 developers at the time of publication

This detail is in the article, but the headline feels like embellishment by
omission.

------
paulintrognon
I have trouble understanding from this article what the problem is with ICE
(I'm from outside the US). The developpers disagree with the whole purpose of
ICE, because they trakc refugees, so they don't want github to have anything
to do with them, is that correct?

~~~
jakelazaroff
"Track refugees" is an extremely charitable summary. I'd recommend reading the
open letter [1] on GitHub and following some of the links. A short excerpt
(with lots of links in the letter):

 _> ICE conducts random violent raids throughout the United States, invades
communities and workplaces with military equipment, detains busses and trains,
and arrests people solely on the basis of their perceived nationality, skin
color, or native language. Their agents lurk outside of schools in order to
abduct the children of immigrants and force their families to surrender
themselves into custody. ICE imprisons people in deplorable and unsanitary
conditions and denies them medical care._

[1] [https://github.com/drop-ice/dear-github-2.0](https://github.com/drop-
ice/dear-github-2.0)

~~~
netule
I think you forgot to include the actual link to the GitHub repo:
[https://github.com/drop-ice/dear-github-2.0](https://github.com/drop-
ice/dear-github-2.0)

~~~
jakelazaroff
Whoops, yes I did. Updated! Thanks.

------
calvinbhai
If the report is to be believed, why do these developers think so high and
mighty about themselves?

If they are so concerned, team up, pool money and buy enough MS stocks (like
an activist investor) and direct Microsoft's actions.

Until then, Microsoft and Satya Nadella must do what is best for their stock
holders not to activists of any kind.

If any of the devs / employees are not happy with the direction MS is heading,
leave the employer. If enough devs leave, MS may tweak it's approach.

~~~
Brain_Thief
Ah, the ancient and exhausted "if you don't like it then leave" argument has
finally made its appearance. How could none of us have realized that the
obvious solution to disagreeing with a policy in our organization / community
/ government is to just silently give up and leave? Obviously a peaceful
letter of dissent would be completely outside the bounds of rational behavior!

And besides, if a concerned group REALLY wanted to change things and not just
whine they would simply raise billions of dollars to accrue a significant
block of voting shares in one of the world's largest corporations to change
policy via board action!

------
rocky1138
> [GitHub] plays an increasingly indispensable role in projects that require
> collaborating around code.

This is just not true and I warn everyone from believing this is the case.
GitHub is based on git which can be hosted anywhere and by anyone. The
features which GitHub provide above and beyond git can be replicated with some
work (either by switching to Gitlab, which you can host yourself, or using one
of the other alternatives like Gitea) if you want to.

Is GitHub useful? Yeah! Is it indispensable? No!

------
shrewduser
I can't help but find this kind of thing horribly undemocratic, The tyranny of
a loud few, Take your arguments to the people and contact your representative.
This is just using the media to short circuit the democratic process and i
think it hurts business and the economy.

We live in a system of laws and it has created a lot of certainty for actors
within the system.

~~~
openasocket
Calling for a boycott is undemocratic? It's a pretty standard form of protest,
dating back centuries.

~~~
subjectsigma
Interpreting the GP comment charitably: let's say every single GitHub employee
opposed ICE (which isn't true, but just pretend) and decided to drop the
contract. I have no idea how much this would impact ICE but in our
hypothetical scenario let's say a lot. This means an incredibly small
percentage of the total population gets to decide whether a legal govt agency
functions correctly for the next few months or so, even if the entire rest of
the country relies on and supported the agency.

I personally believe that GitHub can do whatever they feel is right because
they're a private company, but if this were the case, isn't that pretty
undemocratic?

~~~
drewbug01
Your hypothetical situation implies that software produced by GitHub is vital
to the operating of this agency, and that there is no other way to do it. If
you accept that, your argument looks somewhat compelling.

But I don't think that's a claim we should accept - frankly, there are
_plenty_ of alternatives to GitHub. Moreover, there are plenty of alternatives
to _git_ itself. They are viable and in-use today - git has not always existed
and will not always be the tool of choice. And continuing further down the
stack... people wrote software even before version control existed as we know
it today. You do not need version control to write software (although, I'm
sure we both agree it's a good idea).

Even if we accept that ICE _needs_ software to do its job - which I don't
personally think is true, but neither of us can really claim to know - it's
categorically untrue that they need _GitHub_ specifically. They have a myriad
of ways they could accomplish their goals without GitHub.

But there's another element of your argument we should discuss, and it's one
I've heard from CEOs recently - that it's somehow "undemocratic" for a company
to deny software to the government, because it privileges the voices of a
minority of people.

That argument makes very little sense to me. It first conflates "democracy"
with a company declining to do business with the government. Democracy is a
form of government - the actions of businesses are not and cannot be
"undemocratic" \- they aren't the government.

Setting aside rhetorical annoyances, though - the claim you're making is that
a company's actions are depriving the majority electorate of what they voted
for, and that they voted for ICE in its current form. I don't think the
majority of the country voted on it, and even if we assume they did indirectly
via the presidential election ... it's not a contested fact that the current
president _lost_ the popular vote. We can't even say a "majority" of people
support this without contorting ourselves, or without redefining "majority" to
mean "the majority of electoral college votes"... and we get into seriously
absurd territory there.

Yet we can even dig deeper: if we accept that it's somehow "undemocratic" for
a company to deny services to the government - we must also accept the
counter-claim that all companies must provide services to the government upon
request. They're two sides of the same coin - if you cannot refuse, then you
must. That's a scary thing, in my mind - and I do not want to live in a
country where a company cannot legally refuse to do business with the
government. Current legal theory in the US doesn't support that, and I hope it
doesn't change.

And finally - even if we accept all of the claims you make (the few explicit
ones made, and the many implicit ones that must be made to support the
explicit claims): why on earth couldn't the government write the software
itself? The federal government employs hundreds of software developers. More
than GitHub! If GitHub's software is required, and the agency cannot function
without it, and there is no alternative available to the government in the
market - what stops them from writing the software themselves?

------
hexsprite
44 Developers. This does not represent the majority.

~~~
commandlinefan
They certainly don't represent me. Governments need to function, and they need
software to do it.

------
foobarandgrill
I call for them to not do that. So Developer calls for GitHub to ignore the
SJWs.

~~~
whiddershins
I join with you

~~~
vnchr
Another 43 developers and that’s more than the article says are calling to
cancel

------
ummonk
Note that pretty much everything terrible (e.g. family separations,
warrantless searches) is done by DHS and its other constituents like CBP, not
ICE specifically.

------
bfung
A nuance here to tease out is that there are alternatives to github with low
barriers of entry, unlike data analytic capabilities like google or FB.

At worst, ICE can mail around zip archives as source control like the old
days. It doesn’t give them new capabilities like some signal processing
service.

Basically, the devs here don’t have a compelling case - quit and start their
own scm hub and pick their own customers. If they can achieve a business as
such, then props.

~~~
helen___keller
I feel like it may be the other way around?

If GitHub was the exclusive provider of some important service - like a
utility - I would feel strongly that they should continue to offer the service
despite political differences (even if not strictly classified as a utility).

On the other hand, since there are plenty of alternatives, there's no huge &
lasting damage that could result from Github choosing not to have a particular
customer - and as such they should have more freedom to deny any particular
customer. As such, I think it's should be fine, ethically speaking, to
discontinue a professional relationship with ICE should Github management
decide that continuing a relationship with ICE is counter to their values or
something, in which case the devs do have a case they can try to make (that
ICE is counter to their values).

------
sdinsn
How can I join the call for GitHub to _not_ cancel its ICE contract? I'm happy
that GitHub works with our government

------
odiroot
What a silly hill to die on. What's wrong with Github doing work for ICE?

------
major505
Is bullshit if Microsoft accepts this, but there`s always alternatives to
github. So, in the end nothing of value is gonna be lost.

~~~
astrodust
ICE deserves to use the shittiest possible software, not the best.

~~~
commandlinefan
Even if I agreed with you, wouldn't that mean that the immigrants would be
treated even worse than you claim they're being treated now?

~~~
astrodust
They separated thousands of families with zero plan for tracking them.

Tell me how it could be worse because of _software_.

~~~
ben_w

       if rejectApplication = true { …
    

in C — and yes, the single equals is deliberate.

~~~
saagarjha
You're missing a set of parentheses.

~~~
ben_w
Ooops. Too much swift.

------
andonisus
Github provides software lifecycle management services. It is apolitical. I do
not believe we should be trying to police the providers of apolitical
software.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
GitHub gave discounted rates to ICE. That's not an apolitical move.

~~~
dorkinspace
What criteria does GitHub use to decide who gets discounted rates? Do
companies over X emplopyees get a discount? Do Government agencies get a
discount by default?

I don't think it is fair to make a judgement that this is a politically
charged action rather than just business as usual.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_” What criteria does GitHub use to decide who gets discounted rates?”_

The decision to continue to service specific entities is a political move,
same as selling weapons to Saudi Arabia or Iran, or the stance the NBA has
taken with China regarding its pro-HK player. It’s why finance institutions
have some amount of checking that they’re not being used to help wire funds to
terrorist groups.

~~~
dorkinspace
In my opinion, an American company selling to an American government agency is
wildly different than an American company selling to a foreign government.

------
LiNeXT
Because being anti-ICE is the current "woke" Silicon Valley hive mind stance
to have.

~~~
thebokehwokeh2
Seeing that you use "woke" as a slur, I take it you are pro-ICE?

~~~
LiNeXT
Yes. Immigration enforcement is a legitimate government function.

~~~
cyphar
But imprisoning people for extended periods of time in unsanitary conditions,
without a fair trial[1] and entrapping legally-resident students into
violating their visa conditions by setting up a fake university[2] is not a
legitimate nor ethical method of immigration enforcement. Being against ICE
and their actions is not the same as being against the concept of immigration
enforcement.

[1]: The tribunal hearings are effectively a kangaroo court -- there are cases
of pre-teen children being asked to make a legal defense without an attorney
or their parents.

[2]:
[https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/11/27/ic...](https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/11/27/ice-
arrested-250-foreign-students-fake-university-metro-detroit/4277686002/)

~~~
BeetleB
Entrapment is usually a horrible thing to do, but it is unfortunately standard
practice with local police as well as the FBI. Would you agree that those
agencies should not have technical services provided to them?

~~~
iron0013
If they are operating illegally (as entrapment is illegal), then the answer is
obviously yes!

~~~
BeetleB
Entrapment as defined by the law is illegal. However, what a lot of these
agencies do is not strictly entrapment as defined by the law, and as such is
very legal (unfortunately). I'm betting the majority of terrorism cases in the
US since 9/11 involved what looks like entrapment, and I believe pretty much
all of them have held up in court.

So my question remains. When all of these agencies are practising _legal_
entrapment, would you agree never to provide services to them?

------
jklfuoiuew
Notable signers:

David Heinemeier Hansson, @dhh (Ruby on Rails)

Tatiana Mac, @TatianaMac (Self-Defined Dictionary)

------
LiNeXT
RMS has the answer: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any
purpose (freedom 0)."

------
microcolonel
If ICE goes off and deploys their own on-prem GitLab, or goes to sourcehut or
something, what moral difference does it make?

~~~
minimuffins
It makes some small difference in ICE's reputation, maybe a dent in public
opinion.

If ICE are treated as a pariah by mainstream commercial institutions it may
counteract the "normalization" of what they do.

Github is large and pretty well known. Their choice, either way, will set an
example.

~~~
_-david-_
It would put more of a dent in Github's reputation.

Why would you go with a company that may pull your contract when you haven't
changed what you do in 20 years? Github signed the contact knowing what ICE
does and didn't care years ago. Now its suddenly an issue.

~~~
minimuffins
ICE has changed what it does in the last 20 years as others have pointed out.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21706133](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21706133)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21704192](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21704192)

I doubt anyone really thinks ICE in 2003 is actually the same as ICE in 2019.
Not anyone who's paying any attention.

~~~
_-david-_
I was not talking about specific cases / abuses. I was talking about policy.

ICE patrolled the border. ICE stopped people illegally crossing the border.
ICE jailed people suspected of crossing the border. ICE separated children.
Nothing has changed in that regards.

The other issue is that the posts don't say if things are actually getting
better. For example the first claim is "The Intercept published a report by
the DHS Office of Inspector General revealing that 1,224 sexual abuse
complaints while in immigration custody were filed between January 2010 and
June 2017." We need to see the rates before 2010 or we need to see the rate
for each year. Based on what that person posted we cannot draw any conclusions
if things are actually improving or not. If things are improving then people
shouldn't really be boycotting.

------
no_opinions
What is the actual complaint they have about ICE?

Is it the immigration policy, the immigration court system? individual
agents/employees?

Doesn't every country have a counterpart to ICE that handles immigration
rules?

Are there any countries that allow people to come and go without identifying
themselves and having permission?

How is requiring identification and a visa (authorization) human rights abuse?
If that's the standard for human rights abuse, then how can we
own/lease/operate a car, have a bank account, rent an apartment, have an email
account, access the internet, and so on?

Isn't identification and permission justified merely for the sake of
bureaucracy? How else would you be able to keep an email inbox and go back to
it without someone saying its you, and/or the mail being lost?

Maybe immigration policies could be improved, what specifically is it that
could be done better?

~~~
cmcaine
The letter is here if you'd like to read it: [https://github.com/drop-
ice/dear-github-2.0](https://github.com/drop-ice/dear-github-2.0)

