Github emphasized that they don't know what is being done with the on-premises, firewalled software they sold to ICE. What about the guy delivering pizza to ICE headquarters -- is he cancelled too? He doesn't know if the "must separate the children at the border" team or the "let's arrest the leaders of this slave trafficking ring" is eating the pizza.
At least to me, some of the other protests in regards to ICE have been even more obviously incoherent, like the demand for Wayfair to stop selling clean beds for detained people to sleep in.
H.R.4368 - Justice in Forensic Algorithms Act of 2019
To prohibit the use of trade secrets privileges to prevent defense access to evidence in criminal proceedings, provide for the establishment of Computational Forensic Algorithm Standards, and for other purposes.
Why does there have to be a hard-and-fast trigger? Take it on a case by case basis, motivated by the values of the people who care.
This technocratic reflex where everything in society must be dehumanized and automated (how come CFOs haven't been yet?) or otherwise algorithmatized is very "what a lazy person thinks a smart person is like."
The pizza guy is not going to get...cancelled (are you trying to make the term meaningless?), but any pizza place that advertises that they don't serve racist jackboots will get my phone call and dollars.
Do you think the government shouldn't have to think about and account for the optics and politics of their needs? Declining to supply concentration camps is an honorable reduction in one's own financial situation as a private citizen, which may not be an intelligible ethic for you and thus appear "incoherent," but at the end of the day it's perfectly reasonable to tell ICE to suck it and deal with the problems they themselves created for themselves. It's not the nation's job nor responsibility to help them steal and kill children, among other things.
And they can write their own software, too. That's what taxes are for, when they are allowed to exist.
No, it's a repulsive hypocritical corporate PR that tries to justify putting profits over people suffering.
This one story alone is chilling:
"Diabetic Man Dies After Being Deported To Iraq: ACLU
Jimmy Aldaoud reportedly came to the U.S. as a baby and didn’t speak Arabic. He died after he was unable to get insulin, his family says."
They're really not. It is possible to not like (some of) what ICE does and also recognize that they are not rounding up a lawless autocrat's political enemies for torture, indefinite imprisonment and execution.
The immigration police are filled with racists, killers, and white nationalists. This CBP agent was literally a serial killer:
No one in Nazi Germany could vote to rein in the Gestapo, and the Gestapo did not follow anything resembling fairly applied laws. ICE targets a well-defined legal category of people and follows well-defined legal processes. The Gestapo could arrest almost anyone for any reason and mistreat them however it pleased with impunity. That is obviously untrue of ICE, which cannot tomorrow kidnap Joe Biden.
But you must acknowledge that there are many who do not fundamentally disagree with the underlying laws, at least not to a magnitude such that they believe it is worth protesting. And as such, we have officers who enforce those laws, who have not (at this time) quit their roles.
Therefore, to the extent that one believes this form of government with checks and balances yields more humane results (on average, over time) than one which merges legislative/judiciary/executive power, and to the extent that you acknowledge legitimate moral opinions exist that are different from your own, it definitely can be argued that it's moral to continue enforcing laws you do not personally agree with -- up to a point.
The question is, what is the breaking point where a law enforcement officer protests against a horrible law by refusing to enforce it, quits, or otherwise?
Take almost any politically divisive issue, and you will find there's not a very easy answer here -- especially because each person will have a slightly different moral opinion on the matter.
No, I think changing license terms to "won't be used by a company which separates families or violates international human rights laws," and not renewing the contract is fine enough.
> Github emphasized that they don't know what is being done with the on-premises, firewalled software they sold to ICE.
You don't have to know what ICE is doing with your software to know what they're doing more generally.
> What about the guy delivering pizza to ICE headquarters -- is he cancelled too? He doesn't know if the "must separate the children at the border" team or the "let's arrest the leaders of this slave trafficking ring" is eating the pizza.
"Cancelling" isn't a real thing, not distinct from "public opinion," anyway. If people want to direct ire to pizza delivery employees they can, but they're not, so I don't know why you're making this comparison.
> At least to me, some of the other protests in regards to ICE have been even more obviously incoherent, like the demand for Wayfair to stop selling clean beds for detained people to sleep in.
Any endeavor with lots of actors won't be entirely coherent, unified, or consistent. Some people think that Wayfair making profits on selling beds for prisons isn't some great altruism on Wayfair's part, and ICE would have a harder time building prisons if there weren't so many people eager to supply them; I don't know how much I'm on board with that as an effective protest, but I can at least understand it.
Good thing for ICE they can still use all FOSS.
> You don't have to know what ICE is doing with your software to know what they're doing more generally.
Yes, they're enforcing the laws currently on the books.
Those laws were created by our elected officials. The elected officials were selected by us, the people. In fact, if we want those laws changed we can elect new officials or compel our existing ones to make the changes we'd like to see.
There's plenty of people that disagree with our current immigration laws, our drug laws, our tax laws, our gun laws, our marriage laws, our healthcare laws, and just about any other part of our system. But if we as a society do not have a unified acceptance for the rule of law then things get ugly. Fast.
I'm convinced this whole "shaming" and "canceling" thing has become the public action method of choice not because the ideas being proposed are popular (they're not), but because they see bullying corporations and their potential customers as easier than trying to convince the public on the inherent value of their ideas. They're just loud voices in for another rude awakening after the public makes their picks next year behind the ballot curtain.
So, Child Protective Services shouldn't be allowed to license GitHub either?
Edit: I know this isn't what you meant. But such obvious clarity issues are a sign that there are many more subtle issues that limit articulation of your position and prevent engaging in a productive conversation over the internet.
Let's say github's goal was to define license terms such that ICE is banned, but not other legitimate companies that do a lot of good for the world.
It would be great if solving this was as easy as saying "you can only use this if you never aim to separate children from their families", but it's not, because such a term would also require you to boycott Child Protective Services -- which can and does save children victims from horribly abusive parents and other terrible circumstances.
I've personally known people who were repeatedly raped by a family member throughout their early childhood. This is incredibly, devastatingly evil. It DOES happen, and if after acknowledging this, you seriously think there is still NO circumstance in which a child should be separated from their family -- then you are a horrible human being. But I don't think any of the downvoters think this, so I am genuinely curious: Why do you really think such a simple, un-nuanced license term would work without harmful side-effects?
Note: You can't just say "we'll enforce the license terms subjectively". Selective enforcement defeats the whole point of adding it into your terms of service or licensing terms -- because then, you might as well just go back to ad-hoc boycotting as per the personal ethics of your corporation's senior leadership. Aside from that, you do have to precisely define what you mean -- precisely which scenarios are or are not tolerable to you, etc.
In fact, the reason ICE separates adults from children in the first place is to fight human trafficking and child abuse: they used to keep the children with their accompanying adults (who aren’t guaranteed to be their parents, which seems to be overlooked in these arguments), but they found that the children were being assaulted by the primary adult population, so they started creating child-only facilities to combat this.
It's a bit David Brent/Michael Scott, probably quite well meaning but a bit off.
I agree I hate it, but there are some companies that do it more jokingly than others.
Personally I avoid companies that talk about "culture" ad nauseam.
I love working with other people, but NOT under those circumstances!
But regardless, ICE was looking to renew a contract so there was an agreement already in place and I can virtually guarantee the terms include some flavor of mutual non-disclosure.
Obama did the same crap, and here a CEO is blaming the current admin.
If this CEO had a clue about what is going on, he would realize that the PARENTS are in the wrong by bringing their kids. Thus, because of child predators they have to be separated. Obama even said so.
It is not "the same crap" because you have decided that it is all on a spectrum of "bad things that happen to people I don't care about." That's not how reality works.
Given the level of complexity of the issue, I'd say it's at least... not a bad attempt at walking a very narrow line here.
Its not about ICE with GitHub, what they are doing is worth mulitple millions in future earnings. So good move CEO - the question is how much the WOKE nation is going to eat this PR CAKE.
Corporations care about being consistent with the status quo. Nothing more, nothing less. Now get these PR clowns out of my pride marches.
Which, indirectly, do involve money, but that's true of everything.
Why is it important for you to dismiss changes that the current administration explicitly campaigned to enact, and that is clearly manifest? Does it make you feel better about not trying to change anything for the better?
Should I go on?
They actually tried to buy extra beds and one of the “do no business with ICE” companies refused to sell to them, so they ended up with fewer beds: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/26/wayfair-draws-backlash-calls...
I didn't say not providing bedding, I said removing existing bedding. Because ICE believes in collective punishment of children, and considers removing bedding to be acceptable. [1,2]
Here's a question for pro-ICE people: if another country started rounding up and separating American families, then lost track of the children, would you support those actions as well? Or does it only apply to people with the wrong skin color?
We agree that you don't approve of ~silly hyperbole~ other people having convictions, but you made it very clear that you _do_ approve of family separations, but don't think that anybody should be criticized for it if other bad things ever happened before.
As for "[my] handlers telling [me] it was time to make noise," who is really bringing the silly hyperbole? What is even the conspiracy here? Are we all in the back pocket of big-Gitlab or something?
If you had convictions, you'd have had them when the last administration was doing this. You didn't then, you don't now.
BTW, the "specific examples" you talk about are not accurate. You're quoting talking points. People who cross the border illegally and then pretend to be "asylum seekers" when they get caught are not "legal asylum seekers", they have committed a crime. Nobody is arresting people who legally present to a border crossing and request asylum, because they haven't committed a crime to be arrested for.
a. I don't justify this
b. I know you didn't care about government-sponsored child abuse before Trump, because your protest (to the thing that had yet to happen) wasn't in my news feed
c. btw, here are my justifications for why they had to do the child abuse
The Trump administration didn't change anything. News agencies have used footage showing the Obama administration doing what you call "child abuse" and pretending it was the Trump administration.
No one has justified child abuse. When someone commits a crime and has a child with them, the two are necessarily not going to be hanging out in a cell together -- especially when it's possible the crime is trafficking that child. That's just not how it works.
Fuck your alternative facts.
I feel like this press release is also trying to create political drama where none is needed. GitHub is used by good people and bad people, just like anything is. I'm a long time GitHub user, but this press release is disappointing.
As dumb as you might think people in government are, they're not so dumb as to believe a decision could be made in a way that only applies to ICE.
They can see the abstract case at hand is a disagreement with federal policy. ICE was created by the federal government and tasked with (among other things) carrying out a controversial policy.
Even if GitHub didn't vocalize it explicitly -- or went further and stated that the decision applied only to ICE -- every federal agency is still listening to see if their business relationship with github will be shaped by public opinion towards the job the legislature tells them to do.
One that only people bathing in privilege can indulge in.
>the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
By definition this isn't virtue signalling, GitHub is putting $300k of their own money where their mouth is.
I'm simply tired of having politics injected into technology and software companies whose own software is itself apolitical.
I don't doubt their sincerity at all. I believe that companies selling apolitical software services should not care about policing what customers use their software. We are talking about software that tracks changes of software, not facial recognition or drone firmware. Obviously, Github believes otherwise.
Serious answer: there's a theory that some people say things just to impress their friends of the same ideological stripes (although the charge is usually leveled against those on the left), rather than actually placing much importance on those things.
For instance, the github people opposed to the ICE contract are just doing it to "look good" in the eyes of their peers rather than actually, say, caring about kids locked up in cages and the other nasty things that an unleashed ICE is doing.
I think it's mostly a BS theory.
It seems to be thrown around a lot, even when people are putting their money where their mouth is.
4 white man. 4 white woman. One non-white man.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's site guidelines with.
Anyone stop using or working at Uber, Slack, or WeWork  because of Saudi (and the human rights atrocities that go along with it ) money flowing into it via Softbank Vision? Not enough to matter if so. Everyone works at a company where one of their customers or investors is an evil monster, and if that customer is worth enough revenue or that investor worth enough investment, they're going to get a pass. No amount of Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit shaming is going to change that.
If you don't want kids locked up in cages in ICE facilities (and I think it's pretty clear none of us want people of any sort treated inhumanely), show up and protest at facilities. Vote for decent politicians. Run for office. Donate to candidates who align with your beliefs. But don't pat yourself on the back with the assumption virtue theater like preventing a few hundred thousand in government spend matters. It's a whole lot of effort on everyone's part for not a lot of progress. In the same time everyone has been discussing this in thread, that's a lot of calls to congresspeople that could've been made.
TLDR I strongly encourage citizens to get involved in actions that matter. These actions do nothing.
Tesla, ARM, NVIDIA, WeWork, Mapbox, General Motors, Fanatics, DoorDash, and others
I'd drop Slack too if I could, but tech companies tend to mandate it.
I also stay away from companies with Chinese Beijing ownership, since Chinese Beijing isn't really any better on human rights than Saudi Arabia is. Just a few of them include:
Tencent (Riot Games, Epic Games), Blizzard, Reddit, JaGeX (Runescape), AMC, GE Appliances, Lenovo, Hoover, TikTok, and many many others
I still use my Apple devices, but I'm not buying any new ones (or any other devices manufactured in Chinese Beijing) until their production is out of Chinese Beijing and into more responsible countries like the Republic of China, India, EU nations, or America.
I have nothing against the Chinese people or the Saudi people, but their fascist governments need to be overthrown.
Many government organizations under current administration are deliberately hemorrhaging law enforcement or bringing in policies through internal memos (without congressional approval) to prey on the vulnerable.
I would've hoped companies like Github would take a stand and call out these unfair enforcements. Once they do that, they can then continue on to serve the contract. However, keep highlighting how your customers are using perverted interpretations of law to treat humans badly.
I'm quite sure concentration camps were originally more "wholesome" than murdering endless legions of innocent people... How on earth can you in one sentence talk about child trafficking being bad and then know that children are being abused by the same fucking institution that's supposed to protect them?
I shouldn't be shocked, but I'm kind of hurt probably from my own naivete, Github ain't any different than anywhere else-- all hail, profits before people.
Canceling my private repos later today.
GitHub is net negative $300,000 after their $500k donation, so how does this have anything to do with making more money?