6 ms·

In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free

77 points by Hjugo 11y ago

crishoj 11y ago
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/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-right-saudi-arabia-more-focused-con/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...
- wyager 11y ago
  Everything upsets someone. "Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
  - babayega2 11y ago
    Exactly. Also, I've seen a pictures of minerals being weighted in Kigali, Rwanda. Everyone knows Rwanda hasn't so much minerals ressources, but all those came from Easter DRC [1]. So it says something about the process. [1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pdf http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...
  - azinman2 11y ago
    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.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  I'm vaguely more familiar with diamonds rather than metals. Conflict Diamonds and metals (commonly) mean a mine run by slave labor with all proceeds going to finance a war. It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.
Cyph0n 11y ago
Impossible unfortunately, as long as it's operating in Israel.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    The two of you have proven why this is basically meaningless.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Better response than mine haha.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I agree with you. Original point is still true. It's a double-standard U.S. allows for political reasons. I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
  - Cyph0n 11y ago
    I agree with that as well. However I think Israel is a different case.
    - _yosefk 11y ago
      "Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?) Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?
konne88 11y ago
I'd take a cheaper processor over a "conflict free" one every day.
- jonesb6 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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.
tim333 11y ago
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 11y ago
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"...

77 points by Hjugo 11y ago

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

wyager 11y ago
Everything upsets someone. "Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
- babayega2 11y ago
  Exactly. Also, I've seen a pictures of minerals being weighted in Kigali, Rwanda. Everyone knows Rwanda hasn't so much minerals ressources, but all those came from Easter DRC [1]. So it says something about the process. [1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pdf http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...
- azinman2 11y ago
  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.
jfoutz 11y ago
I'm vaguely more familiar with diamonds rather than metals. Conflict Diamonds and metals (commonly) mean a mine run by slave labor with all proceeds going to finance a war. It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.

Cyph0n 11y ago

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

_yosefk 11y ago
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 11y ago
  The two of you have proven why this is basically meaningless.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Better response than mine haha.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I agree with you. Original point is still true. It's a double-standard U.S. allows for political reasons. I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  I agree with that as well. However I think Israel is a different case.
  - _yosefk 11y ago
    "Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?) Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?

konne88 11y ago

I'd take a cheaper processor over a "conflict free" one every day.

jonesb6 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.

tim333 11y ago

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 11y ago

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"...