5 ms·

Are Apple and Other U.S. Companies Responsible For Foxconn’s Crimes?

26 points by alexandros 17y ago

pistoriusp 17y ago
"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 17y ago
  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?
  - shpxnvz 17y ago
    Why not just turn that question around - shouldn't we, and this reporter in particular, be held responsible for continuing to buy Chinese made products while criticizing the companies we buy them from?
  - maxklein 17y ago
    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.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - CodeMage 17y ago
      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.
pvg 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    I don't think I said or even implied any of these things.
    - pistoriusp 17y ago
      I don't think he was arguing against you? I believe he was agreeing with you and adding fuel to your fire.
maxklein 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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 http://www.bustedtees.com/donttasemebro
- j_baker 17y ago
eli 17y ago
It's almost as if these Chinese security guards think the First Amendment doesn't apply to them!
- jrockway 17y ago
  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.)
j_baker 17y ago
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 17y ago
  > 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 17y ago
    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 17y ago
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.

26 points by alexandros 17y ago

"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 17y ago
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?
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  Why not just turn that question around - shouldn't we, and this reporter in particular, be held responsible for continuing to buy Chinese made products while criticizing the companies we buy them from?
- maxklein 17y ago
  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.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - CodeMage 17y ago
    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.

pvg 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  I don't think I said or even implied any of these things.
  - pistoriusp 17y ago
    I don't think he was arguing against you? I believe he was agreeing with you and adding fuel to your fire.

maxklein 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 http://www.bustedtees.com/donttasemebro
j_baker 17y ago

eli 17y ago

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

jrockway 17y ago
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.)

j_baker 17y ago

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 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  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 17y ago

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.