5 ms·

Since my understanding is that covering up a war crime is itself a war crime under Complicity doctrine, could Google executives get charged for this in The Hagu

Since my understanding is that covering up a war crime is itself a war crime under Complicity doctrine, could Google executives get charged for this in The Hague?

cema 9y ago
Unlikely, but an interesting argument.
gambiting 9y ago
I'm willing to bet that in their hundreds and hundreds of pages of terms and conditions there is a paragraph saying that by using their services you give up your right to sue Google for war crimes.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Even if there were, such contracts have been tried before and the courts simply ignore them. A contract can't override criminal law.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I am not an expert in international law, but you would still have to prove intent, I believe. It's hard to prove intent on an algorithm that very simply is incapable of understanding the significance of its actions.
- 7373737373 9y ago
  Deferring decisions to an algorithm doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility for its actions. If the consequences are unknown, why should it be allowed to use it?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Couldn't that also imply that someone else would need to view the algorithm to verify it's intent?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    For things that are crimes only if the intent is there, it certainly does absolve the owner from responsibility. There's no duty to preserve everything that might be evidence in some manner (because, really, everything might be) - if evidence gets destroyed as a byproduct of normal operations, that's not prohibited.
  - fastball 9y ago
    Because if the consequences are unknown, there is no intent, and intent is necessary for complicity. If Google/people at Google made an algorithm to intentionally delete criminal evidence, that would qualify. Having an algorithm that deletes lots of things, and happens to delete evidence does not.
- justinclift 9y ago
  The parent post mentions they've been reviewed by a human (appeals process) and been rejected anyway. That should get past any "it woz the algorithm that did it!" arguments about intent.
- tauntz 9y ago
  If I'd write an algorithm for a self-driving car that just drives it in a straight line with high speed.. I'd be still responsible if the car kills somebody and couldn't just say that "whoops it was just the silly algorithm" even though I didn't specifically intend to kill somebody.
dmurray 9y ago
Google executives are overwhelmingly US citizens. The ICC has no jurisdiction over them.
- meric 9y ago
  Do some of them have dual citizenship?
  - walshemj 9y ago
    a lot of the h1bs will have
- mrout 9y ago
  The International Criminal Court has universal jurisdiction
avip 9y ago
I urge you to report this inhumane case and follow-up with a "show HN" (I filed an ICC case, then THIS happened). otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

Since my understanding is that covering up a war crime is itself a war crime under Complicity doctrine, could Google executives get charged for this in The Hague?

cema 9y ago

Unlikely, but an interesting argument.

gambiting 9y ago

I'm willing to bet that in their hundreds and hundreds of pages of terms and conditions there is a paragraph saying that by using their services you give up your right to sue Google for war crimes.

leereeves 9y ago
Even if there were, such contracts have been tried before and the courts simply ignore them. A contract can't override criminal law.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I am not an expert in international law, but you would still have to prove intent, I believe. It's hard to prove intent on an algorithm that very simply is incapable of understanding the significance of its actions.

7373737373 9y ago
Deferring decisions to an algorithm doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility for its actions. If the consequences are unknown, why should it be allowed to use it?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Couldn't that also imply that someone else would need to view the algorithm to verify it's intent?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  For things that are crimes only if the intent is there, it certainly does absolve the owner from responsibility. There's no duty to preserve everything that might be evidence in some manner (because, really, everything might be) - if evidence gets destroyed as a byproduct of normal operations, that's not prohibited.
- fastball 9y ago
  Because if the consequences are unknown, there is no intent, and intent is necessary for complicity. If Google/people at Google made an algorithm to intentionally delete criminal evidence, that would qualify. Having an algorithm that deletes lots of things, and happens to delete evidence does not.
justinclift 9y ago
The parent post mentions they've been reviewed by a human (appeals process) and been rejected anyway. That should get past any "it woz the algorithm that did it!" arguments about intent.
tauntz 9y ago
If I'd write an algorithm for a self-driving car that just drives it in a straight line with high speed.. I'd be still responsible if the car kills somebody and couldn't just say that "whoops it was just the silly algorithm" even though I didn't specifically intend to kill somebody.

dmurray 9y ago

Google executives are overwhelmingly US citizens. The ICC has no jurisdiction over them.

meric 9y ago
Do some of them have dual citizenship?
- walshemj 9y ago
  a lot of the h1bs will have
mrout 9y ago
The International Criminal Court has universal jurisdiction

avip 9y ago

I urge you to report this inhumane case and follow-up with a "show HN" (I filed an ICC case, then THIS happened). otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int