6 ms·

>Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? If a company provides products/services to someone with the knowledge those

>Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows? If a company provides products/services to someone with the knowledge those products/services will be used for a crime...then yes. For example it’s legal for an arms dealer to sell a gun, but illegal to sell a gun if the seller knows the gun is being purchased with the intent of being used in a crime. Here what you have is Salesforce who allegedly sold its products/services to backpage knowing their software would specifically be used to facilitate prostitution and human trafficking. Whereas you - for whatever reasons - seem to be concluding salesforce had no way of knowing their products/services would be used by backpage in the commission of a crime (ie your Windows analogy). However, the facts suggest SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities (and was publicly fighting against the same criminal activity, while simultaneously supplying software that facilitated the same). It’s a tough case but human slaves and a corporation privately profiting from these activities while publicly “fighting” against the same won’t play well to a jury.

asdffdsa 8y ago
"the facts suggest SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities" source?
- will_brown 8y ago
  The article we are commenting on... >“Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it," according to the complaint. Allegedly salesforce had a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution and knew backpage was in the business of facilitating the same when it elected to do business with backpage and that their software would specifically be used to facilitate this part of the business.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Can we get some dates on those facts? Too many time I have seen evidence like this, only to later see that the dates changes the context. Did Salesforce have a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution before or after Backpage got seized by U.S. authorities in April 2018? Before or after Backpage became a customer? Before or after the adult section? Before or after it was generally known to include sex trafficking (which given a glance on the wikipedia article is sometimes around 2012-ish? The other question is why did it take U.S. authorities until April 2018, 14 years after backpage was launched and 6 years after it was generally known? Were they incompetent, a lack of resources, or what? Did saleforce has knowledge that the police did not, and if so when, and why was it not given over to the police? How long time was the investigation and was salveforce involved? Was it a legal grey zone and as such the opinion of lawyers was involved, which we don't know the context or dates of? Did Saleforce get advice from the prosecutor/police? This case is interesting but to me almost all the important details are currently not public.
    - tguedes 8y ago
      Can you just read the article? Almost all your questions are answered or linked to in the article.
      - belorn 8y ago
        Actually missed that they did say a date, which is... After the police seized Backpage in April 2018. "The company is helping to sponsor an anti-human-trafficking event in April" It also said its nonprofit arm spotlighted groups that worked on the front lines of the issue in 2017, which could be said to be PR campaign but it is stretching the meaning of a PR campaign a bit. "The lawsuit includes an order form billed to Backpage that’s dated in December 2016." Which dates before the campaign done after April 2018, and after the nonprofit arm spotlighted groups in 2017. So the dates did matter as I suspected. Saleforce did not first do a PR campaign and then elected to do business with backpage (as will_brown said above). They first elected to do business with backpage, had a nonprofit arm spotlighted groups a year later and then did the PR campaign after the police seized Backpage. That implies strongly that the PR campaign was a reaction to the police seizure.
        will_brown 8y ago
        I don’t think I said salesforce did the PR campaign before their business dealings. It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        belorn 8y ago
        Party A had done X and Y when it elected to do Z. I kind of read that as X and Y occurring before Z. As for the subject matter if saleforce knew in 2016 what the FBI acted on in 2018, I don't know. It leaves me with several large questions, the biggest being about why the site lasted for as long as it did. The FBI received continuously information about child sex trafficking and prostitution, and had several court cases dating back to at least 2010. From a moral perspective its an valid discussion to ask if saleforce should consider their ethical consideration of how their customers utilize their goods and products, but from a legal perspective I kind of look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions and see a complete failure from the legal system to tell the world if the behavior of backpage was illegal. It would not surprise me if saleforced did ask their lawyers and got a OK back.
  - uhhhhhhh 8y ago
    It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. Gonna wait on the courts for this one, so far its all too much implied and nothing for actual facts.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. They haven’t “even attempted to prove their claims?” Have you read the plaintiffs Complaint? What do you think they brought the lawsuit for if not to prove their claims?
      - uhhhhhhh 8y ago
        I guess I needed a "yet" at the end of that for literalists. I stated "waiting for the courts" where they would prove their claims. Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts
        will_brown 8y ago
        >Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same? While waiting years for the court to decide, you should kno statistically there is less than 10% chance there is a trial that goes to verdict and >90% chance salesforce settles with a requirement of confidentiality and no admission/finding of wrong doing/liability.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        8y ago
  - chrischen 8y ago
    How does one judge if Salesforce didn't take the profit from Backpage using its product to help fund the PR campaign against its shady practices? If that was the case, is it still immoral?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hajile 8y ago
A bunch of Salesforce devs are hired to work on a human trafficking site. Do they all shrug and keep working? Or does Salesforce perhaps keep a special team of devs who are happy to participate in illegal actions? I doubt the conspiracy angle here and think someone would have talked. Either the site as coded didn't have any apparent links to trafficking or Salesforce didn't participate beyond some unknowing consultation that they would give to anyone who asked.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Well that’s part of the discovery process of litigation, find out who knew what and when they knew it. I think it’s hard to bury your head in the sand if you are salesforce and say you had no idea of backpage’s business activities and/or how your products/services would help those specific business activities...especially where the companies public facing side engages in an anti-human trafficking/prostitution PR campaign.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  I've never been but from what I've read it's best to think of Backpage as a Cragislist circa 2015. It allowed for a bunch of different types of posts but charged and made the majority of their income from their adult section.
- vips7L 8y ago
  Most "Salesforce" devs arent employed by Salesforce inc. The devs that customize the platform are usually consultants or employed by the businesses using the platform.
rdiddly 8y ago
I'm not familiar with the timing, but it starts to look like the public campaign against trafficking happened BECAUSE of the involvement with trafficking, in a protest-too-much, absolve-my-sins, overcompensating type of way.
JamesBarney 8y ago
Craigslist also had an adult section. Should anyone who sold software to Craigslist be held legally responsible as well?
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  It's like know your customer laws, but for everything! Are you a grocery store that sells food to a potential jaywalker? You better find out!!
  - sctb 8y ago
    We've asked you many times to please post substantively, and since this is still an issue we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email hn@ycombinator.com and commit to following the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - anoncoward111 8y ago
      you asked me twice, and this isnt unsubstantive
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Yeah, but on Craigslist you can't lead capture and convert to contacts and opportunities with cross-object reporting /s
- will_brown 8y ago
  I can’t answer “if we should”...only as I explained above that under the law what you describe isn’t enough on its own to create liability for the service provide, the legal threshold is whether the seller knew the buyer would use the good/service in commission of a crime. So for example the power company who sold power to run backpage, could they be liable? Probably not. But a tech company who allegedly custom built a database to facilitate backpages human trafficking/prostitution activities...maybe
NowThenGoodBad 8y ago
You might find this interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust There were a number of other companies that played both sides of the fence in WW2, including Coca Cola. I agree, if they knowingly do it, then they should be punished as such. Especially in the US, if we are going to allow corporations to be treated as people for tax and legal reasons, then clearly they should be punished as such. When a person knowingly assists a criminal, that person can be punished for any range of crime from being an accessory to directly involved.
trhway 8y ago
>SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities backpage had been doing its business in the open in USA for almost 10 years when it became client of Salesforce in 2013. So, until 2018 no DA was bothered by the human trafficking supposedly rampant on backpage during that time, while it sounds that it was Salesforce's burden to do that the DAs hadn't and wouldn't for years - i.e. to perform investigation, etc. Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? May be it is exactly what we want - I think there is a massive attack across the board on the provider safe harbor principle with the goal to scare the providers into skittish self-censorship which the most and foremost would affect the basic civic freedoms.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive. The law doesn’t require a seller of goods/services to investigate a buyers intent, but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. So in the case of an arms dealer if the buyer uses the gun in a crime, the arms dealer is only liable if they knew or should have known, but the law isn’t requiring the seller investigate (but if facts tend to show the buyer was discussing using the gun for crime xyz to the seller, then yes the seller could be liable). I think this is good, others may disagree and say sellers should be able to sell goods/services where they know the buyer intends to use the same in commission of a crime...but the investigation is beyond the legal scope of what is required by law and I don’t think anyone is suggested that become the law.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    > but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. It does? I’m a (former) lawyer and this is news to me. Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting? accomplice liability? conspiracy?) I’m not sure how any of these quite fit. Would love to be enlightened!
smallgovt 8y ago
GP isn’t asking whether it's legal to sue software companies for the acts of users. He’s asking if it's right and/or sensible. There are many, many corporations that sold services to Backpage. If the red line is built around awareness of wrongdoing, you are just going to create an incentive for corporations to stop being socially active and an incentive to remain ignorant to customers' backgrounds. Yes, we may want to regulate certain influential industries to require them to do due diligence on their clientele. No, I don't think it makes sense to penalize these players before this regulation is put in place due to the perverse incentives.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >GP isn’t asking whether it's legal to sue software companies for the acts of users. He’s asking if it's right and/or sensible. Ok...but it’s a much narrower issue because it’s not about a software vendor being sued for the acts of their customers. It’s being sued for selling your goods/services where you knew or should have known the buyer was going to use your good/service to commit a crime. So in the extreme case, if a mass shooter told their plans to an arms dealer and the arms dealer sold the gun anyway...then yes, I don’t think many people will argue with the intent of the law. Here the facts can be blurred a little more, where SF will say we just built a data base we didn’t know how it would be used, and if we did know how it would be used then we didn’t know that use was a crime, and if we did know it was a crime we felt defense xyz would apply. No one is saying anything about due diligence. “Know or should have known” is a legal term of art and I think everyone is implying it creates an impossible burden for tech companies to comply with. And these aren’t regulations being “put in place” as you suggest, it’s long established Law.

asdffdsa 8y ago

"the facts suggest SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities" source?

will_brown 8y ago
The article we are commenting on... >“Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it," according to the complaint. Allegedly salesforce had a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution and knew backpage was in the business of facilitating the same when it elected to do business with backpage and that their software would specifically be used to facilitate this part of the business.
- belorn 8y ago
  Can we get some dates on those facts? Too many time I have seen evidence like this, only to later see that the dates changes the context. Did Salesforce have a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution before or after Backpage got seized by U.S. authorities in April 2018? Before or after Backpage became a customer? Before or after the adult section? Before or after it was generally known to include sex trafficking (which given a glance on the wikipedia article is sometimes around 2012-ish? The other question is why did it take U.S. authorities until April 2018, 14 years after backpage was launched and 6 years after it was generally known? Were they incompetent, a lack of resources, or what? Did saleforce has knowledge that the police did not, and if so when, and why was it not given over to the police? How long time was the investigation and was salveforce involved? Was it a legal grey zone and as such the opinion of lawyers was involved, which we don't know the context or dates of? Did Saleforce get advice from the prosecutor/police? This case is interesting but to me almost all the important details are currently not public.
  - tguedes 8y ago
    Can you just read the article? Almost all your questions are answered or linked to in the article.
    - belorn 8y ago
      Actually missed that they did say a date, which is... After the police seized Backpage in April 2018. "The company is helping to sponsor an anti-human-trafficking event in April" It also said its nonprofit arm spotlighted groups that worked on the front lines of the issue in 2017, which could be said to be PR campaign but it is stretching the meaning of a PR campaign a bit. "The lawsuit includes an order form billed to Backpage that’s dated in December 2016." Which dates before the campaign done after April 2018, and after the nonprofit arm spotlighted groups in 2017. So the dates did matter as I suspected. Saleforce did not first do a PR campaign and then elected to do business with backpage (as will_brown said above). They first elected to do business with backpage, had a nonprofit arm spotlighted groups a year later and then did the PR campaign after the police seized Backpage. That implies strongly that the PR campaign was a reaction to the police seizure.
      - will_brown 8y ago
        I don’t think I said salesforce did the PR campaign before their business dealings. It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        belorn 8y ago
        Party A had done X and Y when it elected to do Z. I kind of read that as X and Y occurring before Z. As for the subject matter if saleforce knew in 2016 what the FBI acted on in 2018, I don't know. It leaves me with several large questions, the biggest being about why the site lasted for as long as it did. The FBI received continuously information about child sex trafficking and prostitution, and had several court cases dating back to at least 2010. From a moral perspective its an valid discussion to ask if saleforce should consider their ethical consideration of how their customers utilize their goods and products, but from a legal perspective I kind of look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions and see a complete failure from the legal system to tell the world if the behavior of backpage was illegal. It would not surprise me if saleforced did ask their lawyers and got a OK back.
- uhhhhhhh 8y ago
  It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. Gonna wait on the courts for this one, so far its all too much implied and nothing for actual facts.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove. They haven’t “even attempted to prove their claims?” Have you read the plaintiffs Complaint? What do you think they brought the lawsuit for if not to prove their claims?
    - uhhhhhhh 8y ago
      I guess I needed a "yet" at the end of that for literalists. I stated "waiting for the courts" where they would prove their claims. Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts
      - will_brown 8y ago
        >Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same? While waiting years for the court to decide, you should kno statistically there is less than 10% chance there is a trial that goes to verdict and >90% chance salesforce settles with a requirement of confidentiality and no admission/finding of wrong doing/liability.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        8y ago
- chrischen 8y ago
  How does one judge if Salesforce didn't take the profit from Backpage using its product to help fund the PR campaign against its shady practices? If that was the case, is it still immoral?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hajile 8y ago

A bunch of Salesforce devs are hired to work on a human trafficking site. Do they all shrug and keep working? Or does Salesforce perhaps keep a special team of devs who are happy to participate in illegal actions? I doubt the conspiracy angle here and think someone would have talked. Either the site as coded didn't have any apparent links to trafficking or Salesforce didn't participate beyond some unknowing consultation that they would give to anyone who asked.

will_brown 8y ago
Well that’s part of the discovery process of litigation, find out who knew what and when they knew it. I think it’s hard to bury your head in the sand if you are salesforce and say you had no idea of backpage’s business activities and/or how your products/services would help those specific business activities...especially where the companies public facing side engages in an anti-human trafficking/prostitution PR campaign.
JamesBarney 8y ago
I've never been but from what I've read it's best to think of Backpage as a Cragislist circa 2015. It allowed for a bunch of different types of posts but charged and made the majority of their income from their adult section.
vips7L 8y ago
Most "Salesforce" devs arent employed by Salesforce inc. The devs that customize the platform are usually consultants or employed by the businesses using the platform.

rdiddly 8y ago

I'm not familiar with the timing, but it starts to look like the public campaign against trafficking happened BECAUSE of the involvement with trafficking, in a protest-too-much, absolve-my-sins, overcompensating type of way.

JamesBarney 8y ago

Craigslist also had an adult section. Should anyone who sold software to Craigslist be held legally responsible as well?

anoncoward111 8y ago
It's like know your customer laws, but for everything! Are you a grocery store that sells food to a potential jaywalker? You better find out!!
- sctb 8y ago
  We've asked you many times to please post substantively, and since this is still an issue we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email hn@ycombinator.com and commit to following the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - anoncoward111 8y ago
    you asked me twice, and this isnt unsubstantive
creaghpatr 8y ago
Yeah, but on Craigslist you can't lead capture and convert to contacts and opportunities with cross-object reporting /s
will_brown 8y ago
I can’t answer “if we should”...only as I explained above that under the law what you describe isn’t enough on its own to create liability for the service provide, the legal threshold is whether the seller knew the buyer would use the good/service in commission of a crime. So for example the power company who sold power to run backpage, could they be liable? Probably not. But a tech company who allegedly custom built a database to facilitate backpages human trafficking/prostitution activities...maybe

NowThenGoodBad 8y ago

You might find this interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust There were a number of other companies that played both sides of the fence in WW2, including Coca Cola. I agree, if they knowingly do it, then they should be punished as such. Especially in the US, if we are going to allow corporations to be treated as people for tax and legal reasons, then clearly they should be punished as such. When a person knowingly assists a criminal, that person can be punished for any range of crime from being an accessory to directly involved.

trhway 8y ago

>SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities backpage had been doing its business in the open in USA for almost 10 years when it became client of Salesforce in 2013. So, until 2018 no DA was bothered by the human trafficking supposedly rampant on backpage during that time, while it sounds that it was Salesforce's burden to do that the DAs hadn't and wouldn't for years - i.e. to perform investigation, etc. Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? May be it is exactly what we want - I think there is a massive attack across the board on the provider safe harbor principle with the goal to scare the providers into skittish self-censorship which the most and foremost would affect the basic civic freedoms.

will_brown 8y ago
>Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative? I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive. The law doesn’t require a seller of goods/services to investigate a buyers intent, but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. So in the case of an arms dealer if the buyer uses the gun in a crime, the arms dealer is only liable if they knew or should have known, but the law isn’t requiring the seller investigate (but if facts tend to show the buyer was discussing using the gun for crime xyz to the seller, then yes the seller could be liable). I think this is good, others may disagree and say sellers should be able to sell goods/services where they know the buyer intends to use the same in commission of a crime...but the investigation is beyond the legal scope of what is required by law and I don’t think anyone is suggested that become the law.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  > but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime. It does? I’m a (former) lawyer and this is news to me. Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting? accomplice liability? conspiracy?) I’m not sure how any of these quite fit. Would love to be enlightened!

smallgovt 8y ago

GP isn’t asking whether it's legal to sue software companies for the acts of users. He’s asking if it's right and/or sensible. There are many, many corporations that sold services to Backpage. If the red line is built around awareness of wrongdoing, you are just going to create an incentive for corporations to stop being socially active and an incentive to remain ignorant to customers' backgrounds. Yes, we may want to regulate certain influential industries to require them to do due diligence on their clientele. No, I don't think it makes sense to penalize these players before this regulation is put in place due to the perverse incentives.

will_brown 8y ago
>GP isn’t asking whether it's legal to sue software companies for the acts of users. He’s asking if it's right and/or sensible. Ok...but it’s a much narrower issue because it’s not about a software vendor being sued for the acts of their customers. It’s being sued for selling your goods/services where you knew or should have known the buyer was going to use your good/service to commit a crime. So in the extreme case, if a mass shooter told their plans to an arms dealer and the arms dealer sold the gun anyway...then yes, I don’t think many people will argue with the intent of the law. Here the facts can be blurred a little more, where SF will say we just built a data base we didn’t know how it would be used, and if we did know how it would be used then we didn’t know that use was a crime, and if we did know it was a crime we felt defense xyz would apply. No one is saying anything about due diligence. “Know or should have known” is a legal term of art and I think everyone is implying it creates an impossible burden for tech companies to comply with. And these aren’t regulations being “put in place” as you suggest, it’s long established Law.