6 ms·

It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
It's not. You have a literal state actor backed with an army demanding money if you don't comply. I'll pick the legal way unless the profits I can make somehow outweigh the sanctions (legislators can make mistakes too) and there are no penal repercussions.
- grumple 6y ago
  It is. We established this quite clearly in Nuremberg.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    You're comparing state sanctioned killing and torturing with sanctioning people trading with each other. The first one is a violent crime against individuals, the second one is basically a tax. I'm against both but they carry a different weight.
    - grumple 6y ago
      Sure, the impact is different. But on the other hand, I try to follow this rule as much as possible: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. Microsoft is no stranger to breaking laws and certainly has the resources to fight this one, or at least to argue that it shouldn't apply in this case.
      - jokethrowaway 6y ago
        I consider immoral to threaten individuals with jail time unless they give you 40% of their salary. I consider immoral the USA's warmongering and spying on its own citizens. Still, if I don't pay my taxes or if I try to stop the army from going to bomb some poor people in the middle east, I'll be put in jail. If I have a way to sabotage the government which won't ruin my life, I'll do it, but I'll pass on the rest. We're lucky enough not to live in a country that require us to kill people in concentration camps, because we would surely do that. At least, I would do it if I didn't have another choice (but I would also try to desert).
kiallmacinnes 6y ago
It's also not fair to blame people (well, companies...) for obeying the law. Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law than one where they pick and choose what laws they would like to obey.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I agree with you. It's alright to blame them, but it's unfair at the same time. The world is not fair. EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty.
  - kiallmacinnes 6y ago
    > EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty. Personally, I think a distinction is necessary. Companies IMO should absolutely obey the laws regardless of if they like them or not. It's entirely unfair to blame them for obeying the law. They (as well as individual people) are free to oppose those laws in an attempt to change them, however until they are changed, they should follow the laws or cease trading in the country who's laws they disagree with. It's entirely fair to blame them for not fighting stupid/wrong/harmful laws. Allowing companies to choose which laws they are going to obey is never going to end well.
    - mola 6y ago
      One way to fight a law is civil disobedience.
      - astura 6y ago
        You won't get that from Microsoft, they do a lot of business with the US government.
Zealotux 6y ago
What is GitHub supposed to do?
- enriquto 6y ago
  > What is GitHub supposed to do? Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    And if the consequences is that the police comes at their doors and ordering them to comply, then what exactly has Github achieved? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and taking an idealistic stance.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Are you really suggesting that companies should willfully break laws? We already have this in reality I guess, but don't think we should suggest them to do it further. Right way to get change would be for companies to get together and lobby for the change they wanna see, not just break the law. Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      > Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more. The law is not stupid, it's criminal. By following it, companies are precisely engaging in criminal behavior.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        You seem confused why GitHub did what they did. In the US there is something called "US Export Law", the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries (which spoiler, Iran is part of that list). The law itself is not illegal, as the lawmakers have created and enacted that law. It's the opposite, the law is declaring what's illegal. So, if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law in the US. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding on how things work.
izacus 6y ago
> It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws. It's also alright to blame people for interpreting laws too widely and too abusively. The legal and security departments are much at fault for this where they'll prefer to abuse people than to take up any kind of risk.
cush 6y ago
There's a law for this...?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Indeed! Here's how it works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644356
onion2k 6y ago
It's very easy to say that on someone else's behalf. Essentially you're saying that Nat Friedman should risk 20 years in prison, and a million dollar fine per user in order to let Iranian developers use Github. As much as I hate the idea of software not being freely available to everyone, I would not be willing to take that risk. I doubt many HN readers would.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
I didn't see a whole lot of blaming tech when every big company was found to be participating in NSA's PRISM program.

It's not. You have a literal state actor backed with an army demanding money if you don't comply. I'll pick the legal way unless the profits I can make somehow outweigh the sanctions (legislators can make mistakes too) and there are no penal repercussions.

grumple 6y ago
It is. We established this quite clearly in Nuremberg.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  You're comparing state sanctioned killing and torturing with sanctioning people trading with each other. The first one is a violent crime against individuals, the second one is basically a tax. I'm against both but they carry a different weight.
  - grumple 6y ago
    Sure, the impact is different. But on the other hand, I try to follow this rule as much as possible: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. Microsoft is no stranger to breaking laws and certainly has the resources to fight this one, or at least to argue that it shouldn't apply in this case.
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      I consider immoral to threaten individuals with jail time unless they give you 40% of their salary. I consider immoral the USA's warmongering and spying on its own citizens. Still, if I don't pay my taxes or if I try to stop the army from going to bomb some poor people in the middle east, I'll be put in jail. If I have a way to sabotage the government which won't ruin my life, I'll do it, but I'll pass on the rest. We're lucky enough not to live in a country that require us to kill people in concentration camps, because we would surely do that. At least, I would do it if I didn't have another choice (but I would also try to desert).

kiallmacinnes 6y ago

It's also not fair to blame people (well, companies...) for obeying the law. Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law than one where they pick and choose what laws they would like to obey.

enriquto 6y ago
I agree with you. It's alright to blame them, but it's unfair at the same time. The world is not fair. EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty.
- kiallmacinnes 6y ago
  > EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty. Personally, I think a distinction is necessary. Companies IMO should absolutely obey the laws regardless of if they like them or not. It's entirely unfair to blame them for obeying the law. They (as well as individual people) are free to oppose those laws in an attempt to change them, however until they are changed, they should follow the laws or cease trading in the country who's laws they disagree with. It's entirely fair to blame them for not fighting stupid/wrong/harmful laws. Allowing companies to choose which laws they are going to obey is never going to end well.
  - mola 6y ago
    One way to fight a law is civil disobedience.
    - astura 6y ago
      You won't get that from Microsoft, they do a lot of business with the US government.

Zealotux 6y ago

What is GitHub supposed to do?

enriquto 6y ago
> What is GitHub supposed to do? Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  And if the consequences is that the police comes at their doors and ordering them to comply, then what exactly has Github achieved? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and taking an idealistic stance.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Are you really suggesting that companies should willfully break laws? We already have this in reality I guess, but don't think we should suggest them to do it further. Right way to get change would be for companies to get together and lobby for the change they wanna see, not just break the law. Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more. The law is not stupid, it's criminal. By following it, companies are precisely engaging in criminal behavior.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      You seem confused why GitHub did what they did. In the US there is something called "US Export Law", the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries (which spoiler, Iran is part of that list). The law itself is not illegal, as the lawmakers have created and enacted that law. It's the opposite, the law is declaring what's illegal. So, if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law in the US. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding on how things work.

izacus 6y ago

> It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws. It's also alright to blame people for interpreting laws too widely and too abusively. The legal and security departments are much at fault for this where they'll prefer to abuse people than to take up any kind of risk.

cush 6y ago

There's a law for this...?

capableweb 6y ago
Indeed! Here's how it works: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644356

onion2k 6y ago

It's very easy to say that on someone else's behalf. Essentially you're saying that Nat Friedman should risk 20 years in prison, and a million dollar fine per user in order to let Iranian developers use Github. As much as I hate the idea of software not being freely available to everyone, I would not be willing to take that risk. I doubt many HN readers would.

Dirlewanger 6y ago

I didn't see a whole lot of blaming tech when every big company was found to be participating in NSA's PRISM program.