7 ms·

Most of the stuff in the "ethics overhaul" is pie in the sky nonsense. Take this bullet point: "Whether AWS does due diligence to know if cloud customers are u

Most of the stuff in the "ethics overhaul" is pie in the sky nonsense. Take this bullet point: "Whether AWS does due diligence to know if cloud customers are using its services in a way that contributes to human rights violations" What does that even mean? How could that possibly be accomplished? Who decides what constitutes a "human rights violation" in the first place?

giantg2 4y ago
Like most things in corporate America, you assemble of team and give them the goal of overseeing the due diligence. They won't look too hard so they won't find anything. They're write up how some low friction "solution" that already exists addresses the issue. Basically, corporate politics as usual - they call the shots, everyone else tows the line, they dress up the results as a win.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  Hah, auditors get paid by their clients. There's a real conflict of interest there. Fines are usually a fraction of what the audit fees over years are as well. Good luck finding fraud with that kind of system.
joecot 4y ago
This is most certainly targeted towards AWS being used by ICE. And not just in a generic way of them hosting ICE servers, but with ICE using Amazon Rekognition to identify undocumented immigrants (and allegedly AWS had meetings with ICE to convince them to use the service). The human rights violations come up when you talk about kids being separated from their families and then straight up lost, and the various other immoral things ICE does. This isn't something Amazon isn't aware of, I went to the AWS Summit in NYC a few years ago and every few minutes the Keynote got interrupted by another protester yelling "Cut ties with ICE" and getting dragged out of the room. I don't think I was the only one quickly googling on their phones to figure out what they were talking about. I couldn't move my previous company off of AWS, but I moved all my personal servers and I steered my new company away from them.
- user3939382 4y ago
  ICE is the problem, all the heinous shit US defense and intelligence does, whom Amazon is also in bed with, a-ok
  - joecot 4y ago
    I agree. And I would argue that the CIA should also get the boot. Probably about half of AWS's GovCloud should. But all the other heinous stuff that the US government agencies do abroad someone (that's not me) could argue is in the furtherance of national security. ICE is absolutely, clearly, not. There is no justifiable defense of the things ICE does, which is why it's the one most targeted.
    - ciabattabread 4y ago
      Does this strategy of shaming the corporation who wants a nice big government contract instead of, you know, petitioning your federally elected representatives, actually work?
      - joecot 4y ago
        I just double-checked with my peers and it turns out it's possible to protest two different things at once, and that petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done.
        sleepymoose 4y ago
        >petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done Could you provide any sources for this? As it stands, I've seen zero tangible results regarding Amazon's ongoing unchecked growth, the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers, monopolistic practices, or any general "ethical" standing of the company. Same goes for the US Government. Sure, you can vote for who you want and try to elect change, call your congress reps, and protest at the chambers, but it doesn't matter when they nothing gets done at the top level. Until there is an honest discussion had about immigration reform without a partisan spin put on everything, we won't get anywhere with ICE.
anonporridge 4y ago
I agree. It's really starting down a bad path when we start asking megacorps to do the government's job. Corporations are fundamentally not subject to the will of the people, and it is almost impossible for the people to countervail the control authority of the extremely small set of owners who own the majority of voting shares. Let the justice system crack down on people or organizations "violating human rights" and give companies like Amazon orders to cease service if necessary. Or pass laws to require them to filter some extremely specific use cases, such as the dissemination of child pornography. Mega corporations shouldn't be the ones deciding what is and is not a socially acceptable activity.
- evandale 4y ago
  >It's really starting down a bad path when we start asking megacorps to do the government's job. IMO it's even worse than that. Not only do we expect corporations to do the government's job, we're also giving corporations more power than we give governments. Just look at the "it's a private company they can censor whoever they want!" crowd. They actually believe companies who control over half the content we're exposed to online should be able to censor and deplatform whoever they want for whatever reason they want. I visit Canadian subreddits and they cheer when our telecom oligopoly censors RT news and unironically ask to "do fox news now!"
  - ciabattabread 4y ago
    What aspect of “private company” do you not understand? No shit they have the power to censor on the platforms they control.
    - evandale 4y ago
      >What aspect of “private company” do you not understand? The part where they're given more power than we give the government.
      - ciabattabread 4y ago
karmasimida 4y ago
They want to censor everyone. And good that they have been shown the door.
mikkergp 4y ago
> Who decides what constitutes a "human rights violation" in the first place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology How about we start with rape, torture, and murder, and work our way back. But like really. How do we figure anything out? We work at it, we learn we make mistakes and we grow. It seems like just throwing you're hands up is oppositional to the entire notions of innovation that guide tech companies in the first place. It's hard but we pay CEO's $21 million dollars a year to do hard things.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > It's hard but we pay CEO's $212 million dollars a year to do hard things. *21m/yr, if you read the details.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    My bad. You're right. I think my point still stands though ;-). Some of these companies are really good at figuring out hard things.
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      I would tend to agree that corporations are better than any other organization at prolonged, directed, problem solving than government or public university research.
sofixa 4y ago
> Who decides what constitutes a "human rights violation" in the first place? There are plenty of organisations trying to do just that. UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, etc. There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could quite easily be applied as a baseline.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  Do they consider putting someone in prison, for their refusal to surrender their privacy and private property in complying with the Income Tax Act, a violation of Human Rights? How about confiscating someone's fruit cart because they do not possess a licence for it? This led to Mohamed Bouazizi immolating himself, which triggered the Arab Spring. How about fining someone for refusing to use someone else's gender pronouns? Or for refusing to perform a Brazilian wax on the male genitalia of a male who asserts they are a woman? If not, then I question the existence of any underlying principle, beyond ideology, guiding their assessments. >>There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could quite easily be applied as a baseline. The UDHR, as interpreted by the UNHR High Commission, explicitly defines "collective bargaining rights" as a human right: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/right-organise-and-collective-bargaining-convention-1949-no-98 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... Laws that grant collective bargaining rights mandate an employer to engage in collective bargaining with any set of his workers that form a union and demand collective bargaining, to the exclusion of negotiating with any other worker or job applicant. Such a government mandate is a blatant violation of the right to free association, and thus property understood as a violation of human rights. In fact, it violates article 20 of the UDHR, which states: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... >>Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
- CaptainNegative 4y ago
  The UNHRC is a wonderful source in that you can more or less use the complement of those they decide to condemn to identify the truly heinous human rights violators and violations. Has Ki-Moon ever explicitly told any other UN branch to cut it with its rhetoric and unabashed partisan bloc voting?

giantg2 4y ago

Like most things in corporate America, you assemble of team and give them the goal of overseeing the due diligence. They won't look too hard so they won't find anything. They're write up how some low friction "solution" that already exists addresses the issue. Basically, corporate politics as usual - they call the shots, everyone else tows the line, they dress up the results as a win.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
Hah, auditors get paid by their clients. There's a real conflict of interest there. Fines are usually a fraction of what the audit fees over years are as well. Good luck finding fraud with that kind of system.

joecot 4y ago

This is most certainly targeted towards AWS being used by ICE. And not just in a generic way of them hosting ICE servers, but with ICE using Amazon Rekognition to identify undocumented immigrants (and allegedly AWS had meetings with ICE to convince them to use the service). The human rights violations come up when you talk about kids being separated from their families and then straight up lost, and the various other immoral things ICE does. This isn't something Amazon isn't aware of, I went to the AWS Summit in NYC a few years ago and every few minutes the Keynote got interrupted by another protester yelling "Cut ties with ICE" and getting dragged out of the room. I don't think I was the only one quickly googling on their phones to figure out what they were talking about. I couldn't move my previous company off of AWS, but I moved all my personal servers and I steered my new company away from them.

user3939382 4y ago
ICE is the problem, all the heinous shit US defense and intelligence does, whom Amazon is also in bed with, a-ok
- joecot 4y ago
  I agree. And I would argue that the CIA should also get the boot. Probably about half of AWS's GovCloud should. But all the other heinous stuff that the US government agencies do abroad someone (that's not me) could argue is in the furtherance of national security. ICE is absolutely, clearly, not. There is no justifiable defense of the things ICE does, which is why it's the one most targeted.
  - ciabattabread 4y ago
    Does this strategy of shaming the corporation who wants a nice big government contract instead of, you know, petitioning your federally elected representatives, actually work?
    - joecot 4y ago
      I just double-checked with my peers and it turns out it's possible to protest two different things at once, and that petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done.
      - sleepymoose 4y ago
        >petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done Could you provide any sources for this? As it stands, I've seen zero tangible results regarding Amazon's ongoing unchecked growth, the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers, monopolistic practices, or any general "ethical" standing of the company. Same goes for the US Government. Sure, you can vote for who you want and try to elect change, call your congress reps, and protest at the chambers, but it doesn't matter when they nothing gets done at the top level. Until there is an honest discussion had about immigration reform without a partisan spin put on everything, we won't get anywhere with ICE.

anonporridge 4y ago

I agree. It's really starting down a bad path when we start asking megacorps to do the government's job. Corporations are fundamentally not subject to the will of the people, and it is almost impossible for the people to countervail the control authority of the extremely small set of owners who own the majority of voting shares. Let the justice system crack down on people or organizations "violating human rights" and give companies like Amazon orders to cease service if necessary. Or pass laws to require them to filter some extremely specific use cases, such as the dissemination of child pornography. Mega corporations shouldn't be the ones deciding what is and is not a socially acceptable activity.

evandale 4y ago
>It's really starting down a bad path when we start asking megacorps to do the government's job. IMO it's even worse than that. Not only do we expect corporations to do the government's job, we're also giving corporations more power than we give governments. Just look at the "it's a private company they can censor whoever they want!" crowd. They actually believe companies who control over half the content we're exposed to online should be able to censor and deplatform whoever they want for whatever reason they want. I visit Canadian subreddits and they cheer when our telecom oligopoly censors RT news and unironically ask to "do fox news now!"
- ciabattabread 4y ago
  What aspect of “private company” do you not understand? No shit they have the power to censor on the platforms they control.
  - evandale 4y ago
    >What aspect of “private company” do you not understand? The part where they're given more power than we give the government.
    - ciabattabread 4y ago

karmasimida 4y ago

They want to censor everyone. And good that they have been shown the door.

mikkergp 4y ago

> Who decides what constitutes a "human rights violation" in the first place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology How about we start with rape, torture, and murder, and work our way back. But like really. How do we figure anything out? We work at it, we learn we make mistakes and we grow. It seems like just throwing you're hands up is oppositional to the entire notions of innovation that guide tech companies in the first place. It's hard but we pay CEO's $21 million dollars a year to do hard things.

Supermancho 4y ago
> It's hard but we pay CEO's $212 million dollars a year to do hard things. *21m/yr, if you read the details.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  My bad. You're right. I think my point still stands though ;-). Some of these companies are really good at figuring out hard things.
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    I would tend to agree that corporations are better than any other organization at prolonged, directed, problem solving than government or public university research.

sofixa 4y ago

> Who decides what constitutes a "human rights violation" in the first place? There are plenty of organisations trying to do just that. UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, etc. There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could quite easily be applied as a baseline.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
Do they consider putting someone in prison, for their refusal to surrender their privacy and private property in complying with the Income Tax Act, a violation of Human Rights? How about confiscating someone's fruit cart because they do not possess a licence for it? This led to Mohamed Bouazizi immolating himself, which triggered the Arab Spring. How about fining someone for refusing to use someone else's gender pronouns? Or for refusing to perform a Brazilian wax on the male genitalia of a male who asserts they are a woman? If not, then I question the existence of any underlying principle, beyond ideology, guiding their assessments. >>There's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that could quite easily be applied as a baseline. The UDHR, as interpreted by the UNHR High Commission, explicitly defines "collective bargaining rights" as a human right: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/right-organise-and-collective-bargaining-convention-1949-no-98 https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... Laws that grant collective bargaining rights mandate an employer to engage in collective bargaining with any set of his workers that form a union and demand collective bargaining, to the exclusion of negotiating with any other worker or job applicant. Such a government mandate is a blatant violation of the right to free association, and thus property understood as a violation of human rights. In fact, it violates article 20 of the UDHR, which states: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... >>Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
CaptainNegative 4y ago
The UNHRC is a wonderful source in that you can more or less use the complement of those they decide to condemn to identify the truly heinous human rights violators and violations. Has Ki-Moon ever explicitly told any other UN branch to cut it with its rhetoric and unabashed partisan bloc voting?