6 ms·

Not really. Outsourcing and then claiming ignorance is not a defense against financing North Korea.

josephstalinOk 2y ago
Is financing North Korea bad? I understand that is illegal for American companies because it is an enemy of the Empire, but I applaud those willing to break the law to help the enemies of the Empire.
Arrath 2y ago
Classic 'two steps removed' syndrome. "I told X to get it done. What X did to get it done is not my fault/responsibility."
- beaeglebeachh 2y ago
  If it's possible to accidentally pay north Korea that should be the fault of whatever financial institution (which is held to far more KYC and AML than animators) caused that to happen, presuming it went through the financial system. HBO likely had no mens rea beyond cash flow out animation flow in. If I can't trust the bank to know more about the UBO of some rando after KYC what the hell are we doing this for?
  - acdha 2y ago
    That’s kind of the point: these companies are using outsourcing to avoid the expense of obligations they would have if they did things in house. It’s the same way we end up seeing workers being mistreated or placed in risky situations on behalf of major American companies who would never risk that in a domestic factory with their name on it. A good outcome of this would be more restrictions on outsourcing to China since it’s been repeatedly shown that they will not maintain meaningful restrictions on North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc.: > All three cities are known to have many North Korean-operated businesses and are main centers for North Korea’s IT workers who live overseas.
    - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
      Hell don't stop there. You pay HBO for a subscription? Sanction violation, should have known, straight to jail.
- Yeul 2y ago
  The EU recently introduced a law to counter that. Companies are responsible for their entire production chain.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  What do you mean with "syndrome"? Of course business customers can not be held responsible for what other businesses do. If Amazon buys floor tiles for their factories from a company that provides floor tiles to many other companies, how can Amazon be held responsible for any of their unethical practices? Or is it the faith of hackers that any misdoing in the world should always be traced back and blamed on a tech giant? From the article: "There is no evidence to suggest that the companies identified in the images had any knowledge that a part of their project had been subcontracted to North Korean animators." If it's a subsidiary, that's another case.
  - kalleboo 2y ago
    If Amazon sells me floor tiles full of asbestos, they should sure as hell be held responsible, they can't just absolve it with "oh but we bought it from another company, go complain to them" So why is it different if they sell me floor tiles made with slave labor? Global retailers like H&M and IKEA do do audits of their supply chain to try to stop labor abuse (although how effective they are at that is up to debate)
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      That's a completely different thing. But if you unknowingly buy floor tiles that have been made with unethical practices, should you be held responsible as a customer? Of course not.
- godelski 2y ago
  You're oversimplifying the issue, which does nothing to bring us closer to a solution. If you tell X to get something done and ALSO give X rules that they must follow and X gets the thing done but __breaks the rules__ then this is different. It is also different if you have reasonable suspicion to expect them to break the rules or are using subversive language to tell them to break the rules. These are different things and have different consequences. If you are truely acting in good faith, then yes, it is a defense. But determining if that's true is not an easy task. There is good faith, coercion, negligence, and willful negligence. These are different things.
  - yxwvut 2y ago
    I'd go further to say that rules without any verification aren't really rules. You don't make a rule without the suspicion that it'd be more efficient to break them, and if you're not verifying their adherence to those rules, your rule is meaningless. This is the iterated game that morally bankrupt manufacturers (IE the vast majority) play to insulate themselves in these sort of scandals: - First, they get caught doing A,B,C, so they pass rules about A,B,C - Then they outsource to someone who is willing to do A,B,C, then they get caught outsourcing to violators - Then, they impose rules about A,B,C on these firms, but do no verification of the firms adherence to those rules. It insulates them of liability without ever increasing costs (because the firms still get to break the rules and the company gets to say "I'm Shocked! I told you not to do that!")
    - godelski 2y ago
      I'm more of the position of "trust but verify." The verification process is exceptionally difficult. We're on HN and I think it should be rather common knowledge that attackers almost always beat defenders because the game is asymmetric. Attackers only need to find a single flaw while defenders need to find a large number of defenses. There is a huge difference in the resource expenditures between these two groups. This is related to the reasons why one single person can fuck shit up (e.g. a bad driver can impact tens of thousands of other drivers) but it is difficult for a single person to fix things. It is the nature of unstable equilibria. A society, of any form, depends on trust. Like it or not, there are no trustless systems available to us. Certainly not at any meaningful scale. This does not mean one should be negligent, but rather I'm saying that it isn't easy and the best intentioned can still be taken advantage of. We should recognize this and accommodate this fact when approaching solutions or we will end up with many undesired results.
yunohn 2y ago
Apple does this too - they set wildly low payable rates and then get surprised when Foxconn grinds their workers to dust.
- gruez 2y ago
  What makes you think that if apple paid "fair" prices, that it won't get siphoned off to pay management/shareholders?
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    We can't know that, but we can know that if they pay unfair prices the workers are definitely not getting paid or treated appropriately.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    Well, like I said, Apple is known for having hardline stances with their partners - it could easily be mandated that employee wages need to be 2X$ or whatever. Though, Apple has the exact same issue you claim Foxconn might have - funneling value to shareholders over laborers.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    If Apple was willing to pay fair prices, they would do the work in a country with strong laws and strong unions not allowing such things to happen.
    - aembleton 2y ago
      Why would they do that? What advantage is there for Foxconn?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
It absolutely is a defense. We outsourced to company X, who is bound by law and contract not to engage in illegal actions. Company X, without our knowledge or approval subcontracted illegally.
- VS1999 2y ago
  If this is true, we just need to make companies liable for their subcontractors. They apparently know they can escape responsibility by farming out work they're not supposed to do.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think it is worth it. Existing law already punishes companies operating in bad faith, and I would want companies operating in good faith to remain protected. The Amazon and HBO are the victims here. They were the ones harmed and deceived.
    - VS1999 2y ago
      I don't think they were victims or deceived. It's normal for companies to set metrics that can't be legitimately achieved and then closing their eyes and pretending they don't know what's going on. A waste disposal company in Canada had a quota for "overflow fines", which ended with employees overfilling dumpsters themselves. Call centers set unachievable metrics that require employees to redirect and mark issues as resolved instead of following protocol. Samsung recently had a contractor destroy customer property to void the warranty. Companies like amazon are extremely powerful. They set the terms of the agreement, they set the project requirements and metrics, and then pretend that whatever happens has nothing to do with them.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        If you are coming from the default position that companies inherently and always bad, I dont think we will be able to have a conversation about it.
constantcrying 2y ago
It is a defense. Even in a court of law not knowing about something can potentially protect you from punishment. It is just a part of the nature of outsourcing. Your supplier might just choose to outsource himself and have the work done by companies you couldn't possibly work with. For a digital good this is extremely hard to monitor. How would a Californian studio possibly know what company their supplier outsources to?
- geraldwhen 2y ago
  Don’t outsource. If you outsource, have boots on the ground ensuring working conditions and no re outsourcing. Pick one. Pretty straightforward.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    Boots on the ground isn't enough. Even in a company where everyone is physically at the same location overseeing who does what work is near impossible for any large scale projects. But yes, please let management know that outsource is only attractive on paper. Every experience I have had with it is has been bad. The communication gap is just so much larger and your ability to oversee what gets done and how it gets done just evaporates. The ethical/legal problem is just one result of that, but even without it outsourcing often just costs far more in hidden expenses.
  - godelski 2y ago
    > Don’t outsource. If this were codified into law I would suspect that it would quickly lead to monopolization. I can't imagine how the world would work without contractors. Imagine if Apple had to operate the mines, build the machines to mine the materials, to build the machines to build those machines, build the silicon foundry, and all the things along from dirt in the ground to the iPhone. Boy, you'd get nothing done. Because that's the world with no "outsourcing." It is too broad of a word.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      Sure, having suppliers is completely inevitable for any company. "We only do X" is one of the best tools to manage complexity. I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. That particular practice is something very different than e.g. buying chips from a foundry. Specifically buying parts from q supplier involves very little management, outsourcing work means you have to actively involved in the management of the offshore labor.
vkou 2y ago
I'm sure you buy all sorts of products that are built using conflict minerals, slave labour, etc. Is your ignorance a defense? Should we hold you accountable for the entire supply chain that goes into what you consume? Or can we just say that you should put in a reasonable amount of effort towards avoiding this (with reasonable being defined by the legislature and the judiciary)?

Is financing North Korea bad? I understand that is illegal for American companies because it is an enemy of the Empire, but I applaud those willing to break the law to help the enemies of the Empire.

Arrath 2y ago

Classic 'two steps removed' syndrome. "I told X to get it done. What X did to get it done is not my fault/responsibility."

beaeglebeachh 2y ago
If it's possible to accidentally pay north Korea that should be the fault of whatever financial institution (which is held to far more KYC and AML than animators) caused that to happen, presuming it went through the financial system. HBO likely had no mens rea beyond cash flow out animation flow in. If I can't trust the bank to know more about the UBO of some rando after KYC what the hell are we doing this for?
- acdha 2y ago
  That’s kind of the point: these companies are using outsourcing to avoid the expense of obligations they would have if they did things in house. It’s the same way we end up seeing workers being mistreated or placed in risky situations on behalf of major American companies who would never risk that in a domestic factory with their name on it. A good outcome of this would be more restrictions on outsourcing to China since it’s been repeatedly shown that they will not maintain meaningful restrictions on North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc.: > All three cities are known to have many North Korean-operated businesses and are main centers for North Korea’s IT workers who live overseas.
  - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
    Hell don't stop there. You pay HBO for a subscription? Sanction violation, should have known, straight to jail.
Yeul 2y ago
The EU recently introduced a law to counter that. Companies are responsible for their entire production chain.
carlosjobim 2y ago
What do you mean with "syndrome"? Of course business customers can not be held responsible for what other businesses do. If Amazon buys floor tiles for their factories from a company that provides floor tiles to many other companies, how can Amazon be held responsible for any of their unethical practices? Or is it the faith of hackers that any misdoing in the world should always be traced back and blamed on a tech giant? From the article: "There is no evidence to suggest that the companies identified in the images had any knowledge that a part of their project had been subcontracted to North Korean animators." If it's a subsidiary, that's another case.
- kalleboo 2y ago
  If Amazon sells me floor tiles full of asbestos, they should sure as hell be held responsible, they can't just absolve it with "oh but we bought it from another company, go complain to them" So why is it different if they sell me floor tiles made with slave labor? Global retailers like H&M and IKEA do do audits of their supply chain to try to stop labor abuse (although how effective they are at that is up to debate)
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    That's a completely different thing. But if you unknowingly buy floor tiles that have been made with unethical practices, should you be held responsible as a customer? Of course not.
godelski 2y ago
You're oversimplifying the issue, which does nothing to bring us closer to a solution. If you tell X to get something done and ALSO give X rules that they must follow and X gets the thing done but __breaks the rules__ then this is different. It is also different if you have reasonable suspicion to expect them to break the rules or are using subversive language to tell them to break the rules. These are different things and have different consequences. If you are truely acting in good faith, then yes, it is a defense. But determining if that's true is not an easy task. There is good faith, coercion, negligence, and willful negligence. These are different things.
- yxwvut 2y ago
  I'd go further to say that rules without any verification aren't really rules. You don't make a rule without the suspicion that it'd be more efficient to break them, and if you're not verifying their adherence to those rules, your rule is meaningless. This is the iterated game that morally bankrupt manufacturers (IE the vast majority) play to insulate themselves in these sort of scandals: - First, they get caught doing A,B,C, so they pass rules about A,B,C - Then they outsource to someone who is willing to do A,B,C, then they get caught outsourcing to violators - Then, they impose rules about A,B,C on these firms, but do no verification of the firms adherence to those rules. It insulates them of liability without ever increasing costs (because the firms still get to break the rules and the company gets to say "I'm Shocked! I told you not to do that!")
  - godelski 2y ago
    I'm more of the position of "trust but verify." The verification process is exceptionally difficult. We're on HN and I think it should be rather common knowledge that attackers almost always beat defenders because the game is asymmetric. Attackers only need to find a single flaw while defenders need to find a large number of defenses. There is a huge difference in the resource expenditures between these two groups. This is related to the reasons why one single person can fuck shit up (e.g. a bad driver can impact tens of thousands of other drivers) but it is difficult for a single person to fix things. It is the nature of unstable equilibria. A society, of any form, depends on trust. Like it or not, there are no trustless systems available to us. Certainly not at any meaningful scale. This does not mean one should be negligent, but rather I'm saying that it isn't easy and the best intentioned can still be taken advantage of. We should recognize this and accommodate this fact when approaching solutions or we will end up with many undesired results.

yunohn 2y ago

Apple does this too - they set wildly low payable rates and then get surprised when Foxconn grinds their workers to dust.

gruez 2y ago
What makes you think that if apple paid "fair" prices, that it won't get siphoned off to pay management/shareholders?
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  We can't know that, but we can know that if they pay unfair prices the workers are definitely not getting paid or treated appropriately.
- yunohn 2y ago
  Well, like I said, Apple is known for having hardline stances with their partners - it could easily be mandated that employee wages need to be 2X$ or whatever. Though, Apple has the exact same issue you claim Foxconn might have - funneling value to shareholders over laborers.
- codedokode 2y ago
  If Apple was willing to pay fair prices, they would do the work in a country with strong laws and strong unions not allowing such things to happen.
  - aembleton 2y ago
    Why would they do that? What advantage is there for Foxconn?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

It absolutely is a defense. We outsourced to company X, who is bound by law and contract not to engage in illegal actions. Company X, without our knowledge or approval subcontracted illegally.

VS1999 2y ago
If this is true, we just need to make companies liable for their subcontractors. They apparently know they can escape responsibility by farming out work they're not supposed to do.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think it is worth it. Existing law already punishes companies operating in bad faith, and I would want companies operating in good faith to remain protected. The Amazon and HBO are the victims here. They were the ones harmed and deceived.
  - VS1999 2y ago
    I don't think they were victims or deceived. It's normal for companies to set metrics that can't be legitimately achieved and then closing their eyes and pretending they don't know what's going on. A waste disposal company in Canada had a quota for "overflow fines", which ended with employees overfilling dumpsters themselves. Call centers set unachievable metrics that require employees to redirect and mark issues as resolved instead of following protocol. Samsung recently had a contractor destroy customer property to void the warranty. Companies like amazon are extremely powerful. They set the terms of the agreement, they set the project requirements and metrics, and then pretend that whatever happens has nothing to do with them.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      If you are coming from the default position that companies inherently and always bad, I dont think we will be able to have a conversation about it.

constantcrying 2y ago

It is a defense. Even in a court of law not knowing about something can potentially protect you from punishment. It is just a part of the nature of outsourcing. Your supplier might just choose to outsource himself and have the work done by companies you couldn't possibly work with. For a digital good this is extremely hard to monitor. How would a Californian studio possibly know what company their supplier outsources to?

geraldwhen 2y ago
Don’t outsource. If you outsource, have boots on the ground ensuring working conditions and no re outsourcing. Pick one. Pretty straightforward.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  Boots on the ground isn't enough. Even in a company where everyone is physically at the same location overseeing who does what work is near impossible for any large scale projects. But yes, please let management know that outsource is only attractive on paper. Every experience I have had with it is has been bad. The communication gap is just so much larger and your ability to oversee what gets done and how it gets done just evaporates. The ethical/legal problem is just one result of that, but even without it outsourcing often just costs far more in hidden expenses.
- godelski 2y ago
  > Don’t outsource. If this were codified into law I would suspect that it would quickly lead to monopolization. I can't imagine how the world would work without contractors. Imagine if Apple had to operate the mines, build the machines to mine the materials, to build the machines to build those machines, build the silicon foundry, and all the things along from dirt in the ground to the iPhone. Boy, you'd get nothing done. Because that's the world with no "outsourcing." It is too broad of a word.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    Sure, having suppliers is completely inevitable for any company. "We only do X" is one of the best tools to manage complexity. I think what the other poster is referring to is specifically the practice of companies to have work done by workers in areas of the world where labor is cheap. That particular practice is something very different than e.g. buying chips from a foundry. Specifically buying parts from q supplier involves very little management, outsourcing work means you have to actively involved in the management of the offshore labor.

vkou 2y ago

I'm sure you buy all sorts of products that are built using conflict minerals, slave labour, etc. Is your ignorance a defense? Should we hold you accountable for the entire supply chain that goes into what you consume? Or can we just say that you should put in a reasonable amount of effort towards avoiding this (with reasonable being defined by the legislature and the judiciary)?