Hacker News Reader

Comment by joecot | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> undocumented immigrants

"Undocumented" is mostly just a euphemism for illegal. Amazon does a significant amount of shady things, selling servers to ICE isn't one of them. Open borders are neither feasible nor popular.

It's the other way around. "Illegal" is the inaccurate slur to refer to an undocumented person. Nobody can be illegal.

Their presence as an immigrant in the country definitely can be though!

Hence 'Illegal Immigrant'.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1365

If someone breaks the law, aren’t they doing something illegal?

You wouldn't call someone "an illegal" because they sped on their way to work.

ICE is the problem, all the heinous shit US defense and intelligence does, whom Amazon is also in bed with, a-ok

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.

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?

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.

>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.

Sources? For what amounts to "approaching this problem two ways is better than approaching it in one way"?

Asking for sources and explanations of completely obvious things is a great way to exhaust people on the internet. Which I assume was the point given the "both sides"iness of the response.

Indeed. I think the term "FUD" has fallen a bit by the wayside but I'd call that comment exemplary.

> the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers

Is amazon unique in this because if not, it just feels pointless to complain about it as there is enough competition that if they don't do it, some competitor will and thus the only way you can fix it is through industry wide regulation.

If you're looking for an example of companies forgoing profits to have an impact on unethical government policies then consider the death penalty. Many executions have been delayed or called off because companies refuse to sell the state drugs if they intend to kill people with them. Also, medical workers refuse to kill which has successfully foiled executions. The philosophy of "I'll be unethical because if I don't them someone else will" is flawed.

I doubt either works well, but I think corporations like Amazon are likely to be more susceptible to public and investor pressure because their relationship with the public and their investors is voluntary and can be unilaterally ended by those parties, while the government's relationship with the citizens is not voluntary on the part of the citizens. We can stop using and investing in Amazon if they don't listen to us, but we can't do anything against the government except voting for a another politician who will probably do the same thing and is in any case unable to actually change things even if they wanted to.

> all the heinous shit US defense and intelligence does, whom Amazon is also in bed with, a-ok

I seriously doubt people think this.

ICE is unpopular because they the lower the voting power of blue states via removing illegal immigrants and thus lowering their census numbers, so the US media that is almost entirely Democratic[0] isn't a fan. The FBI[1][2] and CIA[3] aren't targeted because they carry water for the democrats. It has nothing to do with human rights, just politics.

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju...

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clint...

[2]https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/13/raid-veritas-okeefe...

[3]https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/intelligence-experts-refuse-to...

This might surprise you, but some of us care about other human beings whether or not they're citizens of the United States. My issues with ICE have nothing to do with census numbers and everything to do with them separating children from their families and literally losing them, then destroying the records of them doing so. Canada is just now digging up the bodies of indigenous children who died at re-education camps, and it'll be decades before we get an actual death toll of ICE's actions.

I'm not speaking for you personally but instead the body politic as it were. I'm putting forward my theory as to why you see plenty of negative stories in the press about ICE but not the CIA. The media manufactures consent to steal a phrase in one case but not the other.

What's your point? Do they need to complain about every single problem that exists simultaneously to be allowed to complain about anything?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com