Human rights
Is it fair that ICE agents are forced to use Microsoft products on a daily basis ?
Microsoft and its GitHub subsidiary are under fire from some of their own employees over service contracts with America's controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. A number of workers at both tech organizations, overseen by Redmond CEO Satya Nadella, have issued open letters demanding executives step in …
Yeah well if Microshaft's management of GITHUB transits into the "Social Justice Warrior" realm, instead of the "do business and make CUSTOMERS happy" realm, then:
Dear ICE: If you want me to set up a cloud-based server that does what GITHUB does, at an equivalent price, just let me know and I'll have one up and running in UNDER 6 MONTHS, with YOUR NEEDS as my PRIMARY FOCUS, and it will cost THE SAME OR LESS than whatever you're paying Github, and I'll do it FOR THE LULZ if I can't make money off of it any other way.
Because, unlike Micro-shaft, *I* put *THE CUSTOMER* *FIRST* !!!
>unlike Micro-shaft, *I* put *THE CUSTOMER* *FIRST* !!!
So you are a socialist and therefore shouldn't be allowed to bid for government work.
I promise to shaft the customer, outsource the work to 3rd world children, avoid paying tax and put the shareholders first - so I should get the government contract.
(I have also invested in a functioning CAPS-LOCK key, but I claimed R&D tax credits for that.)
MS and GitHub will almost certainly be very big on inclusion and diversity and no doubt have plenty of corresponding internal processes and training to cater for that. So why do they seem more than happy to do business with companies and organisations which hold no value in those same ideals for 'outsiders'?
I can think of only one reason, and it isn't compassion.
$$$ Kaching!
They're in business to make money, and large contracts to government agencies usually bring a lot.
Touchy feely stuff like inclusivity, morality and ethics are for the lower echeleons. The executives only pay lip service to that, and only when they think it will improve their PR.
Funny how you've aggregated everyone not of the lower echeleons, into having no morals or ethics.
God forbid a politician, manager, board member of anyone as you seen it in "authority" actually caring or doing the right thing.
That small minded view of the world says more about you than "them".
God forbid a politician, manager, board member of anyone as you seen it in "authority" actually caring or doing the right thing.
According to some sources, perhaps just observed it to be less likely.
something about passing through the eye of a needle.
"God forbid a politician, manager, board member of anyone as you seen it in "authority" actually caring or doing the right thing."
Have you ever bothered to think 1) what kind of people are in those positions and 2) how they got in the position they are?
I can tell you that "doing the right thing" is theoretically possible for group 1) but only lip service for group 2): Only money matters.
1) & 2) means that only greedy psychopaths end up in those positions.
"That small minded view of the world says more about you than "them"."
Your refusal to observe reality unfortunately isn't changing the reality. It's not "view", but observation. I'll accept counterexamples, if you can find any.
So why do they seem more than happy to do business with companies and organisations which hold no value in those same ideals for 'outsiders'?
Could it be that they feel the right place to solve political issues lies at the ballot box and in the Congress, rather than in sabotaging the duly and legally appointed - and where appropriately, elected - government officials and agencies they work for?
I find it strange how people so often elude to what drives corporations and are shocked by it. They are working exactly how they are designed to... money making machines.... especially if they are publicly traded. Its gotten so rotten these days that people still think the stocks actually are worth what they are paying for it. When you're allowed to buy your own stocks of course your stock value will go up.
Do you blame a lion for mauling the lion tamer, it's a lion and lions do lion things to smaller play toys like lion tamers. This is their nature and just like the lion corporations are the same, instinctual, vicious, aggressive and violent in per suite of what drives them. You want this kind of abhorrent behaviour to change then change the incentive and you change their nature... it starts by not rewarding companies for such behaviour, I guarantee that if they loose a sizeable portion of their customers they would all of a sudden be very concerned and would be champions on such matters as border patrol, human rights, blah blah blah stuff too.
using YOUR logic, let's say I choose to NOT do business with gays, or liberals, or BLACK people.
That's right, you're suggesting POLITICS can be a LEGITIMATE reason to DENY ACCESS to services. Might as well be RACE, SEX, RELIGION, or any OTHER thing that NORMAL societies consider to be "illegal discrimination".
When you stop and think about this it shows you how f'd up the US is right now. I mean, there's ethics involved when choosing who you will and will not do business with. But surely any government department in a decent democratic country should be a safe customer in that respect...
Also, going after companies is not going to change much, it's the politics where stuff needs to be fixed.
"government department in a decent democratic country should be a safe customer "
That seems a little niave,
Poster did specify 'decent democratic country' perhaps it isn't.
One might postulate that, Ideally, a countries institutions, bodies and departments should operate on the basic moral consensus of the people, not using tactics and methods that the majority would find distasteful.
But this is just weasel words.
A countries Institutions and bodies and Departments Should operate on the basic moral consensus, otherwise it is no longer serving the people.
I guess that when you start to count the big business your selling to (or working for) and check their ethical standards, you soon find you should not sell anything to most of them. For example. were they fine at selling software to those companies that throw the world in the worst recession since 1929, making some people lose needed savings? Was it OK to sell software to companies that sold opioids knowing very well the consequences but hiding them? Or the big polluters? Hospitals refusing healthcare to those who don't have a MS employee healthcare plan? Ads companies hoarding user data to act against citizen rights? And the list can be far longer.
If you start such wars, you can't have double standards. And actually, you should start by not working for Microsoft at all....
If people choose to illegally enter another country they should expect to be arrested, detained and ultimately repatriated. If so called human rights justify incursion, then Microsoft should set a "good" example by removing all security from it's campus buildings, all security from it's servers, and just let everyone in!
I'm sure if globalism wasn't profitable for them, they wouldn't be pushing this. The alternative for the USA is to do likeTurkey, invade part of another country, set up a safe zone and repatriate the refugees there.
So what exactly is ICE doing differently under Trump than under Obama? That's right: nothing much. This is just another case of TDS. If he wins again in 2020, I have no idea whether it will get worse or die down a little bit.
This is the Obama that has the blood of ordinary Libyans on his hands.