Ericsson workers were kidnapped when telco sent them to negotiate with ISIS(datacenterdynamics.com)
datacenterdynamics.com
Ericsson workers were kidnapped when telco sent them to negotiate with ISIS
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ericsson-workers-were-kidnapped-when-telco-sent-them-to-negotiate-with-isis/
165 comments
Companies that are willing to pay terrorist groups will have no qualms about doing business with Russia, which is why all of the talk of sanctions is usually pointless. Nobody keeps to them on things that matter. If there's money to be made, companies will deal with terrorists no problem and as we've seen from past sanctions on nation-states, governments will carve out all kind of exceptions for the well connected and turn a blind eye to even more, only giving a slap on the wrist to those who get caught.
This isn't a given, and your stating of it as a certainty seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them and telling everyone that it's inevitable is exactly what keeps corruption running.
Tyler Cowen refers to this as the libertarian vice:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/th...
There is an enormous range of tolerance for this and portraying it all in the most cynical light is actively harmful.
Tyler Cowen refers to this as the libertarian vice:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/08/th...
There is an enormous range of tolerance for this and portraying it all in the most cynical light is actively harmful.
> Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US the only people who can effectively make change in government are the extremity wealthy, corporations, and industry lobby groups. The average citizen and mass-based interest groups have effectively zero impact on policy. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...)
It's one thing to say "Let's not be cynical", but we can't ignore evidence either. As disheartening as it may be, voters are not able to effectively influence policy against the interests of a very small number of very rich people. As much as I'd like to think it's still possible to change things within the system we have, that same system has been captured and manipulated to make that increasingly difficult over centuries.
I don't know how it is in other places, but in the US the only people who can effectively make change in government are the extremity wealthy, corporations, and industry lobby groups. The average citizen and mass-based interest groups have effectively zero impact on policy. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...)
It's one thing to say "Let's not be cynical", but we can't ignore evidence either. As disheartening as it may be, voters are not able to effectively influence policy against the interests of a very small number of very rich people. As much as I'd like to think it's still possible to change things within the system we have, that same system has been captured and manipulated to make that increasingly difficult over centuries.
> Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them
To be fair, the Achilles heel of democracy is that most voters are easily manipulated. Demagogy, fake grass roots movements, infotainment, religion, gerrymandering, etc. Unless one of the small parties gets better at manipulation, USA will vote for two candidates of the same two parties forever.
To be fair, the Achilles heel of democracy is that most voters are easily manipulated. Demagogy, fake grass roots movements, infotainment, religion, gerrymandering, etc. Unless one of the small parties gets better at manipulation, USA will vote for two candidates of the same two parties forever.
I'm not saying it's easy but we have had plenty of elections which came down to minor variations in turnout. If your message is “they're all the same, why bother?” you are not going to get people to turnout as much as “we can do this, here's how!” and since you know that there are billions of dollars pushing falsehoods it's pretty much certain that things will go a way you don't want in the absence of counterpressure.
>> Those things only happen to the extent that voters let them...
Voters have to be aware of things in order to influence them. This is why a free press and government (and corporate) transparency are critical. All 3 of those seem to be in decline lately.
Voters have to be aware of things in order to influence them. This is why a free press and government (and corporate) transparency are critical. All 3 of those seem to be in decline lately.
No argument. My point is simply that this is not the natural order of things and we can consciously correct for it.
I mean... Italy carved out exceptions for luxury goods.
People will be easily manipulated and will trade a life of child in the next city for an extra $1 in their pocket.
It's morbid, but constant pressure is the only way.
People will be easily manipulated and will trade a life of child in the next city for an extra $1 in their pocket.
It's morbid, but constant pressure is the only way.
We have laws (like FCPA) to address this but it’s quite difficult to “police” and there aren’t a lot of incentives for someone to blow the whistle.
There is now. You can get 10-30% of the settlement the company makes with the government. If anyone reading this has any information about their company making bribes to foreign governments and does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer who specializes in corporate whistleblowing and begin the process of collecting their settlement bucks.
"does not particularly care about their company then they should contact a lawyer"
On the contrary, they should take action if they dont want their company, and the rest of society, to turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit.
On the contrary, they should take action if they dont want their company, and the rest of society, to turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit.
I agree. This is the reason that most people come forward as "whistleblowers". They see something grossly unfair or illegal and feel compelled to report it. In the last 20 years, the US has introduced a mixture of Federal laws & regulations that seek to compensate whistleblowers with a portion of the fines paid. This helps whistleblowers to overcome some fear about reporting.
A deeper question to ask: Why don't all societies trend negative and "turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit"? Honestly, I can only guess about the effects of human cooperation and altruism. I am thankful to have lived in relatively uncorrupt societies in my life. When people tell me stories about living in much more corrupt places (some examples from last 25 years: Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia), I am always appalled. It seems so unfair to live in a corrupt society. It is a drain on good life! I always think to myself: How does anyone get things done!?
A deeper question to ask: Why don't all societies trend negative and "turn into a dirty, corrupt cesspit"? Honestly, I can only guess about the effects of human cooperation and altruism. I am thankful to have lived in relatively uncorrupt societies in my life. When people tell me stories about living in much more corrupt places (some examples from last 25 years: Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia), I am always appalled. It seems so unfair to live in a corrupt society. It is a drain on good life! I always think to myself: How does anyone get things done!?
no company, especially of the multi-national and/or publicly traded variety, has any qualms about doing business with any body.
if you think otherwise, youre kidding yourself.
companies are incentivized to have qualms through a mix of legal measures and risk assessment of backlash.. then once the "correct" choice is made, they make big PR statements about their allegiance to utilize it to empower their brand.
every company who has supported green endeavors or BLM would support a party of Nazis if it was in their benefit. The line from Amazon to IBM isn't that far.
they are not your friends. theyre not allies in your cause. they are not conservative or liberal. they are not moral or immoral.
they are amoral and greedy.
period. the end
if you think otherwise, youre kidding yourself.
companies are incentivized to have qualms through a mix of legal measures and risk assessment of backlash.. then once the "correct" choice is made, they make big PR statements about their allegiance to utilize it to empower their brand.
every company who has supported green endeavors or BLM would support a party of Nazis if it was in their benefit. The line from Amazon to IBM isn't that far.
they are not your friends. theyre not allies in your cause. they are not conservative or liberal. they are not moral or immoral.
they are amoral and greedy.
period. the end
You cannot be amoral, when morality isn't part of the equation.
Companies are not "greedy" as they are defined - they're a wealth making organization.
Majority of American enterprises are owned by various funds, including pension funds. Which makes the beneficiaries the source for these demands to be "greedy".
Companies are not "greedy" as they are defined - they're a wealth making organization.
Majority of American enterprises are owned by various funds, including pension funds. Which makes the beneficiaries the source for these demands to be "greedy".
nothing has changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Were the CEO, COO, etc. punished at all?
This is a particularly egregious case but reports about FCPA cases like these (and the ensuing calls to imprison executives) neglect the fact that most major multinationals do not want to pay anyone. Governments in about half the world require you to pay to get anything done, especially in highly regulated sectors like telecommunications. The government employees in charge of licenses, permits etc in these countries will literally refuse to do their jobs unless you pay them. Walmart just recently had a [$300 million](https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news...) fine for paying a local "expeditor" to get construction permits in Brazil. They didn't pay for a monopoly on supermarkets, they didn't pay prosectors to investigate their competitors, they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?
The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe.
If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
>The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe.
That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay.
>If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.
That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay.
>If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.
"Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them"
This is so delusional its unbelievable! When a multinational firm arrives in a little town in X in a random country and showers local officials in bribes, they are funding organised crime. Are you so naive to think it's just to be 'allowed to operate'?
When someone protests that company's development or organises a strike, they now might be found dead in a ditch. Do you think the company paying bribes will be bothered with pollution or fire safety regulations?
This is so delusional its unbelievable! When a multinational firm arrives in a little town in X in a random country and showers local officials in bribes, they are funding organised crime. Are you so naive to think it's just to be 'allowed to operate'?
When someone protests that company's development or organises a strike, they now might be found dead in a ditch. Do you think the company paying bribes will be bothered with pollution or fire safety regulations?
> Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them.
It also establishes a norm of pay-to-play and increases the overall cost of entry into a market. This can decrease overall investment/entrants into the market and subsequently services and employment from being offered to residents.
The company can be a victim and retain some culpability.
It also establishes a norm of pay-to-play and increases the overall cost of entry into a market. This can decrease overall investment/entrants into the market and subsequently services and employment from being offered to residents.
The company can be a victim and retain some culpability.
"they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?"
I dont know, but I do know that if it wad me and my family business, i would spend many years in jail. When big firms break the law, unlike Wallmart.
I dont know, but I do know that if it wad me and my family business, i would spend many years in jail. When big firms break the law, unlike Wallmart.
Hence the saying that the only difference between the government and the mafia is that when the government does it, it is legal.
For a Swedish company I would have expected better of them.
How did you feel about the CEO's reaction? I thought it was authentic, not the usual bullshit with a "sorry not sorry" apology. Also, he did not try to "sweep it under the rug". Example quote from Borje Ekholm: "I know part of this involves me, and part of it involves before. I’m not going to blame anybody for anything."
Sources:
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57...
Sources:
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/8779157b-5568-48e7-a117-96b74c6db... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/4fd12e9b-6037-4f4d-8b3a-63cce4a57...
Another good example why company values trainings are worthless.
[deleted]
Many voices die in silence. It is hard to gauge motivations when it comes to the right to have a voice, because it is an appropriate arena for fanaticism.
This is another reason I have reservations about the expansion of contract labor in the modern workforce. Far too often, it creates a conflict of interest between the contract company and contract hire.
Tangentially related but much more banal, I have a relative that works in the payment processing industry, overseeing an engineering team. One of his best employees was an overseas contractor that spent many years with the company, brought his family to the states and laid down roots. After 7-8 years with the company, his contracting firm wanted him to move to another company in another state where he could earn more. He didn't want to go, but his contract stipulated that my relative's company could not hire him under any circumstance, so his firm wound down his contract to essentially force him and his family to move. This was in a smaller city without a lot of other IT jobs, so he didn't have many other options.
The fact that huge corporations have that kind of power over people makes me really uncomfortable and to see a huge telecom company use contractors to negotiate with terrorists doesn't surprise me in the least.
Tangentially related but much more banal, I have a relative that works in the payment processing industry, overseeing an engineering team. One of his best employees was an overseas contractor that spent many years with the company, brought his family to the states and laid down roots. After 7-8 years with the company, his contracting firm wanted him to move to another company in another state where he could earn more. He didn't want to go, but his contract stipulated that my relative's company could not hire him under any circumstance, so his firm wound down his contract to essentially force him and his family to move. This was in a smaller city without a lot of other IT jobs, so he didn't have many other options.
The fact that huge corporations have that kind of power over people makes me really uncomfortable and to see a huge telecom company use contractors to negotiate with terrorists doesn't surprise me in the least.
Of all the reasons to be against contract labor, being kidnapped by terrorists seems like a SUPER EDGE case
Edge cases in ideal conditions happen at random. When there's a conflict of interest, or any other systemic problem, so-called edge cases happen more often, because the situation consistently gets pushed to the edge, so to speak.
There's no shortage of workers getting pushed to take risks much bigger than any potential reward.
There's no shortage of workers getting pushed to take risks much bigger than any potential reward.
I think he's making a joke. Super Edge is a cell network/speed.
I retroactively take credit for this joke
It's not the being kidnapped by terrorists part, it's that companies ask people to do all kinds of stuff that falls into legal gray areas, which provides them a buffer if something goes wrong.
I think we need to redefine how we think about contracting to protect contractors and reduce the amount of power companies currently have over them. Thinking about sending a contractor to negotiate with a terrorist should scare the pants off of companies.
I think we need to redefine how we think about contracting to protect contractors and reduce the amount of power companies currently have over them. Thinking about sending a contractor to negotiate with a terrorist should scare the pants off of companies.
They’ll just farm it out to another company by setting the goals ‘get service working in country x’ and leave the ‘and bribe the terrorists you need to bribe to make it happen’ off the paperwork.
At the end of the day, either they did what they did (and service worked), or chances are no service would work and they wouldn’t have a business.
They should have said ‘can’t work, sorry’ and walk away, but that’s tough to do when a lot of money is at stake for anyone.
At the end of the day, either they did what they did (and service worked), or chances are no service would work and they wouldn’t have a business.
They should have said ‘can’t work, sorry’ and walk away, but that’s tough to do when a lot of money is at stake for anyone.
> They’ll just farm it out to another company by setting the goals ‘get service working in country x’ and leave the ‘and bribe the terrorists you need to bribe to make it happen’ off the paperwork.
You're saying that we shouldn't make a particular law to protect workers because companies will look for ways to get around it.
Yet, companies violate basic workplace safety regulations all the time. Should we not have basic workplace safety laws in place if companies get around them? If Chipotle has another E Coli outbreak, should we just throw out commercial food handling and safety laws?
You're saying that we shouldn't make a particular law to protect workers because companies will look for ways to get around it.
Yet, companies violate basic workplace safety regulations all the time. Should we not have basic workplace safety laws in place if companies get around them? If Chipotle has another E Coli outbreak, should we just throw out commercial food handling and safety laws?
No, that is not what I’m saying at all?
the companies are asking, and contractors are answering.
It is the contractors business to accept the contract, not the companies. IMO increasing the responsibility of a business to use contractors will add more roots to current large companies and increase the burden of small businesses to exist.
I agree this situation is terrible, and that the contracting system is being abused by large companies, but we need to try to solve this without changing the nature of what a contract agreement is.
>Thinking about sending a contractor to negotiate with a terrorist should scare the pants off of companies.
the spirit of a contract is that the companies do not have an obligation to think about the contractor at all, and vice-versa. The entire relationship is defined by an agreement not to breach the contract, and that's it. Do we really need to burden every contract with cynicism just because it is a point of contact with shitty people doing shitty things?
For example, if I hire a contractor to redo my kitchen I am shifting responsibility to someone else to do something, and then I write up a contract for all the arbitrary things that need decisions like design choices, acceptable colors, etc. They are accepting the responsibility for operations. If they use illegal operations, that is on them and I hope they face consequences for that. I am just some guy who wants a nice kitchen, I cant be expected to audit the guy i am hiring to know what to do on the things he is supposed to know better than me. The only thing I accept responsibility for is whether or not I like the outcome of him fulfilling the contract.
The real problem is that companies are getting away with using "contractors" who in actuality operate like employees and are not really in a position to accept responsibility for their entire scope of work. That's a shitty thing we should be dealing with. because if a companies EMPLOYEES get kidnapped by ISIS while doing work assigned to them by their employer.. that is a very different situation
It is the contractors business to accept the contract, not the companies. IMO increasing the responsibility of a business to use contractors will add more roots to current large companies and increase the burden of small businesses to exist.
I agree this situation is terrible, and that the contracting system is being abused by large companies, but we need to try to solve this without changing the nature of what a contract agreement is.
>Thinking about sending a contractor to negotiate with a terrorist should scare the pants off of companies.
the spirit of a contract is that the companies do not have an obligation to think about the contractor at all, and vice-versa. The entire relationship is defined by an agreement not to breach the contract, and that's it. Do we really need to burden every contract with cynicism just because it is a point of contact with shitty people doing shitty things?
For example, if I hire a contractor to redo my kitchen I am shifting responsibility to someone else to do something, and then I write up a contract for all the arbitrary things that need decisions like design choices, acceptable colors, etc. They are accepting the responsibility for operations. If they use illegal operations, that is on them and I hope they face consequences for that. I am just some guy who wants a nice kitchen, I cant be expected to audit the guy i am hiring to know what to do on the things he is supposed to know better than me. The only thing I accept responsibility for is whether or not I like the outcome of him fulfilling the contract.
The real problem is that companies are getting away with using "contractors" who in actuality operate like employees and are not really in a position to accept responsibility for their entire scope of work. That's a shitty thing we should be dealing with. because if a companies EMPLOYEES get kidnapped by ISIS while doing work assigned to them by their employer.. that is a very different situation
It's the mentality. Contractors are viewed as expendable...in more ways than one.
Another thing on the contractor note. I just got off the phone with a company that refused to consider me for a position because everyone is required to have a Bachelor's degree. This was after being recruited and referred by a VP after working for them as a contractor for over a year. These big corps keep burning bridges.
Seems worth mention that such a contract is often not enforceable. In typical cases, all it takes is a written note saying you are terminating the contract, at the time or any time after you leave. If they are not paying you anymore, there is no "consideration" so (anyway under US law) no remaining basis for a contract.
Sometimes the contracting company has a deal with the de facto employer forbidding them to hire anybody who was once contracted to them. Those also can often be set aside, even without notice to the former de jure employer. Governments are often hostile to contract provisions interfering with somebody's right to have a job in their field.
I am not an attorney. Consult a local attorney in every case, because case law is all over the place, laws likewise, and judges moreso.
Sometimes the contracting company has a deal with the de facto employer forbidding them to hire anybody who was once contracted to them. Those also can often be set aside, even without notice to the former de jure employer. Governments are often hostile to contract provisions interfering with somebody's right to have a job in their field.
I am not an attorney. Consult a local attorney in every case, because case law is all over the place, laws likewise, and judges moreso.
That persons contract is very non-standard and likely completely unenforceable. Contractors are generally far less susceptible to coercion than permanent employees are. Employees believe they have something to lose (their mostly imaginary “job security”). Contractors know their employment is temporary and they routinely need to look for new work without much notice.
Should probably have done what this swedish chemistry professor did
https://www.thelocal.se/20181213/lund-professor-freed-studen...
https://www.thelocal.se/20181213/lund-professor-freed-studen...
Every part of this is insane.
The student Jumaah (an adult) returned willingly to Iraq to protect his wife and texts the professor to essentially apologise for the high likely-hood he wouldn't be able to turn in his homework (cos, you know.. beheadings).
The professor chats to their Uni Security Chief who leaps to attention and hires his "go-to" mercenary force to rescue the student and his family?!
They then happily give him a seemingly smallish bill for the whole job and no mention of visa problems. Wtf Sweden, is this normal?
The student Jumaah (an adult) returned willingly to Iraq to protect his wife and texts the professor to essentially apologise for the high likely-hood he wouldn't be able to turn in his homework (cos, you know.. beheadings).
The professor chats to their Uni Security Chief who leaps to attention and hires his "go-to" mercenary force to rescue the student and his family?!
They then happily give him a seemingly smallish bill for the whole job and no mention of visa problems. Wtf Sweden, is this normal?
I want a PhD advisor like this! If they could defend me from ISIS, defending my thesis would be a cinch.
That's a great story. But who is this university security chief? I for some reason picture Bruce Willis, who just retired from being some CIA/Navy Seals operative and just took up this job wanting to quietly live out the rest of his years at the university.
https://portal.research.lu.se/en/persons/per-gustafson
Bruce Willis wishes he looks like this dude
Bruce Willis wishes he looks like this dude
Right, until something from his past came back to haunt him.
The thought of contract workers wearing off-color Ericsson badges parading into a building where they might end up beheaded while on a mission to install 802.11ac routers… is quite dystopian.
> One told German public broadcaster NDR that he was sent to Mosul with a letter on behalf of Ericsson seeking permission from the terror group for them to continue working there.
Some people have zero self preservation. I wouldn't go deliver something to a terrorist group for any amount of money.
Some people have zero self preservation. I wouldn't go deliver something to a terrorist group for any amount of money.
Reminds of one time I was interviewing someone and I asked why he had left his previous job. He said they were building a device to block cell phone usage in prisons, and the inmates figured out who was making the hardware and slipped word out to their enforcers outside the prison with the name of the manufacturer. Soon all the employees started getting death threats. So, he quit.
In the US, isn't the legality of jammers very questionable? It might be less bad somewhere federally owned, but a state prison interfering with signals might be violating FCC rules.
Alternatively, you could build the prison like a Faraday cage.
Alternatively, you could build the prison like a Faraday cage.
I am always shocked to learn just how porous prisons are and why nothing seems to be done about that.
Prisons give a sweet exclusive contract to the phone company who charges a unethical amount to the families to talk to prisoners.
https://www.businessinsider.com/high-cost-prison-communicati...
Just another example of absolute corruption and how our representative democracy doesn't work for us.
https://www.businessinsider.com/high-cost-prison-communicati...
Just another example of absolute corruption and how our representative democracy doesn't work for us.
Inmates need to be able to talk to people outside of prison, nothing should be done about it.
This allows various crime overlords to stay in power by ordering underlings outside to do their bidding. There's a good reason why phones are not allowed in prison and why phone calls to the outside are monitored, otherwise it would just be a vacation home you can't leave.
> This allows various crime overlords to stay in power by ordering underlings outside to do their bidding.
Then, at the absolute most, those specific crime overlords should be restricted in their ability to communicate with underlings outside. The other prisoners certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
Then, at the absolute most, those specific crime overlords should be restricted in their ability to communicate with underlings outside. The other prisoners certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
What's to stop the overlord from having one of their underlings pass messages on their behalf, or even to pick a random "trusted" (as far as personal phone usage goes) prisoner in the yard and threaten to have them beaten (or killed, or raped) if they don't act as a communications mule?
Give the prisoners communication with their family/friends, sure, but make it supervised personal visitation or actively monitored (also recorded and if necessary censored) phone calls, not mobile phones.
Prisons only work because of force AND information asymmetry between the guards and the inmates, so allowing unsupervised personal communications is actively dangerous and counterproductive. It's not just organising crime outside outside of the prison or arranging the import of drugs and luxury goods, it's also the dangers of planning a riot, plotting an escape attempt, organising attacks on guards or rival prison gangs, and so on.
Give the prisoners communication with their family/friends, sure, but make it supervised personal visitation or actively monitored (also recorded and if necessary censored) phone calls, not mobile phones.
Prisons only work because of force AND information asymmetry between the guards and the inmates, so allowing unsupervised personal communications is actively dangerous and counterproductive. It's not just organising crime outside outside of the prison or arranging the import of drugs and luxury goods, it's also the dangers of planning a riot, plotting an escape attempt, organising attacks on guards or rival prison gangs, and so on.
That's true, but it also allows human beings to stay in touch with reality, their families, an outside world that they're eventually going to reenter. Cutting off communication would be a disaster for people inside and outside prison - it would increase recidivism, increase suicide, break up families, mentally destroy prisoners, and likely increase crime overall. It's a terrible idea.
I also don't think phone calls are the only thing separating prison from a vacation home.
I also don't think phone calls are the only thing separating prison from a vacation home.
Nobody in this thread mentioned cutting off communication, aside from you. One poster mentioned they worked on a "device to block cell phone usage in prisons".
The thread was a story about inmates communicating to people outside prison, then someone saying "I am always shocked to learn just how porous prisons are and why nothing seems to be done about that." I interpreted that as "why isn't anything done about inmates being able to talk to people outside", but I could be wrong.
I took that as the a ability to get prohibited items into prison.
This is what happens when hackernews commenters try to flex their vocabulary instead of just spelling out what they mean like a normal person.
You can talk in prison on the recorded phone line.
[deleted]
After watching some documentaries about foreign prisons it often seems that the jail is run by the inmates and that the guards are just there to make sure nobody escapes.
It's not ran by the inmates, the guards just have a small source of side income if they 'bend' the rules.
If the inmates employ the guards, they are running it then. Why are inmates allowed currency?
They usually aren’t allowed direct currency. But if they are trading and have a means to reach the outside (guards or visitors), that is rarely a major barrier. If they’re pimping, arranging ‘free visits’ for guards is one way. having a designated money guy outside who handles payments and they just need to authorize so and so to get $10k, that kind of thing, is another.
And once you have guards on the payroll, the rules generally have a lot more flexibility.
And once you have guards on the payroll, the rules generally have a lot more flexibility.
I saw a documentary where an inmate was scamming people by placing ads in men's gay magazines. They would ask for money and/or extort them after finding out who they were and where they lived. He amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars using letters and the prison phones in this scam. He had already purchased a house and a car in preparation for his release and saving up to buy his way out prison.
A lawyer stole his money and blamed it on his friend and law partner, a judge, who the inmate had murdered (including his wife who was a shoe-in for mayor)...from prison. The lawyer snagged the mayoral seat after she was killed--for a short period until getting caught and sent to prison himself.
Apparently prison offers few barriers to conducting business.
A lawyer stole his money and blamed it on his friend and law partner, a judge, who the inmate had murdered (including his wife who was a shoe-in for mayor)...from prison. The lawyer snagged the mayoral seat after she was killed--for a short period until getting caught and sent to prison himself.
Apparently prison offers few barriers to conducting business.
You could possibly make an argument for some groups considered terror groups for actions against governments, but ISIS throws gay people off building and puts civilians in cages before burning them alive. You must feel for the unaffiliated residents but there's no way I'd set foot there for any reason.
Negotiate over zoom. With the video off. Using a VPN.
NO
You just forking do not negotiate (except for the release of hostages, while ensuring that all other potential hostages are moved out of harm's way).
If you do, you can expect nothing but a continuously escalating stream of demands.
It is a fool's game - the only winning move is to not play.
You just forking do not negotiate (except for the release of hostages, while ensuring that all other potential hostages are moved out of harm's way).
If you do, you can expect nothing but a continuously escalating stream of demands.
It is a fool's game - the only winning move is to not play.
It is like nuclear power plant construction projects, that way.
Yup, at least for standard-type plants, only way to win is not play.
I'm hoping that newer designs designed from the start to be inherently safe, and often smaller and more modular, and/or using different elements such as Thorium, will result in designs that can win, but they do seem to have stalled a bit
I'm hoping that newer designs designed from the start to be inherently safe, and often smaller and more modular, and/or using different elements such as Thorium, will result in designs that can win, but they do seem to have stalled a bit
it's a company like ericsson. if this person didn't have too much an idea of the world i can imagine he'd just think negotiating with what the US calls "terrorists" is just BAU in this part of the world.
i mean, i can imagine large swathes of human habitation where society is organized around deadly force. literally one country exists right at the border, where cartels manage the economy.
i mean, i can imagine large swathes of human habitation where society is organized around deadly force. literally one country exists right at the border, where cartels manage the economy.
If you're doing infrastructure for the old regime and you're not particularly attached to the old regime and a new regime shows up it's completely normal to send some reps to figure out if the project is to be continued and the details thereof.
Obviously there are situational judgement calls that can't be captured by slinging stupid internet rules of thumb around but this is Ericson we're talking about. They're providing basic infrastructure stuff that anyone seeking to run a state needs. That's a pretty neutral thing to be involved in. It's not like they are a defense contractor who were supplying the people shooting at the new regime a week ago. And in this case it was a local contractor so that adds a potential layer of baggage.
Obviously there are situational judgement calls that can't be captured by slinging stupid internet rules of thumb around but this is Ericson we're talking about. They're providing basic infrastructure stuff that anyone seeking to run a state needs. That's a pretty neutral thing to be involved in. It's not like they are a defense contractor who were supplying the people shooting at the new regime a week ago. And in this case it was a local contractor so that adds a potential layer of baggage.
> but this is Ericson we're talking about. They're providing basic infrastructure stuff that anyone seeking to run a state needs. That's a pretty neutral thing to be involved in.
I totally disagree that Ericsson could be considered a neutral party as a foreign corporation doing business in Iraq. There is nothing neutral about doing business with a hostile foreign government. That's just not normal in any way. It's not like they had never heard of ISIS and were oblivious to all the Sharia law and violence going on in Iraq.
I totally disagree that Ericsson could be considered a neutral party as a foreign corporation doing business in Iraq. There is nothing neutral about doing business with a hostile foreign government. That's just not normal in any way. It's not like they had never heard of ISIS and were oblivious to all the Sharia law and violence going on in Iraq.
> The contractor was kept under house arrest, and claimed that the Ericsson manager then stopped answering his calls. "He abandoned me, he turned off the phone and disappeared."
In some organizations it's also typical to throw the contractor and underlings under the bus when the project turns to sh*t.
In some organizations it's also typical to throw the contractor and underlings under the bus when the project turns to sh*t.
That was the perception of the employee. Clearly the whole thing is way out of normal, but what do you expect from the manager when they are informed that one of their employees are taken hostage? Become a trained hostage negotiator and one-man-army?
Later the article says:
> But the report says that one of the company's partners "made arrangements" with IS to secure his release and let the company continue its work in Mosul.
So no, the person wasn't abandoned.
There is a lot of questions about the manager's conduct before the kidnapping. How the heck did things end up there? But first thing I would expect from the manager after the kidnapping is to find a professional to handle the situation. And the professional very well might advice the manager to cut communications.
Later the article says:
> But the report says that one of the company's partners "made arrangements" with IS to secure his release and let the company continue its work in Mosul.
So no, the person wasn't abandoned.
There is a lot of questions about the manager's conduct before the kidnapping. How the heck did things end up there? But first thing I would expect from the manager after the kidnapping is to find a professional to handle the situation. And the professional very well might advice the manager to cut communications.
What do I expect from the manager?
Not to become a hostage negotiator darmy, but to hand the phone and the matter off to a proper hostage negotiator and army.
Not to just forking ghost the guy.
Not to become a hostage negotiator darmy, but to hand the phone and the matter off to a proper hostage negotiator and army.
Not to just forking ghost the guy.
> There is a lot of questions about the manager's conduct before the kidnapping. How the heck did things end up there?
Ali's brother runs with the crew and will keep an eye out, something like that I imagine.
Ali's brother runs with the crew and will keep an eye out, something like that I imagine.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban are not "regimes" and I'd like to caution you away from normalizing terrorist groups as political entities. It has been known to vendors that operate in those areas who terrorists are and what tactics they employ. There is no "neutrality" to these groups. This is all common intel that vendors would have and obviously intel someone in their legal department bothered to read.
>ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban are not "regimes" and I'd like to caution you away from normalizing terrorist groups as political entities. It has been known to vendors that operate in those areas who terrorists are and what tactics they employ. There is no "neutrality" to these groups
Oh piss off with the rhetoric. The Taliban did and does run Afghanistan. For a brief moment Isis was running parts of Iraq and Syria. Both are trying to perform typical state administrative functions (courts and rule of law, taxes, defense, controlling borders, etc). One way just way more violent and way less successful than the other. Neutrality is not a foriegn concept in the middle east. They just have way different concepts of "non-neutrality by association, group membership and history" than most of the west does.
Edit: What constitutes a state or government of a state doesn't change because we don't like the specific policy decisions of said state or government or because said government maintains power through a level of violence we consider unacceptable.
Oh piss off with the rhetoric. The Taliban did and does run Afghanistan. For a brief moment Isis was running parts of Iraq and Syria. Both are trying to perform typical state administrative functions (courts and rule of law, taxes, defense, controlling borders, etc). One way just way more violent and way less successful than the other. Neutrality is not a foriegn concept in the middle east. They just have way different concepts of "non-neutrality by association, group membership and history" than most of the west does.
Edit: What constitutes a state or government of a state doesn't change because we don't like the specific policy decisions of said state or government or because said government maintains power through a level of violence we consider unacceptable.
NO
It does not matter that they are 'merely performing "typical state administrative functions". The great accolade for Mussolini was that he kept the trains running on time.
Dealing with such people is a losing game - they always deceive and always take more until stopped.
The only proper response to authoritarians, despots, fascists etc. was provided by the Snake Island garrison to the Russian destroyer: "Go F*k Yourselves".
And the same goes for apologist-type responses like yours.
If you have not figured this out from this week's events, you need to seriously rethink your life.
It does not matter that they are 'merely performing "typical state administrative functions". The great accolade for Mussolini was that he kept the trains running on time.
Dealing with such people is a losing game - they always deceive and always take more until stopped.
The only proper response to authoritarians, despots, fascists etc. was provided by the Snake Island garrison to the Russian destroyer: "Go F*k Yourselves".
And the same goes for apologist-type responses like yours.
If you have not figured this out from this week's events, you need to seriously rethink your life.
Just for reference... Mussolini did not keep the trains running on time, he made it dangerous to complain about the trains not running on time.
Not even close to the same.
Not even close to the same.
Perhaps true, but quite offtopic
The POINT was that "merely performing typical state administrative functions" somehow makes them a legitimate government.
That is beyond absurd
Whether or not Mussollini made or failed to make the trains run on time, these administrative functions, whether performed well or poorly does not make any difference - they make them no less a criminal or despot.
EVERY warlord needs to perform some admin functions, and it does NOT in any way confer legitimacy if they do so. Mafia dons contribute to hospitals and festivals, but it does not make them less criminals.
The POINT was that "merely performing typical state administrative functions" somehow makes them a legitimate government.
That is beyond absurd
Whether or not Mussollini made or failed to make the trains run on time, these administrative functions, whether performed well or poorly does not make any difference - they make them no less a criminal or despot.
EVERY warlord needs to perform some admin functions, and it does NOT in any way confer legitimacy if they do so. Mafia dons contribute to hospitals and festivals, but it does not make them less criminals.
Legitimacy is not a matter of opinion. Either they control the territory and the people in it, or they don't.
FARC, for example, never tried administering anything. But the Taliban has actual courts where they enforce actual written and published laws. We don't like the laws they enforce, but nobody says they are not doing it. (By all accounts, their enforcement is much less corrupt than what they supplanted.)
That doesn't make it good government, but it certainly is government.
FARC, for example, never tried administering anything. But the Taliban has actual courts where they enforce actual written and published laws. We don't like the laws they enforce, but nobody says they are not doing it. (By all accounts, their enforcement is much less corrupt than what they supplanted.)
That doesn't make it good government, but it certainly is government.
This is an odd take. I was in Afghanistan for a total of a year. The Taliban courts that you're talking about executed a woman for having two forced relationships between two rival men, they would extract young men from their homes and make them into forced fighters, they enslaved local populaces for poppy season, just to name a few. Kidnapping and ransom is like a side business to them.
> they would extract young men from their homes and make them into forced fighters
Yesterday a senior German politician floated the idea of reintroducing (or, more accurately, "reactivating") compulsory military service. It previously ran from 1956 until 2011.[0]
As someone else has already pointed out, pretty much all of this stuff can be viewed as shades of grey. Apart from the facts that war is awful, and that that despite that, certain people are happy to get rich from it.
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/killing-time-fo... see also https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-military-and-...
Yesterday a senior German politician floated the idea of reintroducing (or, more accurately, "reactivating") compulsory military service. It previously ran from 1956 until 2011.[0]
As someone else has already pointed out, pretty much all of this stuff can be viewed as shades of grey. Apart from the facts that war is awful, and that that despite that, certain people are happy to get rich from it.
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/killing-time-fo... see also https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-military-and-...
"Compulsory military service" is not even in the same vicinity as being dragged out of your home at gunpoint and being told to fight or your family dies.
Also worth pointing out what the Taliban has been condemned for in the last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices
I forgot they also conscript children.
Also worth pointing out what the Taliban has been condemned for in the last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices
I forgot they also conscript children.
Please explain the shades of grey in executing a woman for getting raped by two men
These are terrible things being conducted by the state. There still very much was/is a Taliban regime, even if you consider them a terrorist group. I believe the US would refer to them as a "rogue state."
The Taliban got demonized by the US 20 years ago but they were not "pursuing political outcomes" - the relevant definition of terrorist - as they had already achieved them. Just because we don't like them or respect them doesn't mean we can warp the definition of terrorist to include them, the US' mission was only to ensure that Al Queda was not leveraging Taliban military infrastructure. Obviously we know that any superpower saying "we're just targeting military" is bullshit. But it happened there too, and then the scope increased to ousting the Taliban and it failed.
[deleted]
I'm really confused by this take. From the use of the word "demonized" to your direct assertion that the definition of terrorist is somehow "warped" to make it fit the Taliban. Can you take a look at this non-exhaustive list and let me know what you believe is "warped" based on public record? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices
It should be pretty clear that the post is about a specific definition of terrorism and not my opinion on their practices, the only thing being warped is the definition. If its not clear, compartmentalize it and reapply everything said until it is clear.
I am asking how you can justify using those words in light of their documented behavior. If it's not clear, I'd like you to put your argument in plaintext with clear citations as to how the Taliban was demonized (eg: how things that people fear them for are not true) and how we changed the definition of "terrorism" to fit them.
By their political aims already having been met in 2000. They already controlled Afghanistan. They control it again.
The US went on a war with a group that was hoping for political aims. It was very clear about that, and then eventually went on a 10-20 year war with the Taliban anyway. Here is Vice President Joe Biden affirming that in 2011. Their domestic policy in Afghanistan is not terrorism, while their external policy needs to be reconciled.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afgha...
Try to find a source you happen to respect that says the same thing.
Subsequently President Trump continued direct negotiations with them, which never broke our "not negotiating with terrorists policy" because............. I think you're starting to get it. With now President Biden fulfilling the pullout deadline that Trump negotiated, giving their country back to them because turns out there was ... a ... group trying to fulfill a political aim - something I've avoided saying as to not dilute and distract from my point.
The US campaign against the Taliban required demonizing them as terrorists under the definition of terrorists which is simply inaccurate, this observation has nothing to do with their human rights record it has to do with political aims that they hadn't already have achieved, the US was required to leverage its media and general islamophobia that allowed for the public to not distinguish between distinct groups. This was successful, while on the ground the people that mattered had to treat them separately for diplomacy, which continues to this day with an outcome that isn't surprising at all when understanding why we shouldn't have attempted marginalizing the Taliban to begin with. Now they have Afghanistan back, the way it was before we got involved.
I'm not sure if any of this information is new to you, but ultimately this is purely semantics. The human rights record isn't a factor.
The US went on a war with a group that was hoping for political aims. It was very clear about that, and then eventually went on a 10-20 year war with the Taliban anyway. Here is Vice President Joe Biden affirming that in 2011. Their domestic policy in Afghanistan is not terrorism, while their external policy needs to be reconciled.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-afgha...
Try to find a source you happen to respect that says the same thing.
Subsequently President Trump continued direct negotiations with them, which never broke our "not negotiating with terrorists policy" because............. I think you're starting to get it. With now President Biden fulfilling the pullout deadline that Trump negotiated, giving their country back to them because turns out there was ... a ... group trying to fulfill a political aim - something I've avoided saying as to not dilute and distract from my point.
The US campaign against the Taliban required demonizing them as terrorists under the definition of terrorists which is simply inaccurate, this observation has nothing to do with their human rights record it has to do with political aims that they hadn't already have achieved, the US was required to leverage its media and general islamophobia that allowed for the public to not distinguish between distinct groups. This was successful, while on the ground the people that mattered had to treat them separately for diplomacy, which continues to this day with an outcome that isn't surprising at all when understanding why we shouldn't have attempted marginalizing the Taliban to begin with. Now they have Afghanistan back, the way it was before we got involved.
I'm not sure if any of this information is new to you, but ultimately this is purely semantics. The human rights record isn't a factor.
Another interesting take.
2011 is when I was in Afghanistan and I can attest that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama lied to the American people about the progress in the war during that time because they ultimately wanted out. Let me juxtapose my experience with Mr Biden's words:
> "We are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that's good enough. That's good enough. We're not there yet.
To be clear, the Taliban is the only force we were fighting in Helmand and Nimroz provinces.
> Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.
The only thing I can think of during that time that this correlates to is the fact that they wanted out so bad they were willing to make peace with the Taliban. The Taliban's guerilla techniques and crafty use of IEDs and VBIEDs were having a huge impact on US troops and were dessimating the local population. To the extent that the Taliban figured out that if they just bombed places we went that local populaces would blame us for attracting the Taliban to their area.
> If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."
This is almost a complete reverse course in what he had just said. Basically, the Taliban is not a threat until they are. He's basically trying to coax the people guilty of a series of heinous war crimes that they can also be regarded as a political entity. I'm reminded of the whitewashing of the IRA, who shouldn't have been a political party either.
Human rights has everything to do with their connection to the word "terrorism".
2011 is when I was in Afghanistan and I can attest that both Joe Biden and Barack Obama lied to the American people about the progress in the war during that time because they ultimately wanted out. Let me juxtapose my experience with Mr Biden's words:
> "We are in a position where if Afghanistan ceased and desisted from being a haven for people who do damage and have as a target the United States of America and their allies, that's good enough. That's good enough. We're not there yet.
To be clear, the Taliban is the only force we were fighting in Helmand and Nimroz provinces.
> Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.
The only thing I can think of during that time that this correlates to is the fact that they wanted out so bad they were willing to make peace with the Taliban. The Taliban's guerilla techniques and crafty use of IEDs and VBIEDs were having a huge impact on US troops and were dessimating the local population. To the extent that the Taliban figured out that if they just bombed places we went that local populaces would blame us for attracting the Taliban to their area.
> If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."
This is almost a complete reverse course in what he had just said. Basically, the Taliban is not a threat until they are. He's basically trying to coax the people guilty of a series of heinous war crimes that they can also be regarded as a political entity. I'm reminded of the whitewashing of the IRA, who shouldn't have been a political party either.
Human rights has everything to do with their connection to the word "terrorism".
Its just not our place to bother with organizations already in power. And I’m glad this is the not an “edgy” take anymore.
Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists. That’s kinda messed up. It also didn’t work.
Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party. We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists. That’s kinda messed up. It also didn’t work.
Promoting American isolationism isn't an edgy take, it's pretty age old. Nationalists have done it for quite some time with varying degrees of success. It's also why we didn't join WWII until we were attacked.
What's an edgy take here is your clear lack of understanding between the Taliban and the Afghan populace, the history of Afghanistan, and your ignorance to the definition of terrorism.
To correct some of the misinformation you're echoing:
> Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party.
First, your speech is really confusing. If you could just directly mention who you're talking about then it'd be easier to track. I'm assuming "third party" here is the Taliban, who started a violent civil war in 94. [1]
> We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants
It never was their state. The Taliban fought with the Mujahideen, whom are also terrorists, to unseat a democratic government. [1]
> We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists
I'm going to assume in good faith that you did not know that at the time Al Qaeda was partnered with the Taliban [2]. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are bent on localized islamic states, while ISIL had global motivations, which is why they were partnered.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%9... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
What's an edgy take here is your clear lack of understanding between the Taliban and the Afghan populace, the history of Afghanistan, and your ignorance to the definition of terrorism.
To correct some of the misinformation you're echoing:
> Due to a third party, we went in to deal with the third party and used the opportunity to oust the first party.
First, your speech is really confusing. If you could just directly mention who you're talking about then it'd be easier to track. I'm assuming "third party" here is the Taliban, who started a violent civil war in 94. [1]
> We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants
It never was their state. The Taliban fought with the Mujahideen, whom are also terrorists, to unseat a democratic government. [1]
> We took their state and designated them as non-state enemy combatants, colloquially calling them terrorists
I'm going to assume in good faith that you did not know that at the time Al Qaeda was partnered with the Taliban [2]. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are bent on localized islamic states, while ISIL had global motivations, which is why they were partnered.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%9... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afgh...
I weigh the scope creep of the US negatively. I'm aware they partnered and that the US was initially making sure that Al Queda could not use Taliban resources.
If this is something you are passionate about, somebody else should have attempted to deal with the Taliban, which is the future we are currently in.
If this is something you are passionate about, somebody else should have attempted to deal with the Taliban, which is the future we are currently in.
A terrorist group doesn't stop being a terrorist group because they control some territory. Their lack of state apparatus in the areas they controlled prevents them from being called a state, and the continued use of terror tactics like public beheadings and rapes. Maintaining the objectives they had already achieved is still political.
There are regimes we respect in that region that do public beheadings, as detailed in law. Like I said, once you have sovereign immunity the standard for criticism or even airtime changes. Practically dissipates from the collective conscious, aside from a footnote in an obscure right’s group annual report.
Doing business with someone implicitly supports them. There is no way around that.
As an infrastructure provider, it makes it tough because pulling out of a country is going to harm normal folks at least as much, if not more, than whoever is in charge you are refusing to do business with.
But that doesn’t mean providing critical infrastructure services to literal terrorists is ok.
As an infrastructure provider, it makes it tough because pulling out of a country is going to harm normal folks at least as much, if not more, than whoever is in charge you are refusing to do business with.
But that doesn’t mean providing critical infrastructure services to literal terrorists is ok.
> Some people have zero self preservation. I wouldn't go deliver something to a terrorist group for any amount of money.
Is this victim blaming, or am I misreading it?
Is this victim blaming, or am I misreading it?
"She shouldn't have worn such a short skirt" is not quite "He shouldn't have gone unarmed and alone to a meeting with ISIS in ISIS-held territory."
relevant exhibit for anyone that is merely avoiding victim blaming because they were told not to, without addressing why victim blaming is often based in mythology:
https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhi...
so, in human interactions, its always the person that does the harmful, nonconsensual and/or illegal action that should have the focus
https://today.tamu.edu/2019/11/19/what-were-you-wearing-exhi...
so, in human interactions, its always the person that does the harmful, nonconsensual and/or illegal action that should have the focus
Self preservation is a concept which extends beyond scenarios with a victim and a perpetrator.
Don't pet feral animals.
Don't run with scissors.
Don't wear a fur coat in the desert.
Don't drink bottles labelled "poison".
So, it should reasonably follow:
Don't hand yourself over to violent, hostile people.
Don't pet feral animals.
Don't run with scissors.
Don't wear a fur coat in the desert.
Don't drink bottles labelled "poison".
So, it should reasonably follow:
Don't hand yourself over to violent, hostile people.
In some cases, a victim is to blame. There are even awards for this sort of thing.
The victim is not to first to be blamed, but the result is predictable and avoidable.
Yes, but no.
You need the ability to distinguish between a bad social cliche like "short skirt, asking for it" and this.
You need the ability to distinguish between a bad social cliche like "short skirt, asking for it" and this.
[deleted]
There aren't many reasonable use cases for sending a fax these days but this is definitely one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The original source, published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) that includes an interview with a kidnapped worker (and a copy of a letter requesting contractors to continue work in Mosul), is at: https://www.icij.org/investigations/ericsson-list/iraq-isis-...
We were detained in Mozambique for arriving to work on their cellular network without a pre-authorization letter from the CTO.
That was quite an experience; not every nation is friendly to Western nations, turns out.
That was quite an experience; not every nation is friendly to Western nations, turns out.
Sometimes parts of the world expect "under the table" payments to get things moving.
Funny you mention that -- when our liaison came to the airport he called the CTO and hand-wrote out an authorization form . . . then paid the border security people MPesa (and cash) lol . . .
FCPA actually allows facilitating payments for things like this. No one will prosecute you for it in the US.
Of course, Ericsson did get FCPA sanctioned for other stuff since they paid kickbacks etc. It’s actually quite fascinating. The real victim here is the foreign state that is suffering from the corruption but US law protects them. I suppose it’s anti-trust sort of law. It retains competition for fair-playing US companies.
Definitely an interesting positive-externalities US law.
Of course, Ericsson did get FCPA sanctioned for other stuff since they paid kickbacks etc. It’s actually quite fascinating. The real victim here is the foreign state that is suffering from the corruption but US law protects them. I suppose it’s anti-trust sort of law. It retains competition for fair-playing US companies.
Definitely an interesting positive-externalities US law.
i was involved in the setup/config of new Sun servers for a Morgan Stanley office in India in the late 90s. everything was done ahead of time in the London HQ and shipped over to India. it was well-known by everyone on that project that there was a cash slush fund that our couriers and the employee who shepherded the gear over to India had to use at various levels to grease the wheels.
If I pay a bribe or facilitation payment to the local warlord, I, personally, break laws in my own country.
This even applies if I pay a taxi driver to take me to the site, and he pays the bribe.
If I'm paying a bribe for safety purposes (say giving a bottle of scotch to pass a checkpoint to get back to the hotel before night), then if I'm lucky I won't be prosecuted when I return to my home country.
The great thing is I don't feel guilty about not tipping in the US.
"Facilitation payments, which are payments to induce officials to perform routine functions they are otherwise obligated to perform, are bribes"
This even applies if I pay a taxi driver to take me to the site, and he pays the bribe.
If I'm paying a bribe for safety purposes (say giving a bottle of scotch to pass a checkpoint to get back to the hotel before night), then if I'm lucky I won't be prosecuted when I return to my home country.
The great thing is I don't feel guilty about not tipping in the US.
"Facilitation payments, which are payments to induce officials to perform routine functions they are otherwise obligated to perform, are bribes"
> The great thing is I don't feel guilty about not tipping in the US.
Wow, that is a real stretch of logic, and a great way to make wait staff hate you
Wow, that is a real stretch of logic, and a great way to make wait staff hate you
The US are probably the only country where tipping makes sense, because it is kind of recognized by law (i.e. waiters have no minimum salary, because it is assumed they would make most of their money from tips).
In every other country a tip is indeed just a bribe.
In every other country a tip is indeed just a bribe.
I get that, but if GGP is not from the US then it is incredibly rude to come into the country with that kind of attitude. And if they are from the US, then it makes them look even worse.
You wrote: <<waiters have no minimum salary>>. This is untrue. It varies from area to area. I don't know of any areas where there is no minimum wages for wait staff. (Please correct me if wrong.)
[deleted]
Not tipping in the US is a detestable position to defend. Not compensating workers according to their customs because of your foreign ideology? What do you have to say?
Sorry if I seem so outraged. I don’t mean to do that on HN. But this is one of most arrogant things I’ve ever read - and a response might help clarify.
Sorry if I seem so outraged. I don’t mean to do that on HN. But this is one of most arrogant things I’ve ever read - and a response might help clarify.
Could their employers not just pay them a reasonable wage? I’m already likely to be overpaying for the food/drinks being served which is supposed to cover the business overheads, if it doesn’t you have a failing business.
I don’t see how any of the above has anything to do with me, the customer.
I would argue US labor/wage policies are the detestable thing to defend.
I don’t see how any of the above has anything to do with me, the customer.
I would argue US labor/wage policies are the detestable thing to defend.
Waiters are officials now?
> not tipping
Not paying people after they perform a service that it's implicitly understood you will pay them for is stealing.
You may not like the particular way in which it's structured, in which case, you're free not to consume the service.
Not paying people after they perform a service that it's implicitly understood you will pay them for is stealing.
You may not like the particular way in which it's structured, in which case, you're free not to consume the service.
> that it's implicitly understood you will pay them
Clearly isn't. If you want the money, put it on the bill - add it as a service charge or whatever.
Clearly isn't. If you want the money, put it on the bill - add it as a service charge or whatever.
why though would anyone choose that option when the other option is also free, don't offer service for payment optional.
The GP was implying the entire system is dysfunctional. Your counter point is, don't participate in this system. Such type of statement comes typically followed by the likes of go away if you don't like it here. If that's the level of friendliness implied by your service ...
The GP was implying the entire system is dysfunctional. Your counter point is, don't participate in this system. Such type of statement comes typically followed by the likes of go away if you don't like it here. If that's the level of friendliness implied by your service ...
Lafarge, the world's biggest cement producer did something similar. They pad millions to ISIS to be allowed to keep operating in Syria
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210907-french-firm-lafa...
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210907-french-firm-lafa...
I don't how much Ericsson is paying but it can't possibly be enough to deal with Islamic terrorists...
Maybe this was one of those mercenary groups? That's the nearest I can figure.
It's quite telling to me that this has not been meaningfully covered or even mentioned at all in Swedish news media (at least from what I can tell).
Propaganda (which I like to think of it as) works differently in different places, I guess. In Sweden it's perfectly fine to be critical of the sitting government and politicians, but information about corruption, unethical, and illegal activity in staple companies like Vattenfall (their greenwashing and coal-expansion is probably more known in Germany than Sweden), Ericsson, Volvo, Telia, Bofors, and ABB are usually just swept under the rug and more often than not most reporters aren't even aware.
Propaganda (which I like to think of it as) works differently in different places, I guess. In Sweden it's perfectly fine to be critical of the sitting government and politicians, but information about corruption, unethical, and illegal activity in staple companies like Vattenfall (their greenwashing and coal-expansion is probably more known in Germany than Sweden), Ericsson, Volvo, Telia, Bofors, and ABB are usually just swept under the rug and more often than not most reporters aren't even aware.
For a bit of contrast, I've been reading quite a bit of it. But you're right that it hasn't gotten the attention it deserves, maybe because it's been crowded away by other news, or by the unwillingness (conscious or not) to not assign so much importance to it.
Swedish public television has covered this story quite extensively:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/
It's peculiar how this works. I have been staying home with my folks for a couple of months (and therefore taking part of the daily TV news (OK, not 100% coverage but more often than not) as well as reading the daily local newspaper). Been glued to the radio (mostly P1, some P3) for the last week. First time I hear of this. A cursory scroll- and click from SR, DN, and SvD before my first comment yielded nothing. And yet I can now see that you are right.
Good on SVT
Good on SVT
Could someone explain what these workers were actually doing? It sounds like they were setting up cell networks, I guess cell networks contract with Ericsson to essentially run their infrastructure for them?
I was under the impression that Ericson mostly made hardware/software and sold it to companies running cell networks, but I guess I was wrong.
I was under the impression that Ericson mostly made hardware/software and sold it to companies running cell networks, but I guess I was wrong.
The network hardware manufacturers are pushing heavily into becoming basically "networks as a service". And many networks are happy to decide that their core competency is not actually running a mobile network but marketing or something.
Mobile telecom companies have near-zero in-house engineering capability. It's all outsourced and they're even proud of it.
Cell networks are a mix of run by the company with hardware purchased (or leased, maybe) from Ericson, Huawei, etc; run by a contracting firm (IBM, etc) with hardware from whoever; run by Ericson or Huawei with probably the same company equipment, but they can probably operate the other stuff too.
Some networks run part of the business and contract out other parts, etc. I worked with a fair number of international carriers at my last job and couldn't figure out the pattern of when I'd get a contact with an email at the carrier domain or at a big global consultancy (telco or general) or at hotmail/gmail. Even the large international carriers would be different on a country by country level.
Some networks run part of the business and contract out other parts, etc. I worked with a fair number of international carriers at my last job and couldn't figure out the pattern of when I'd get a contact with an email at the carrier domain or at a big global consultancy (telco or general) or at hotmail/gmail. Even the large international carriers would be different on a country by country level.
Local Telco purchased a bunch of gear from Ericsson including installation, Ericsson subcontracted it to a local partner on the ground, whose staff got kidnapped.
This kind of thing is quite standard in telco. I was briefly involved in one project in Iraq myself, but due to the risks involved stayed in Kuwait and VPN'd into Baghdad, where our local partner had set up and ran the data center.
This kind of thing is quite standard in telco. I was briefly involved in one project in Iraq myself, but due to the risks involved stayed in Kuwait and VPN'd into Baghdad, where our local partner had set up and ran the data center.
I worked with Ericsson as a contractor and was treated really well but I've heard of some stories in other areas and companies where they're treated like printers basically, but never before heard of cannon fodder for bribes to terrorists!
This is wild
This is wild
Ericsson announced it was going to acquire Vonage for over $6bn in late November, at the peak peak of tech stock multiples. https://www.ericsson.com/en/press-releases/2021/11/ericsson-...
You really have to wonder if that deal is going to close with this hullabaloo and the cratering of multiples in the time since.
You really have to wonder if that deal is going to close with this hullabaloo and the cratering of multiples in the time since.
The source of the linked article seems to be the following BBC article which I find contains more information:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-60507831
See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60406119
See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60406119
The revelation comes after Ericsson was forced to admit it had paid ISIS to allow it to operate and travel through land controlled by the terrorist group. After it admitted to the crime earlier this month, shares in the company fell more than 14 percent.
It's all about the money. Human rights only matter on paper.
It's all about the money. Human rights only matter on paper.
I'm reminded of "John Doe v. ExxonMobil Corporation", which alleged that Exxon directed death squads who killed and tortured Indonesians.
We live in a special era of corporate criminal impunity, this is unbelievable, immoral and outrageous.
Are we going to see any haleads roll? I am not homding my breath
Are we going to see any haleads roll? I am not homding my breath
I can guarantee you that no haleads will roll.
What's the hazard pay on something like that!?
And can that is that covered in your job contract where they say "... and any other reasonable duties!"
And can that is that covered in your job contract where they say "... and any other reasonable duties!"
Not enough. You'd get paid as much, if not more, to go work setting up telecom infrastructure for the US in Iraq or Afghanistan, or, well, the modern Taliban [1] (which, unlike ISIS, is not actively trying to be an at-war-with-the-world pariah state). And while you might certainly be killed or injured by a mortar attack, or an IED, or by gunfire, or a suicide bomber at the market, or any of the other ways bad things can happen to you in an active warzone, at least the people you were working for were unlikely to kidnap you.
[1] U.S. Eases Sanctions to Allow Routine Transactions With Afghan Government - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/politics/us-sanctions-...
[1] U.S. Eases Sanctions to Allow Routine Transactions With Afghan Government - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/politics/us-sanctions-...
This is Weiland-Yutani levels of corporate evil
So business as usual then?
I salute your bravery, kidnapped contractors.
I would rather a bunch of Ericsson contractors get kidnapped and ransomed, and local evil terrorist goons bribed by Ericsson (a greed-driven, evil telcom), and then have local Ericsson towers installed and operating than have it all done by Huawei to the same effect.
I would rather a bunch of Ericsson contractors get kidnapped and ransomed, and local evil terrorist goons bribed by Ericsson (a greed-driven, evil telcom), and then have local Ericsson towers installed and operating than have it all done by Huawei to the same effect.
The telco used sham contracts, inflated invoices, and falsified financial statements to funnel millions to ISIS and local power brokers, with millions still unaccounted for.
Oh damn. That's going beyond just trying to maintain your infrastructure for the sake of the populace.