Biddle writes: "Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to
the smallest firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the
Trump administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will
we resist?"
Hands typing on a computer keyboard. (photo: hamburg_berlin/Shutterstock)
Of 8 Tech Companies, Only Twitter Says It Would Refuse to Help Build Muslim
Registry for Trump
By Sam Biddle, The Intercept
02 December 16
Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest
firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump
administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we
resist?
This question is perhaps most important for the country's tech companies,
which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The
Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to
Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create
a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump's
transition team. Only Twitter said no.
Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to
President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulations, and more
importantly, the services of her company. The six different areas she
identified as potential business opportunities between a Trump White House
and IBM were all inoffensive and more or less mundane, but showed a
disturbing willingness to sell technology to a man with open interest in the
ways in which technology can be abused: Mosque surveillance, a "virtual
wall" with Mexico, shutting down portions of the internet on command, and so
forth. Trump's anti-civil liberty agenda, half-baked and vague as it is,
would largely be an engineering project, one that would almost certainly
rely on some help from the private sector. It may be asking too much to
demand that companies that have long contracted with the federal government
stop doing so altogether; indeed, this would probably cause as much harm and
disruption to good public projects as it would help stop the sinister ones.
But the proposed "Muslim registry," whether it be a computerized list of
people from two dozen predominately Muslim nations who enter the country (as
revealed in Kris Kobach's fatuously exposed Homeland Security agenda) or a
list of all Muslims in the U.S., is both morally appalling and effectively
pointless. In November 2015, asked by a reporter if the country should
create "a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country," Trump
replied, "There should be a lot of systems . beyond databases. I mean, we
should have a lot of systems." The New York Times reported that Trump added
he "would certainly implement that - absolutely." At a rally later that
week, he told the crowd, "So the database - I said yeah, that's all right,
fine." The next day, George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "Are you
unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?" Trump replied, "No,
not at all." Although Trump attempted to walk back these comments during the
campaign, a registry of some form is now back on the table, at least as far
as Kobach is concerned.
Even on a purely hypothetical basis, such a project would provide American
technology companies an easy line to draw in the sand - pushing back against
any effort to track individuals purely (or essentially) on the basis of
their religious beliefs doesn't take much in the way of courage or
conviction, even by the thin standards of corporate America. We'd also be
remiss in assuming no company would ever tie itself to such a nakedly evil
undertaking: IBM famously helped Nazi Germany computerize the Holocaust.
(IBM has downplayed its logistical role in the Holocaust, claiming in a 2001
statement that "most [relevant] documents were destroyed or lost during the
war.")
With all this in mind, we contacted nine different American firms in the
business of technology, broadly defined, with the following question: "Would
[name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods,
services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the
creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated
tentatively by the president-elect's transition team?"
After two weeks of calls and emails, only three companies provided an
answer, and only one said it would not participate in such a project. A
complete tally is below.
Facebook: No answer.
Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy
a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for
surveillance purposes. Period."
Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and
a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting
not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but .
inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in
government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a
balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous
time."
Google: No answer.
Apple: No answer.
IBM: No answer.
Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment.
SRA International: No answer.
CGI: No answer.
This isn't to say that the companies that didn't reply to a request for
comment or declined that request are tacitly endorsing the Trump agenda in
general or a Muslin registry in particular. Still, it's asking very little
of today's tech companies to prompt them to go on record as unwilling to
help create a federal list of Muslims - or so one would very much hope.
"Any technology company should resist a government request for assistance
that targets a customer on the basis of race, religion, or national origin,"
said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner when asked about the social and ethical
obligation of these companies to fight, in some capacity, a project like the
Muslim registry.
Should any of the above companies wish to expand their answer (or
non-answer), this post will be updated accordingly.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hands typing on a computer keyboard. (photo: hamburg_berlin/Shutterstock)
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it
-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/https://theintercept.c
om/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-
build-muslim-registry-for-trump/
Of 8 Tech Companies, Only Twitter Says It Would Refuse to Help Build Muslim
Registry for Trump
By Sam Biddle, The Intercept
02 December 16
very American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest
firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump
administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we
resist?
This question is perhaps most important for the country's tech companies,
which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The
Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to
Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create
a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump's
transition team. Only Twitter said no.
Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to
President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulations, and more
importantly, the services of her company. The six different areas she
identified as potential business opportunities between a Trump White House
and IBM were all inoffensive and more or less mundane, but showed a
disturbing willingness to sell technology to a man with open interest in the
ways in which technology can be abused: Mosque surveillance, a "virtual
wall" with Mexico, shutting down portions of the internet on command, and so
forth. Trump's anti-civil liberty agenda, half-baked and vague as it is,
would largely be an engineering project, one that would almost certainly
rely on some help from the private sector. It may be asking too much to
demand that companies that have long contracted with the federal government
stop doing so altogether; indeed, this would probably cause as much harm and
disruption to good public projects as it would help stop the sinister ones.
But the proposed "Muslim registry," whether it be a computerized list of
people from two dozen predominately Muslim nations who enter the country (as
revealed in Kris Kobach's fatuously exposed Homeland Security agenda) or a
list of all Muslims in the U.S., is both morally appalling and effectively
pointless. In November 2015, asked by a reporter if the country should
create "a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country," Trump
replied, "There should be a lot of systems . beyond databases. I mean, we
should have a lot of systems." The New York Times reported that Trump added
he "would certainly implement that - absolutely." At a rally later that
week, he told the crowd, "So the database - I said yeah, that's all right,
fine." The next day, George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "Are you
unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?" Trump replied, "No,
not at all." Although Trump attempted to walk back these comments during the
campaign, a registry of some form is now back on the table, at least as far
as Kobach is concerned.
Even on a purely hypothetical basis, such a project would provide American
technology companies an easy line to draw in the sand - pushing back against
any effort to track individuals purely (or essentially) on the basis of
their religious beliefs doesn't take much in the way of courage or
conviction, even by the thin standards of corporate America. We'd also be
remiss in assuming no company would ever tie itself to such a nakedly evil
undertaking: IBM famously helped Nazi Germany computerize the Holocaust.
(IBM has downplayed its logistical role in the Holocaust, claiming in a 2001
statement that "most [relevant] documents were destroyed or lost during the
war.")
With all this in mind, we contacted nine different American firms in the
business of technology, broadly defined, with the following question: "Would
[name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods,
services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the
creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated
tentatively by the president-elect's transition team?"
After two weeks of calls and emails, only three companies provided an
answer, and only one said it would not participate in such a project. A
complete tally is below.
Facebook: No answer.
Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy
a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for
surveillance purposes. Period."
Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and
a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting
not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but .
inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in
government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a
balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous
time."
Google: No answer.
Apple: No answer.
IBM: No answer.
Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment.
SRA International: No answer.
CGI: No answer.
This isn't to say that the companies that didn't reply to a request for
comment or declined that request are tacitly endorsing the Trump agenda in
general or a Muslin registry in particular. Still, it's asking very little
of today's tech companies to prompt them to go on record as unwilling to
help create a federal list of Muslims - or so one would very much hope.
"Any technology company should resist a government request for assistance
that targets a customer on the basis of race, religion, or national origin,"
said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner when asked about the social and ethical
obligation of these companies to fight, in some capacity, a project like the
Muslim registry.
Should any of the above companies wish to expand their answer (or
non-answer), this post will be updated accordingly.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
