Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 312 posts

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#191

Post by luckylion »

tomxor wrote: post #186
luckylion wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am glad that we restored access to the account in less than an hour after Aurelia filed their appeal. You mean after they went semi-viral on Twitter and landed on the HN front page. But I'm sure it doesn't happen again (to this repository, for this reason, in this year; everything else is on the table). Using Twitter, FB, HN etc as your support-priority-queue system is a terrible idea.

They reinstated the account 1hr after official appeal. You comment is only relevant to those posts who are used as a last resort, usually after waiting days or weeks without any human response. AFAICT the tweet was done pretty much simultaneously, perhaps in an attempt to hasten response time.

> They reinstated the account 1hr after official appeal.

Yeah, because it got traction on HN and Twitter. Pretty much the same happened to somebody else just three days ago, and, wouldn't you know it, after their rant [1] made it to the HN front page [2], Github finally reacted to the appeal after having spent a week ignoring it.

If you expect to ever have troubles with GitHub, you better have a following or some luck to be posting at the right time.

[1] https://medium.com/@catamphetamine/how-github-blocked-me-and... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22593595

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#192

Post by cryptonector »

shadowgovt wrote: post #133
cryptonector wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world in which online presence is an essential attribute of... commerce, professionalism, etc., deplatforming cannot be allowed to be so trivial to effect and difficult (in many cases impossible) to challenge. At some point human rights have got to include sufficient due process to deal with accidental or unjust deplatforming.

It's an interesting thought, but at the moment at least, things are still too fluid to really nail down how that would work. What is a "platform?" What is "deplatforming?" If Github kicks me off and I can migrate easily to GitLab, have I been "deplatformed?" Is it morally correct to tie Github's hands from locking someone's account if they're using their git repo to host CP? We're getting there, but pulling it off is…

> If Github kicks me off and I can migrate easily to GitLab, have I been "deplatformed?"

Most definitely you have. Especially if the reason and process used by GH is likely to also be in use at GL.

> Is it morally correct to tie Github's hands from locking someone's account if they're using their git repo to host CP?

The relevant question is: is it constitutional. In the U.S. I believe the answer would be a solid "yes" as to a Federal statute that adds due process protections for this, no different than with the many many Federal and State laws and regulations that have created civil justice recourse for specific kinds of torts.

Morality is a different issue, and it's much too easy to flip your question on its head: is it moral to deplatform people if doing so damages their ability to earn a living?

Indeed, there's no need to frame this as a moral question, and it's arguably foolish to do so. It is and should be only a question of policy, politics, and constitutional law.

Regarding politics, mine is a political argument.

Regarding policy, I think it's a good idea to give "little people" some minimal protections from "big people". This is quite standard around the world. There are going to be policy details to debate, but writ large, this is a no-brainer.

I already address the very likely U.S. consitutionality of such a policy.

> We're getting there, but pulling it off is going to require a level of international cooperation that is rarely seen (and tends to give a few key players a lot of power; if we do this, I hope everyone's excited to be living under the US's notion of what morality looks like. Or Europe's. or China's).

No. This can be done in each country w/o internaltional cooperation. Granted, GH might pull out of France, say, if they don't like French laws, and so on. But U.S. business will not leave the U.S. over this.

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#193

Post by dwheeler »

xvector wrote: post #74
dwheeler wrote: post #52

This looks like a terrible but honest mistake. The repo is already back, after something like an hour and a half. The . io website is not back yet, but I suspect that takes a moment to get back running.

It doesn’t matter if it’s an honest mistake, this sort of action alongside the canned HR response is completely unacceptable. Honest mistakes don’t exempt your actions from being disgusting.

An action that is an honest mistake isn't disgusting; it is simply a mistake. We all make mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes is not doing anything useful.

What matters is doing the right thing after the mistake is discovered. I agree that the canned HR response wasn't acceptable, but that is not all that happened. GitHub quickly restored the project - and that was the most important issue. In addition, GitHub has now posted an apology, and has also said that they will try to figure out how to prevent its recurrence in the future.

THAT is exactly the right way to handle a mistake: fix the problem, say sorry, and try to prevent its recurrence. Good show. I am actually impressed with GitHub's response to this!!

I get the impression that part of your complaint is that "flagging" itself is disgusting. If that's the case, your ire is completely misdirected. This is required by US law for anyone doing business in the US. If you don't like it, that's fine; complain to the US Congress, who create the US laws. GitHub is simply doing what it must do. In the US, and in most of the western world, the rule of law is still a thing (and a good thing it is!). Please point your disagreement at those who are responsible for it.

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#194

Post by cortesoft »

relaunched wrote: post #178
sytse wrote: post #154

GitLab CEO here, thanks Nat for doing everything you can do to keep open source accessible around the world. We have to comply with the same restrictions and respect greatly that GitHub is taking the broadest possible interpretation of US sanctions law to help users.

Do you though? Really? https://www.wsj.com/articles/resignation-at-gitlab-highlight...

Yes, they do. If you are suggesting they should do what those employees did and quit in protest (which for a company would be to shut itself down), then I guess you are right they don't HAVE to comply with US law... but they do if they want to continue to exist.

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#195

Post by dopamean »

firloop wrote: post #2

This is pure speculation, but it seems that GitHub's ownership by Microsoft causes them to be significantly more strict with the types of content that they are comfortable hosting. Expect this to continue as they expand up and down the stack; once their npm acquisition closes you'll see this there too. I think this should be a wake-up call to anyone staking their open source project on GitHub — if I let someone from…

> This is pure speculation

> Expect this to continue

I'm not expecting anything to continue based on "pure speculation."

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#196

Post by dwheeler »

natfriedman wrote: post #113

Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Flagging this account was obviously a terrible mistake, and I apologize to anyone who was affected by it. We're investigating why it occurred and will make changes to make sure it doesn't happen again. I am glad that we restored access to the account in less than an hour after Aurelia filed their appeal. For context on why any account flagging is ever necessary, unfortunately, every comp…

Thanks so much for the swift fix, apology, and the current work to try to find out what happened & prevent the recurrence of the mistake. Mistakes are inevitable, especially at scale. I think taking those steps, when the inevitable mistake happens, is all we can ask of anyone.

Good job!!

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#197

Post by tlrobinson »

dsl wrote: post #160
dathinab wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder do they use VPN to obfuscate where they come from?

All North Korean internet traffic originates from 175.45.176.0/22. They have no reason to hide (except for the massive amount of cyber crime they originate, where VPNs are used)

> They have no reason to hide (except for the massive amount of cyber crime they originate, where VPNs are used)

And, well, trade sanctions, which is why the parent comment wondered if they used VPNs.

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#198

Post by relaunched »

bdcravens wrote: post #183
relaunched wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you though? Really? https://www.wsj.com/articles/resignation-at-gitlab-highlight...

I'm not sure what those hiring practices have to do with the legally-mandated sanctions being referenced.

Glad you asked. Since Sid respects the broadest interpretation, take a look at https://www.export.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/6.%20Anti-bo...

It seems like, if a VP wants to discriminate hiring within certain countries, based on a pending customer contract, as stated by Mr. Johnson - it's reasonable to assume that GitLab should report, as per the EAR requirement, that:

Any person under U.S. Jurisdiction who is asked to enter into an agreement or provide information that would violate anti-boycott laws must report this to BIS using a form BIS-621-P or form BIS-6051P in accordance with 15 C.F.R. § 760.5.

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#199

Post by mullingitover »

ben509 wrote: post #134
mullingitover wrote: post #78

Isn't this a first amendment violation? Are we not on board with the notion that code is speech, and that the constitution applies to everyone, not just US citizens? With those things in mind, I don't understand how the Iranian peoples' free speech rights can be infringed just because their speech is in the form of code.

If Github is acting as agents of the USG, they're bound by 1A. Here, there's a direct instruction from the government telling them to do this thing. But I'm not sure there's a 1A case against this form of trade sanctions. The government isn't saying Iranians (as an example) can't write code, or that US citizens can't write code. They're saying they Iranian citizens can't use a US service. It's being denied as an econ…

So does that mean Iranians could just mirror the repo, someone in the US could mirror that repo, and then push the Iranians' commits to GitHub unimpeded by the sanctions?

Re: GitHub shuts off access to Aurelia repository, citing trade sanctions

#200

Post by alireza94 »

EisenbergEffect wrote: post #141

GitHub has corrected the issue, restoring our organization access and web site. They have reported that the org was flagged as part of an automated process. The flagging occurred because we have two external contributors from Iran (non GH org members). They told me that there should have been a warning and they are investigating why that didn't happen. The CEO of GitHub also reached out personally to try to speedily…

Well, this sounds bad.

A few months ago GitHub banned access of Iranian developers (and devs who live in a few other countries) to private repositories and gists and now, with actions like this, even if it's by accident, they are threatening our chance of collaboration to public open-source repos because maintainers would be afraid that if they accept our contribution they may face consequences.

Post reply on HN