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

201–210 of 312 posts

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

#201

Post by relaunched »

cortesoft wrote: post #194
relaunched wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, all companies are lawful because they are required to be. That's a bit of a tautology, no? It also doesn't play out in reality.

Maybe they keep the company running so they can do secondary offerings and an IPO, so the investors and executives get paid, is the motivation to do unlawful things. Maybe it's okay to break the law now, cause when they are bigger and public they'll go back and fix it - breaking the law is a cost of doing business. Maybe they were so focused on signing the deal that they didn't want to hear from compliance. It's not the first time legal / compliance was railroaded or disregarded at a startup, in the name of doing something great. In the startup world, that's kind of a badge of honor.

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

#203

Post by dependenttypes »

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...

> Ms. Ciresi’s most recent post on GitLab’s public thread, published five days ago, has been redacted by the company.

Would you happen to have her post? Kind of amusing how they talk about valuing transparency when they censored her post.

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

#204

Post by bogomipz »

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…

Is there really no process in place to first notify an organization that you will need to close their account down? Or is there something in existing sanction law that prevents extending such a courtesy when account is flagged?

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

#205

Post by 40four »

djsumdog wrote: post #184
rezonant wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to do a post-mortem on this. What exactly did Aurelia do to trigger this to start with? A contribution from a sanctioned country? A github issue posted by someone from a sanctioned country? How exactly are open source projects supposed to avoid this possibility if they don't happen to literally be Rob Eisenberg? How many other project repositories have been disabled because of this problem? Is Github doing a…

Yea, there's a real lack of information in Github's response. I hope we get something more complete. But really, if your project is mature enough and you have the bandwidth, just host it yourself. Gogs, Gitlab, cgit .. lots of FOSS implementations to choose from.

I agree. This is the second story list this we have seen come across the front page of HN this week. I'm glad they sorted it out quickly, but it is almost certainly a result of Mr. Eisenberg's high profile.

We saw another story like this come across the front page this week. The author is less well known (also happens to reside in Russia), and claimed that he had trouble even getting an e-mail response from the given support pathways for appeal. Sounds like it eventually got sorted out, but not without much waiting and effort from the maintainer.

So when GitHub CEO Mr. Friedman jumps in and pats himself on the back for getting this account restored in less than an hour, I can only roll my eyes. To try to sell it like this is an 'average' response to these type of appeals is a little disingenuous.

If I were starting a company today, I would absolutely self-host my repository to guarantee my business is never harmed by some automated flag that could total lock me out of my own work. We use GitLab Community Edition at my company. It is fantastic, and we are in full control.

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

#206

Post by bdcravens »

relaunched wrote: post #198
bdcravens wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not an interpretation of sanctions, you're pulling in a second set of laws. Additionally, I'm pretty sure a country being on a boycotted list doesn't prohibit a company from making hiring decisions for reasons outside of the boycott.

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

#207

Post by shadowgovt »

cryptonector wrote: post #192
shadowgovt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "ye…

> 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.

Morality drives the shaping of all three of those things, so framing it as a question of morality is unavoidable if one wants to do something other than the status quo (which is "A private service provider may choose to do business with or refrain from doing business with anyone for any reason that hasn't already been carved out by previous civil rights legislation"). I believe you immediately demonstrated this fact by stating as "policy" something that is a moral stance ("little people" deserve some minimal protections from "big people"). And we may do well to remember that the KKK is also "little people", as are neo-Nazis (and society has a vested interest in keeping both groups "little people").

All people should be treated equally as people in the eyes of the law, i.e. with empathy for their humanity. But when you divide groups into "little" and "big" by political belief, sometimes you do, in fact, find situations where the majority should suppress the minority (because the minority's belief is anti-human, and political beliefs are malleable).

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

#208

Post by relaunched »

dependenttypes wrote: post #203
relaunched wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Ms. Ciresi’s most recent post on GitLab’s public thread, published five days ago, has been redacted by the company. Would you happen to have her post? Kind of amusing how they talk about valuing transparency when they censored her post.

https://m.imgur.com/a/grRvEWt

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

#209

Post by jackpirate »

dathinab wrote: post #140
jackpirate wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... to offer public repo access in US-sanctioned countries like Iran, Syria, and Cuba. You should also add North Korea to that list. Three years ago I spent a semester in Pyongyang teaching a course on open source software development, and as part of the course students created git repos and contributed to other repos that are hosted on github. So that you're not put in an awkward position, though, I won't tell you w…

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

While I was in North Korea, I basically never used a VPN and rarely had problems with any services. A handful of news sites were blocked (ironically the sites did the blocking and provided a message about sanctions; the North Korean government didn't block anything), and so I needed a VPN for those.

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

#210

Post by jiggawatts »

xxpor wrote: post #181
Sephr wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that trade regulations such as ITAR apply to publicly-available open source software? I do not¹, and it appears that your employees do not believe this either. GitHub is currently hosting multiple GPS implementations² that are clearly against this line in your ToS, in addition to also being against ITAR by not implementing speed limits for missiles: "GitHub may not be used for purposes prohibited under…

The difference is companies actually get in a LOT of trouble for sanctions violations. When was the last time someone was prosecuted for an illegal GPS implementation?

The minute someone uses an open-source GPS radio to build a cruise missile in their garage, and uses it for assassinations.

Given the current tech level available to hobbyists, this isn't that far fetched.

Post reply on HN