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

Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

letsencrypt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 404 posts

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#291

Post by JuniperMesos »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #285
jaas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to the requirements imposed on us. When it comes to sanctions, we do not block anything more than what is required by law.

The current US government sanctions political enemies [0]. Wouldn't the more rational response to this legal situation be to leave the USA and move somewhere more willing to respect international law? [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...

Why would other countries be less likely to impose sanctions on their political enemies?

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#292

Post by jaas »

Hundredth0006 wrote: post #161
lioeters wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what "ordinarily resident" means legally. Like has a permanent address there, even if they don't live there physically..?

Yes. If you are, for example, even a US citizen, permanently living in Crimea, you are still subject to limitations, imposed by sanctions.

I'm not sure if you're talking generally about sanctions or specifically about Let's Encrypt, but to avoid any doubt: citizens of Crimea are free to use Let's Encrypt. We do not, however, serve government entities in occupied Crimea.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#293

Post by bawolff »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #285
jaas wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to the requirements imposed on us. When it comes to sanctions, we do not block anything more than what is required by law.

The current US government sanctions political enemies [0]. Wouldn't the more rational response to this legal situation be to leave the USA and move somewhere more willing to respect international law? [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...

> move somewhere more willing to respect international law?

Some of these sanctions are required by international law (i.e. sanctions imposed by UNSC). For the other ones, international law generally lets countries have whatever trade policy they see fit including sanctions, unless they violate some other rule of international law or treaty obligation.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#294

Post by bigfishrunning »

Hundredth0006 wrote: post #167
bigfishrunning wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time you heard about a European cellphone manufacturer, or social media network, or web browser being acquired by an American monopoly? I can only think of Nokia, purchased by microsoft in 2014. Those phones ran windows CE before that even, so you could hardly have avoided the american tech industry. All I'm trying to say is, it's impossible for Europeans to both A) be on the internet and B) avoid t…

Nokia phones ran mostly on SymbianOS

Sorry, I stand corrected

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#295

Post by FireBeyond »

jaas wrote: post #239
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #101

Let's Encrypt’s mission is to create a more secure and privacy-respecting web, except for people residing in countries with the most need for a more secure and privacy-respecting web. Sure, that's great. That said, pretty sure this is stems from the insane US legal requirement to not export SSL technology to enemy countries. I'm sure some of y'all are old enough to remember when web browsers came in "international fr…

Let's Encrypt continues to be available to almost every vulnerable population in the world, including those that need it most. I say almost as I'm hesitant to speak in absolutes regarding a topic as complex as this. Most of our sanctions-related blocks apply only to the governments of certain sanctioned countries, not their general population. This subscriber agreement update was intended to better reflect our legal…

> Most of our sanctions-related blocks apply only to the governments of certain sanctioned countries, not their general population.

The agreement very plainly says otherwise:

> You are not a person or entity that is: (a) located in, organized under the laws of, or ordinarily resident in any country or territory that is the target of comprehensive U.S. sanctions

The general population of those countries are absolutely "persons" "located in" a "country or territory that is the target of comprehensive U.S. sanctions."

> communicating about it better in our terms of service. It's clear from some of the comments here that we have more work to do to make that text more understandable, we'll work on that.

This tries to frame it as a comprehension issue. It's not.

The wording in your agreement is actually quite clear. I think it's reckless, if not disingenuous to frame this as "we really only mean government entities".

Apropos of anything else, it's also not how US sanctions work - they are absolutely aimed at both the populace as well as the government itself.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#296

Post by wodenokoto »

Supermancho wrote: post #289
wodenokoto wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's Encrypt’s mission is to create a more secure and privacy-respecting web, except for people residing in countries with the most need for a more secure and privacy-respecting web. Sure, that's great. If complying with the law gets in the way of the mission I’m not sure that counts as a change to the mission.

> If complying with a law gets in the way of the mission I’m not sure that counts as a change to the mission. It's already illegal to use in NK, but if it's the US, well it's time to steer the mission around it? Gross.

For an American enterprise? Yes, obviously.

Should NRA hand out guns to everyone who can’t get a permit where permits are required? Of course not. If they are against gun permits they have to fight the law, not break it.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#297

Post by rootnod3 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #295
jaas wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's Encrypt continues to be available to almost every vulnerable population in the world, including those that need it most. I say almost as I'm hesitant to speak in absolutes regarding a topic as complex as this. Most of our sanctions-related blocks apply only to the governments of certain sanctioned countries, not their general population. This subscriber agreement update was intended to better reflect our legal…

> Most of our sanctions-related blocks apply only to the governments of certain sanctioned countries, not their general population. The agreement very plainly says otherwise: > You are not a person or entity that is: (a) located in, organized under the laws of, or ordinarily resident in any country or territory that is the target of comprehensive U.S. sanctions The general population of those countries are absolutely…

Came here to quote exactly that paragraph.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#298

Post by fc417fc802 »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #291
marcus_holmes wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current US government sanctions political enemies [0]. Wouldn't the more rational response to this legal situation be to leave the USA and move somewhere more willing to respect international law? [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...

Why would other countries be less likely to impose sanctions on their political enemies?

I can't answer why or why not but just in terms of track record the US is fairly egregious. The executive attempts to coerce individual UN officials via sanctions. While it may not be strictly illegal it is clearly flagrantly unethical.

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#299

Post by [deleted] »

cassianoleal wrote: post #194
kube-system wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorporating a subsidiary in a foreign country doesn't make the parent company immune to the legal obligations it has in it's home country. It would be absurd if that were the case. Sometimes people try setting up subsidiaries overseas to hide their evasion of the law, but it is illegal to do so.

You may call it a subsidiary all you want, but it's still a company that's wholly incorporated in foreign soil, doing business in foreign soil. At least in Brazil, companies that operate there must obey local laws. What happens when those laws are in contradiction with US laws, like in the example I cited? Is Brazil supposed to cave? Is Brazil supposed to keep fining Dell Brasil until it folds? Maybe prosecute Dell B…

[deleted]

Re: Let's Encrypt bans certificate usage in any US sanctioned territory [pdf]

#300

Post by thayne »

rzerowan wrote: post #114
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #101

Let's Encrypt’s mission is to create a more secure and privacy-respecting web, except for people residing in countries with the most need for a more secure and privacy-respecting web. Sure, that's great. That said, pretty sure this is stems from the insane US legal requirement to not export SSL technology to enemy countries. I'm sure some of y'all are old enough to remember when web browsers came in "international fr…

Seems in all thing tech at the moment the US legal system is accelearting a great split and erectinga digital iron curtain, from AI models to the more mundane like TLS certs. Its been standard for a while for many Linux distros based in the US to toe the party line - like RedHat having notices pretty similar to this one by LE. Seems any meaningful Open Projects will have to choose what path they want to take, be like…

It isn't just the US. China, Russia, the EU, and Australia and probably others are all increasingly trying to create virtual walls of various forms in the internet.
Post reply on HN