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

An Apology and an Update

slackhq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 236 posts

Re: An Apology and an Update

#161

Post by akerl_ »

chatmasta wrote: post #110
akerl_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line you quoted is specifically clarifying what they will be doing moving forward, which is blocking connections from sanctioned countries. Their post as a whole is their apology for the prior method, which did deactivate accounts.

Right, and their blog post also says that after de-activating accounts, they have restored access to some of them. So what about all the accounts they banned but have not unbanned? What if one of those accounts has only ever connected from an embargoed country, but travels in the future to a non-embargoed country? Will it be able to use Slack? (Put another way, it seems like they’re saying some accounts remain de-act…

That’s a hedge in case they missed somebody. If they said “we unbanned all the accounts” but via a search error they’d missed one, and that person commented “no, liars, I’m still banned”, it would be a whole new round of controversy. So instead they say that they got most of them and if they missed you, ping their support team and they’ll fix it.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#162

Post by bad_user »

akerl_ wrote: post #160
bad_user wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't they do that in the first place then? This wasn't a bug, but a management level decision.

Because their management made a mistake. It does happen.

Blocking people's accounts based on their affiliation with certain countries, instead of blocking just IPs and with no prior warning given is a pretty serious mistake to make.

What made matters much worse for them was that their algorithm failed, also blocking unaffiliated with any of the embargoed countries. But the design itself is the bigger problem.

"It happens" is a poor excuse.

What if people with blocked accounts lost revenue due to Slack's decision? Will Slack pay for the damages?

Re: An Apology and an Update

#163

Post by jkaplowitz »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #133
da_chicken wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Slack legally required to do this? Yes, absolutely. Breaking sanctions is not just illegal, it's a criminal offense . There have been sanctions against Iran since roughly when Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [1] in May of this year. The CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada per a request by the US because of their dealings with Iran [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_C…

Nope -- the stipulations of the licensing policy on Internet freedom in Iran are still in effect: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/... See specific of the current application of the rules here: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Page... "Specifically, section 560.540 of the ITR authorizes the exportation from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located, to pe…

That says "personal communications". Slack is aimed at businesses, not personal use. It also requires "no cost to the user." Very well may not exempt their business model, though some room for argument exists.

Of course, any sanctions regime that does still apply wouldn't require the collateral damage of Slack's excessive initial ban.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#164

Post by jkaplowitz »

aaomidi wrote: post #58
da_chicken wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is Slack legally required to do this? Yes, absolutely. Breaking sanctions is not just illegal, it's a criminal offense . There have been sanctions against Iran since roughly when Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [1] in May of this year. The CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada per a request by the US because of their dealings with Iran [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_C…

The CFO was arrested in relation to Iran but not because of it. She was arrested because she lied to banks and sold American made technology to Iran. Slack is actually not required to do this as IM applications are exempt from sanctions.

The wording of the exemption applies only to personal communications and requires the service to be available at no cost to the user. There are plausible readings that Slack goes well beyond the exemption.

Still, even though the sanctions rules may apply, I'm glad Slack is reversing their overbroad application of these rules.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#166

Post by tjoff »

Jare wrote: post #157

"Mistakes were made" is a good apology, but with no personalization, no reparations for the people impacted, and no reflection on the process and context that allowed those mistakes to happen, it still leaves Slack in a lower place in my mind compared to where it was before this incident. It may sound like there's no way to win for them, but well, mistakes have consequences. Time will heal the wounds.

Missing the why the mistakes were made. What assumptions they made didn't hold up etc. Since they don't dare to even touch that subject incompetence is about the most charitable I can think of.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#167

Post by xena »

bad_user wrote: post #162
akerl_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their management made a mistake. It does happen.

Blocking people's accounts based on their affiliation with certain countries, instead of blocking just IPs and with no prior warning given is a pretty serious mistake to make. What made matters much worse for them was that their algorithm failed, also blocking unaffiliated with any of the embargoed countries. But the design itself is the bigger problem. "It happens" is a poor excuse. What if people with blocked accou…

What else do you want us to say? We're not omniscient.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#169

Post by mac01021 »

hamandcheese wrote: post #71
tlb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "they should have acted differently to begin with" isn't a valid criticism of an apology, or it would apply to all apologies.

“If you were sorry you wouldn’t have done it to begin with” has also come up on several occasions in my personal life. Haven’t figured out how best to respond to that one.

Your personal life sounds more exciting than mine.

In each case though you did it to begin with because

1) while you knew you would be sorry, you surmised you would be more sorry not doing it, or

2) did not believe anyone would mind your actions, or

3) did not realize you would so much regret it when others took offense to your actions.

#3 absolves you of nothing. #2 absolves you unless you thought they wouldn't mind simply because they wouldn't know. #1 could absolves you in theory, but might just reflect priorities that the recipient of your apology doesn't share.

All this is likely of little use to anyone, but I couldn't resist writing it down anyway.

Re: An Apology and an Update

#170

Post by n_e »

bad_user wrote: post #151
speedplane wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apology wasn't good just because it accepted responsibility, it was good because they acted responsibly. The incident lasted two days, and it was quickly corrected. Many other companies would ignore it for months, and a similar apology in that case would be feel far less sincere. It's okay to mess up if you quickly correct the issue or at least quickly recognize it and try to correct it. The problems arise when i…

2 days for people being locked out of their account, through no fault of their own, is a long time. Slack is only apologizing due to the public uproar, as apparently many people were affected. Our cofounder was also locked of his account. He's Irish and living in Romania, with nothing to do with the embargoed countries. To make matters worse, he tried contacting support to prove his nationality and country of residen…

> 2 days for people being locked out of their account, through no fault of their own, is a long time.

In absolute terms yes. Compared to how for example google handles this it’s outstanding.

Post reply on HN