21–30 of 245 posts
My theory is lots of people who want to circumvent Iranian internet censorship rely on tunnels/VPNs hosted on Hetzner, which correlates those IPs with `Accept-Language: fa` and GPS locations collected from Android or other similar behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the interpretation of some cloud providers that exchanging datagrams with entities in OFAC-sanctioned countries constitutes a prohibited transaction.
Which is plainly stupid. They should interpret the law to mean "We will treat every request from Iran as a non-paying customer, and won't offer anything outside the free-tier" Even if that isn't the way was written , it is plain that it falls within the intent of the law, and is beneficial to US businesses.
You de-risk your enterprise significantly by cutting Iran out completely, and you only lose the handful of dollars this would’ve translated into down the road.
Some customers aren’t worth having.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US sanctions prohibit transfer of goods, technologies, information, etc. to Iran. As a company, this means BSTS (better safe than sorry) CYA (cover your ass) measures for good or worse.
Curiosity may get me on this one, but is sharing information (such as this post/comment) an example of transfer of information (to potentially all countries)?
Edit: it also wouldn't surprise me if hacker news blocks traffic from Iran.
I mean, so? Why should it matter where they are located?
A lot of US resources ban traffic outside the US. Or, at least, from "suspicious" or "sanctioned" locations. Some ban EU due to GDPR. You never know such things when you are in US though...
Does this kind of thing affect Hetzner IPs in their US datacenters?
I mean, so? Why should it matter where they are located?
My servers ban huge swaths of IPs from certain places that originates enormous amounts of spam, scanners, and other nefarious traffic. It's very effective
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is plainly stupid. They should interpret the law to mean "We will treat every request from Iran as a non-paying customer, and won't offer anything outside the free-tier" Even if that isn't the way was written , it is plain that it falls within the intent of the law, and is beneficial to US businesses.
Isn't intent of sanctions to weaken the adversary? Providing services, even free-tier (or, may be, especially so), to sanctioned countries is exactly the opposite of that.
I would argue that for unpaid services (for example serving up web content), we should not be applying sanctions. Those specific sanctions are so easy for the iranians to work around (VPN), and so damaging to our businesses (no worldwide service).
like I wonder if Hetzner has any way to legally force them to stop misclassifying their IP
it's pretty absurd that cloudflare can just effectively cripple a cloud provider by tagging part of their IPv4 range as Iranian and not fixing their issues in over a year (and AFIK have no intention to fix them at all) like I wonder if Hetzner has any way to legally force them to stop misclassifying their IP
Might be pertinent to suffix this with (2023), though I see there are still recent replies