Live data from Hacker News

GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

twitter.com

301–310 of 515 posts

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#301

So many dimensions come to play here. 1. There's the obvious legal aspect i.e. how these laws are framed and interpreted. 2. Then there's the geopolitical aspect. Is it fair to impose sanctions on Iran. 3. There's another aspect around GitHub policy that asks if an entire organization be banned for the location of one team member. 4. Finally, there's the aspect of relinquishing control. Your app development is on the…

#4 should be #1.

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#302

Entrusting your business to an american entity is the stupidest idea you could have thought about. Especially us europeans should not rely on American services at all.It's not worth it. American corporations are just as much a liability as their counterparts in China.

The top 33 "software and programming" companies by revenue in the world can be found below [0]. 28 of them are American. Two are in the EU. One is in the UK. One is in Australia. The last is Russian. One of the companies in the EU produces enterprise software almost no one on this website uses (SAP). The other is Dassault. In the US the top five companies are Microsoft, Oracle, ADP, Adobe, and Salesforce. If you incl…

There are often subsidiaries that offer the same services, except everything is done in the EU, data storage, support, etc. Of course the US still has access because of compromised infra, but at least it's illegal now.

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#303
post #153
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system. And Git is open source. Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power. Stallman (RMS) was right once again.

This particular case was overreach by Github and not the US Lawmakers. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... 118. I have a client that is in Iran to visit a relative. Do I need to restrict the account? A: No. As long as you are satisfied that the client is not ordinarily resident in Iran, then the account does not need to be restricted. See FAQ 37. Source: https://twitter.com/Hamed/status/13…

The law has a chilling effect on companies, that drives them to do things like this. If a company does something, that they clearly would not have done without a law, it's the fault of the law, even if that law didn't specifically require it, in fact even if that law specifically exempts it.

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#305
So are we not going to talk about how economic sanctions end up as a way to use the people of these countries as a way to pressure their governments for political gains? How these sanctions directly and indirectly cause an increased poverty gap and negatively impact the living standards? How the governments of these sanctioned countries magnify this economic pressure to prevent people from revolting and to entrench their presence even more?

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be overreach by GitHub, but given the severity of the sanctions lawmakers have set for if they happen to get it wrong, I'd like to at least blame lawmakers for creating such a risky situation.

I work with sanctions. I think both can be easily blamed. Similarly to DMCA notices, most companies opt to for the path of least resistance ( it is cheaper to blanket ban than to investigate ). Yes, politicians are to blame for creating the environment, but companies deserve flak for taking the path that is bad for the customer ( unless they are sufficiently well-heeled ). My thoughts are my own. I do not represent a…

So look at (one one hand) a customer worth... well, PureLabs is "10 incredible FTEs," let's give them the $21/user/mo Enterprise plan at $210/month in revenue.

On the other hand, a sanctions violation could be a $65,000 fine (Trading with the Enemy Act) or $250,000 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) for each offense. (I leave aside the million-dollar narcotics-kingpin act). On top of this we also see the risk of criminal prosecution.

In what world is it reasonable to expect anyone to take this chance?

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#307
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2FA should be bypassable after some longish lockout period. Nope. No backups, no sympathy, simple as that. 2FA is worthless if you start to put holes in it like that. So if you value your data, make backups - preferably locally the old-fashioned way, e.g. HDDs stored in at least two different locations or at least using several different cloud providers (which have their own infrastructure and aren't just relying o…

>> 2FA should be bypassable after some longish lockout period. > Nope. No backups, no sympathy, simple as that. My two sim-cards were lost at the same time. Impossible, right? Now I cannot access my Github account anymore. Perfect security. Nothing important is lost and backups are there. But what about the account itself?

Most countries require SIM registration using a government issued ID document (including prepaid ones). Some providers offer ID registration even for prepaid SIMs. If you want privacy from your government too, don't use SIM-based (sms or call) 2fa.

That's generally a suitable backup in my view.

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#308

Entrusting your business to an american entity is the stupidest idea you could have thought about. Especially us europeans should not rely on American services at all.It's not worth it. American corporations are just as much a liability as their counterparts in China.

- Sent from my iPhone

Ok buddy. Good luck with China and not using American software.

Re: GitHub blocks entire company because one employee was in Iran

#309
post #176
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how GH gets shit for what the US has as laws. I'd focus my outrage on the law, the lawmaker, and those who uphold it. GH is merely trying to go by the book/ avoid penalties, as expected.

Not as per the letter of the law. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...

It's so peculiar that you - and some guy on twitter, apparently - are quoting a footnote to a FAQ on Treasury's OFAC information page as if that captures the entirety of an American company's obligations under the law. This is really obviously crazy, right? In any other, less political, context involving business law and liability the advice would be "talk to a lawyer."
Post reply on HN