3 ms·

>- Is this just how the US ticks right now? >- Is Slack just completely gone mad? >- Is this what companies believes is acceptable nowadays? >- Is this the futu

>- Is this just how the US ticks right now? >- Is Slack just completely gone mad? >- Is this what companies believes is acceptable nowadays? >- Is this the future of the web? Iran has sanctions against it right now. Slack, and other companies that have done this sort of thing with Iran, Cuba, etc the past few years, are trying to stay on the right side of the law. To avoid imprisonment, fines, etc. If you think what they did is wrong, start a company and risk serving prison time to stand up for your what you believe in by creating a similar product and offering it to customers that have direct geographical ties to sanctioned and embargoed countries. I'm serious, imprisonment is a very real risk with dealing with sanctioned and embargoed countries. Doing business with Iran, or a citizen of Iran, can open the door for all sorts of government investigation from fines, to being shut down for an investigation, to having data from other users compromised, to criminal prosecution of employees/officers of the company. It's a lot easier to just immediately sever ties with anyone that has had dealings with an IP geographically connected to Iran than to go one by one "hey, you an enemy of the state? You sure you aren't? Promise? Cross your heart and hope to die? Ok, we believe you, we'll just hope you're telling the truth!" Then there's the fact that Slack uses encryption at rest and in transit, there may be a LEGAL REQUIREMENT not to allow users with ties to Iran to use the product under CFR title 15 chapter VII, subchapter C. Or they may at least suspect they are at risk of running afoul of the cryptography export laws as they stand and simply decided, they don't want to risk it to protect the company and other users. I highly doubt this is some Islamaphobic/Iranaphobic move on Slack's part, this is simply a cover-our-ass move so we can stay in business and not risk prison time. See: - 15 CFR chapter VII, subchapter C. - 31 CFR Part 560 and Appendix A to Chapter V - Public Law 115–44 (the CAATSA)

bradleyland 8y ago
Heh. Seems everyone has decided to shoot the messenger. You may disagree with the policy, but ryaymercer isn't wrong. Living in startup land where everything is light, you move fast, and things get broken, it's very easy to overlook that there is this 500 lb gorilla in the corner just waiting to smash you into pulp for doing the wrong thing. My guess is that something internally at Slack has triggered this. It seems likely that they're in the midst of contracting with a Federal agency, or something of the sort. When you do business with the Federal government, all manner of hell is unleashed on you in the form of paperwork and due diligence. "Negotiation" boils down to litigation, and litigation is god damned expensive. I am not saying what's happening is right. I'm simply pointing out that this is the culmination of decades of policy and momentum within our government. Wagging our collective fingers at Slack isn't going to change a thing. What can Slack do? Let's say they pass on whatever opportunity is driving this ridiculous witch hunt. So then what? Some Federal agency doesn't get to use their messaging platform? Who cares? Nothing changes. It all starts with asking the right questions, and ryanmercer's post likely contains the answers to a number of questions that few people are asking: what's motivating this change, who is responsible for the policy, and how can our community affect change to prevent it in the future?

bradleyland 8y ago

Heh. Seems everyone has decided to shoot the messenger. You may disagree with the policy, but ryaymercer isn't wrong. Living in startup land where everything is light, you move fast, and things get broken, it's very easy to overlook that there is this 500 lb gorilla in the corner just waiting to smash you into pulp for doing the wrong thing. My guess is that something internally at Slack has triggered this. It seems likely that they're in the midst of contracting with a Federal agency, or something of the sort. When you do business with the Federal government, all manner of hell is unleashed on you in the form of paperwork and due diligence. "Negotiation" boils down to litigation, and litigation is god damned expensive. I am not saying what's happening is right. I'm simply pointing out that this is the culmination of decades of policy and momentum within our government. Wagging our collective fingers at Slack isn't going to change a thing. What can Slack do? Let's say they pass on whatever opportunity is driving this ridiculous witch hunt. So then what? Some Federal agency doesn't get to use their messaging platform? Who cares? Nothing changes. It all starts with asking the right questions, and ryanmercer's post likely contains the answers to a number of questions that few people are asking: what's motivating this change, who is responsible for the policy, and how can our community affect change to prevent it in the future?