13 ms·

Congratulations on taking a step in the right direction, even if it is a very small step. Nobody else seems to take the threat seriously, somewhat excepting def

by burfog 7y ago

Congratulations on taking a step in the right direction, even if it is a very small step. Nobody else seems to take the threat seriously, somewhat excepting defense contractors of course. I can understand being reluctant to deal with the full extent of the problem. Somebody from China, with a family in China and subject to Chinese law, does not cease to be a security threat by moving to the USA and getting a green card. This gets awkward. It really is no surprise that valuable secrets of all types (private key, customer data, trade secret, insider info for trading, etc.) end up in other countries.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
In china, not from China. The former is easy to justify, and would affect even Americans of non Chinese descent. The latter would be incredibly difficult to justify, and could easily be seen as unwarranted discrimination.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Well, technically it is discrimination, but not racism. I.e. you can still hire a Japanese developer, and with a Chinese regime change you might be able to hire Chinese developers. However, federal law prohibits discrimination based on national origin. This is a touchy subject, but maybe this no longer makes sense? As burfrog pointed out, a Chinese employee living in America isn't free from Chinese control; the gov't will do bad things to his family if he gets a request for, say, information or access and doesn't comply. I'm hesitant to endorse allowing discrimination by national origin, but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to allow the Chinese access to any kind of important data.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    It doesn’t matter. As long as a security clearance isn’t required, discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective, even if it was legal. I hope we learned our lesson during WW2.
    - kyboren 7y ago
      > discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective However, discriminating based on exposure to coercive pressure from aggressive and hostile foreign powers is probably OK, even if such exposure is heavily correlated with national origin. The key is that the discrimination must be based on an individual analysis of the applicant and his/her life circumstances. It's not OK to blanket deny any person of Chinese ancestry. Denying such a person access to sensitive data or positions might be OK, however, if that person is exposed to coercive threats by, e.g. having family located in a jurisdiction known to use its power over expatriates' families as leverage to recruit sources and agents. So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest in protecting against security threats and the vetting policy is as narrowly tailored as possible to minimizing insider risk from applicants with vulnerability to certain threat actors, I think such a policy could pass ethical and (IANAL) maybe legal muster.
      - adamsea 7y ago
        > So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest "Your honor, of course my intent was genuine ..." Therein lies the rub ;)
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        I disagree completely. By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified, and that is nowhere justified by the constitution. A private company likewise shouldn’t be able to discriminate on speculative threats alone. What if they had a relative in prison, a hostile coercive environment by any measure? I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).
        ethbro 7y ago
        The Title of Nobility / Emoluments Clause [1] and the natural born (and age) qualifier are fairly specific as to what the framers thought were overly corrupting influences for the office of president. They notably did not include "or family". The expectation presumably being that foreign powers were clearly enough signalled to tread carefully with regards to exerting pressure on government officials. At high levels, that seems reasonable. At lower levels, where there's less scrutiny and less opportunity for diplomatic redress? "Reasonable" measures seem murkier. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
  - gdy 7y ago
    Better place them all into internment camps. Just in case.
  - thereare5lights 7y ago
    Are we seriously going 9066 here?
- anoncake 7y ago
  Discriminating someone because of their Chinese ethnicity would be hard to justify but what about Chinese citizenship (especially if it's the only one) or ties to China like family living there? Those would make someone vulnerable to pressure by the Chinese government.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    No. As long as someone has a green card or citizenship, who cares where their family lives? The only exception would be for national security clearances, and those affect Americans as well.
    - Diggsey 7y ago
      The argument made in the thread is that someone could be pressured by the foreign government into leaking sensitive information. Where an employee's family lives seems like the single most important point to consider...
    - NoodleIncident 7y ago
      Is it legal for a private US company to apply (some of) the same tests used to determine national security clearances in its hiring decisions? Or is the government the only entity allowed to make decisions that way? I'm genuinely asking, I haven't thought about this conflict before.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jakobegger 7y ago
I on the other hand think that splitting countries into allies and enemies is stupid. China is a huge country, and excluding a billion people from your company just because their government does questionable things sounds like a pretty bad idea. If you are really concerned about the confidentiality of your data, don't store it unencrypted in some SaaS where every customer service rep has full access to all your data. At that point you're already so vulnerable that exluding potenential employees from a whole country is just pointless security theater that some suit with an MBA thought up to justify his position.
- momirlan 7y ago
  Trolling much? I expect a lot of Chinese rationalizing why this is a bad idea. After all, you get good social points for supporting the Party. Otherwise...
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > I on the other hand think that splitting countries into allies and enemies is stupid. China is a huge country, and excluding a billion people from your company just because their government does questionable things sounds like a pretty bad idea. There are only two ways left for China getting rid of its dictator government. The first one is flattening China with nuclear weapons (conventional war is impossible to win) which is obviously inacceptable, the second one is totally excluding China from any and all international trade. The third way (trade brings democracy) has been disproven over the last decades. Even worse, the Chinese dicatorship has taken our weapon of free trade and turned it against us. Our domestic production of many goods has completely shifted to China, our failure to treat Africa decently instead of using it as dumping ground for excess food and clothing has led to China filling the investment void and to top it off China has been using our money to buy up our companies and leverage that to shut down democratic protest (think of the Blizzard fuckup). China is an enemy and should be treated as such if the Western world wants to survive instead of turning a blind eye towards genocide (e.g. the Muslim Gulags).
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Are you in USA? Should other countries refuse to employ USA citizens because of actions of the government - things like pulling out of Syria to enable the Turkish murder of the Kurds to continue. >China has been using our money ... The best way is to vote with your money then?
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
I never thought I'd see this level of xenophobia becoming widely acceptable in the United States. For everything educated Americans loathe about Trump, the one thing they've taken on board from him is fear of the Yellow Peril - which is probably the most dangerous aspect of his Presidency.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mieseratte 7y ago
  It’s not xenopohobia, it’s a hard problem. China actively exploits American tolerance for their own gain, and we have no good way to stem corporate espionage other than a blanket ban. Even then, good old corruption of non-Chinese is still possible.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    I'm sorry, targeting Chinese people on Green Cards is xenophobia. I'm not interested in whatever rationalizations are given for this sort of discriminatory behavior. The US is sadly headed down a path towards socially acceptable racial discrimination, justified by the new bogeyman - China.
    - munmaek 7y ago
      The same argument would apply if the person was white and had many relatives in China. Or real estate, or other leverage that can be used against them. You can’t ignore the fact that the PRC uses those things as leverage against people abroad in order to get information. Until that stops, what are companies and governments supposed to do? Roll over and allow espionage because we’re so tolerant?
      - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
        I could use the exact same argument to propose banning Americans from GitLab. I'd also have much better empirical grounds for doing so, given how much is known about the extent of US espionage. There's a growing hysteria in the US about China, which is leading to increasing signs of discrimination and harassment of Chinese people in the US. This sort of demonization of an entire country and the politics behind it (preservation of the US as the world's dominant power by containing China) are very dangerous. The thing that makes it most disturbing is the way people across the political spectrum have bought into the idea of the Yellow Peril, and are now okay with discriminatory policies, the trade war, and challenging Chinese territorial sovereignty.

by burfog 7y ago

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

In china, not from China. The former is easy to justify, and would affect even Americans of non Chinese descent. The latter would be incredibly difficult to justify, and could easily be seen as unwarranted discrimination.

big_chungus 7y ago
Well, technically it is discrimination, but not racism. I.e. you can still hire a Japanese developer, and with a Chinese regime change you might be able to hire Chinese developers. However, federal law prohibits discrimination based on national origin. This is a touchy subject, but maybe this no longer makes sense? As burfrog pointed out, a Chinese employee living in America isn't free from Chinese control; the gov't will do bad things to his family if he gets a request for, say, information or access and doesn't comply. I'm hesitant to endorse allowing discrimination by national origin, but on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to allow the Chinese access to any kind of important data.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  It doesn’t matter. As long as a security clearance isn’t required, discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective, even if it was legal. I hope we learned our lesson during WW2.
  - kyboren 7y ago
    > discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective However, discriminating based on exposure to coercive pressure from aggressive and hostile foreign powers is probably OK, even if such exposure is heavily correlated with national origin. The key is that the discrimination must be based on an individual analysis of the applicant and his/her life circumstances. It's not OK to blanket deny any person of Chinese ancestry. Denying such a person access to sensitive data or positions might be OK, however, if that person is exposed to coercive threats by, e.g. having family located in a jurisdiction known to use its power over expatriates' families as leverage to recruit sources and agents. So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest in protecting against security threats and the vetting policy is as narrowly tailored as possible to minimizing insider risk from applicants with vulnerability to certain threat actors, I think such a policy could pass ethical and (IANAL) maybe legal muster.
    - adamsea 7y ago
      > So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest "Your honor, of course my intent was genuine ..." Therein lies the rub ;)
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I disagree completely. By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified, and that is nowhere justified by the constitution. A private company likewise shouldn’t be able to discriminate on speculative threats alone. What if they had a relative in prison, a hostile coercive environment by any measure? I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).
      - ethbro 7y ago
        The Title of Nobility / Emoluments Clause [1] and the natural born (and age) qualifier are fairly specific as to what the framers thought were overly corrupting influences for the office of president. They notably did not include "or family". The expectation presumably being that foreign powers were clearly enough signalled to tread carefully with regards to exerting pressure on government officials. At high levels, that seems reasonable. At lower levels, where there's less scrutiny and less opportunity for diplomatic redress? "Reasonable" measures seem murkier. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
- gdy 7y ago
  Better place them all into internment camps. Just in case.
- thereare5lights 7y ago
  Are we seriously going 9066 here?
anoncake 7y ago
Discriminating someone because of their Chinese ethnicity would be hard to justify but what about Chinese citizenship (especially if it's the only one) or ties to China like family living there? Those would make someone vulnerable to pressure by the Chinese government.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  No. As long as someone has a green card or citizenship, who cares where their family lives? The only exception would be for national security clearances, and those affect Americans as well.
  - Diggsey 7y ago
    The argument made in the thread is that someone could be pressured by the foreign government into leaking sensitive information. Where an employee's family lives seems like the single most important point to consider...
  - NoodleIncident 7y ago
    Is it legal for a private US company to apply (some of) the same tests used to determine national security clearances in its hiring decisions? Or is the government the only entity allowed to make decisions that way? I'm genuinely asking, I haven't thought about this conflict before.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jakobegger 7y ago

I on the other hand think that splitting countries into allies and enemies is stupid. China is a huge country, and excluding a billion people from your company just because their government does questionable things sounds like a pretty bad idea. If you are really concerned about the confidentiality of your data, don't store it unencrypted in some SaaS where every customer service rep has full access to all your data. At that point you're already so vulnerable that exluding potenential employees from a whole country is just pointless security theater that some suit with an MBA thought up to justify his position.

momirlan 7y ago
Trolling much? I expect a lot of Chinese rationalizing why this is a bad idea. After all, you get good social points for supporting the Party. Otherwise...
mschuster91 7y ago
> I on the other hand think that splitting countries into allies and enemies is stupid. China is a huge country, and excluding a billion people from your company just because their government does questionable things sounds like a pretty bad idea. There are only two ways left for China getting rid of its dictator government. The first one is flattening China with nuclear weapons (conventional war is impossible to win) which is obviously inacceptable, the second one is totally excluding China from any and all international trade. The third way (trade brings democracy) has been disproven over the last decades. Even worse, the Chinese dicatorship has taken our weapon of free trade and turned it against us. Our domestic production of many goods has completely shifted to China, our failure to treat Africa decently instead of using it as dumping ground for excess food and clothing has led to China filling the investment void and to top it off China has been using our money to buy up our companies and leverage that to shut down democratic protest (think of the Blizzard fuckup). China is an enemy and should be treated as such if the Western world wants to survive instead of turning a blind eye towards genocide (e.g. the Muslim Gulags).
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Are you in USA? Should other countries refuse to employ USA citizens because of actions of the government - things like pulling out of Syria to enable the Turkish murder of the Kurds to continue. >China has been using our money ... The best way is to vote with your money then?

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

I never thought I'd see this level of xenophobia becoming widely acceptable in the United States. For everything educated Americans loathe about Trump, the one thing they've taken on board from him is fear of the Yellow Peril - which is probably the most dangerous aspect of his Presidency.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mieseratte 7y ago
It’s not xenopohobia, it’s a hard problem. China actively exploits American tolerance for their own gain, and we have no good way to stem corporate espionage other than a blanket ban. Even then, good old corruption of non-Chinese is still possible.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  I'm sorry, targeting Chinese people on Green Cards is xenophobia. I'm not interested in whatever rationalizations are given for this sort of discriminatory behavior. The US is sadly headed down a path towards socially acceptable racial discrimination, justified by the new bogeyman - China.
  - munmaek 7y ago
    The same argument would apply if the person was white and had many relatives in China. Or real estate, or other leverage that can be used against them. You can’t ignore the fact that the PRC uses those things as leverage against people abroad in order to get information. Until that stops, what are companies and governments supposed to do? Roll over and allow espionage because we’re so tolerant?
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      I could use the exact same argument to propose banning Americans from GitLab. I'd also have much better empirical grounds for doing so, given how much is known about the extent of US espionage. There's a growing hysteria in the US about China, which is leading to increasing signs of discrimination and harassment of Chinese people in the US. This sort of demonization of an entire country and the politics behind it (preservation of the US as the world's dominant power by containing China) are very dangerous. The thing that makes it most disturbing is the way people across the political spectrum have bought into the idea of the Yellow Peril, and are now okay with discriminatory policies, the trade war, and challenging Chinese territorial sovereignty.