5 ms·

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 hir

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...
    - kyboren 7y ago
      > 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 Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical. > 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). First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.). Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.
- wuxb 7y ago
  Lessons are getting unlearned by concerning enterprise customers.
  - iknowalot 7y ago
    Yes, this is old school racism wrapped in company policy. Bigoted leadership in this country gives this kind of activity permission. The wiser among us know historically garbage thinking when we see it.
    - pnako 7y ago
      China seems to have noticed how accusations of racism, xenophobia and "white supremacy" are a very effective button to push to try and get western countries to act against their own interests. The thing is, coming from a country that is practicing cultural genocide against various ethnic groups, we can probably take those accusations and survive.
      - iknowalot 7y ago
        The thing that makes it really easy for China and other countries to do this, is the actual long documented history of European and American racism.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  If a security clearance requirement suddenly makes it allowable it argues that it maybe isn't unethical, unless the argument is implicitly that it is ok to ask for unethical things when involving a security clearance?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > I hope we learned our lesson during WW2. You can rest assured that we did not, I have zero doubt that if there ever was another war at that scale we'd have internment camps for nationals of the enemy before the end of that war.
- cabalamat 7y ago
  > discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective Yes it is. You know what's also a big no-no from an ethical perspective? Letting China win so they turn the world into a global dictatorship with concentration camps, organ harvesting and ubiquitous surveillance. Sometimes you have to do a bad thing to prevent a worse thing.
- teknologist 7y ago
  Have you ever been to China? Such discrimination happens left, right and center. If you’re of an “acceptable” origin and have the right skin color, you might be ok...
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    I lived and worked in China for almost 10 years. I get that the foreigner glass ceiling is much lower there than here, and things like naked officials are actively discriminated against in government. That has nothing to do with the USA, however.
    - teknologist 7y ago
      Well, it does. Because they will use your ethical values against you to slowly boil you like a frog in a pot 'til you find yourself in a concentration camp having your organs harvested. Sometimes bad things have to happen to prevent worse things.
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        Verwoed
  - istinspring 7y ago
    and where it's different? look at distribution of people of color among boards of directors, senate etc.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - teknologist 7y ago
      Because there are less people of ethnic minorities than in the majority demographic. That’s why they’re called minorities. The key point is that they have a chance.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Depends "national security" is much more than defence industries back when I worked BT the team leaders on some projects where getting positively vetted for SC clearance - That's top secret in US terms. Arguably now the FANGS are now CNI - which is going to suck if your on a H1B or Green Card.
gdy 7y ago
Better place them all into internment camps. Just in case.
thereare5lights 7y ago
Are we seriously going 9066 here?

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...
  - kyboren 7y ago
    > 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 Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical. > 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). First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.). Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.
wuxb 7y ago
Lessons are getting unlearned by concerning enterprise customers.
- iknowalot 7y ago
  Yes, this is old school racism wrapped in company policy. Bigoted leadership in this country gives this kind of activity permission. The wiser among us know historically garbage thinking when we see it.
  - pnako 7y ago
    China seems to have noticed how accusations of racism, xenophobia and "white supremacy" are a very effective button to push to try and get western countries to act against their own interests. The thing is, coming from a country that is practicing cultural genocide against various ethnic groups, we can probably take those accusations and survive.
    - iknowalot 7y ago
      The thing that makes it really easy for China and other countries to do this, is the actual long documented history of European and American racism.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
If a security clearance requirement suddenly makes it allowable it argues that it maybe isn't unethical, unless the argument is implicitly that it is ok to ask for unethical things when involving a security clearance?
jacquesm 7y ago
> I hope we learned our lesson during WW2. You can rest assured that we did not, I have zero doubt that if there ever was another war at that scale we'd have internment camps for nationals of the enemy before the end of that war.
cabalamat 7y ago
> discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective Yes it is. You know what's also a big no-no from an ethical perspective? Letting China win so they turn the world into a global dictatorship with concentration camps, organ harvesting and ubiquitous surveillance. Sometimes you have to do a bad thing to prevent a worse thing.
teknologist 7y ago
Have you ever been to China? Such discrimination happens left, right and center. If you’re of an “acceptable” origin and have the right skin color, you might be ok...
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  I lived and worked in China for almost 10 years. I get that the foreigner glass ceiling is much lower there than here, and things like naked officials are actively discriminated against in government. That has nothing to do with the USA, however.
  - teknologist 7y ago
    Well, it does. Because they will use your ethical values against you to slowly boil you like a frog in a pot 'til you find yourself in a concentration camp having your organs harvested. Sometimes bad things have to happen to prevent worse things.
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Verwoed
- istinspring 7y ago
  and where it's different? look at distribution of people of color among boards of directors, senate etc.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - teknologist 7y ago
    Because there are less people of ethnic minorities than in the majority demographic. That’s why they’re called minorities. The key point is that they have a chance.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Depends "national security" is much more than defence industries back when I worked BT the team leaders on some projects where getting positively vetted for SC clearance - That's top secret in US terms. Arguably now the FANGS are now CNI - which is going to suck if your on a H1B or Green Card.

gdy 7y ago

Better place them all into internment camps. Just in case.

thereare5lights 7y ago

Are we seriously going 9066 here?