8 ms·

Sanctions for online services are one of the worst things about working in this industry. Being forced to implement and maintain technical solutions to block ac

by vasco 7y ago

Sanctions for online services are one of the worst things about working in this industry. Being forced to implement and maintain technical solutions to block access to every day citizens of certain regions because some guys in suits decided these are second tier humans is demoralizing as hell. How are people supposed to rise up and depose or vote for less tyranical governments if they cannot access information, or use services that'll boost their businesses in the global market? Having had to implement things like this myself in the past, I just feel like puking when I do it. And don't think about just ignoring these, as soon as you get bigger than tiny, your bank will threaten to freeze all your accounts and stop doing business with you if for some reason you let some Crimean or Iranian get onto your service and pay you for it. What exactly is the plan? Are we expecting that individuals who disagree with their regimes would leave their country and their families? It just feels like cold blooded retribution with no care for the regular every day population.

woofcat 7y ago
>What exactly is the plan? Are we expecting that individuals who disagree with their regimes would leave their country and their families? It just feels like cold blooded retribution with no care for the regular every day population. That it will impact the country economically and hopefully result in the Government changing coarse or for the People of the country to not want to live in a shitty place with a poor economy. I find sanctions vastly better than the alternative at that level, which would be some sort of blockade or other military intervention.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  Ostensibly. But the reality is probably more like the top levels of governments bullying, and they don’t give a flying fuck about the impacts on the average citizen.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Sounds good in theory but the evidence is lacking.
- kelnos 7y ago
  That sounds good in theory, but in reality you end up with worse outcomes than doing nothing: a) The target country just allows their citizens to feel the brunt of the sanctions while the ruling class hoards resources for themselves. b) The target country starts a propaganda campaign to blame the sanction-issuer for all their problems, which the citizens mostly believe. So ultimately you end up with regular-Joe citizens in the target country having a worse quality of life, while also being led to believe that your country is the evil one. Another poster hit the nail on the head: the politicians in the sanction-issuing country need to be seen as doing something by their populace, regardless of what the result of that something is.
  - GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
    > The target country starts a propaganda campaign to blame the sanction-issuer for all their problems, which the citizens mostly believe Because it's at least partly true. They are the ones issuing the sanctions.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      Heh, an excellent point. Obviously the sanctioner's goal is for the sanctionee's citizens to understand why the sanctions are in place, and ultimately blame their own government, but that can be a hard sell, even without a propaganda campaign.
- hn23 7y ago
  Sanctions are part of a war or often a preparation. You could also call it blackmailing. If people die from not having access to medical goods etc because of sanctions it just cheaper than sending troops.
Joker_vD 7y ago
Apparently, the idea is that those "Crimean or Iranian" would get pissed off at their government and revolt. Which, as the practice shows, doesn't quite work taht way. They get pissed off at the sanctioning government as well, and are less likely to believe that that government actually worries about their interests and rights and not, say, as using them as a free battering ram against their current government/regime.
- woofcat 7y ago
  However what's the alternative? Country 'A' would like to build a weapon of mass destruction. Country 'B' asks them nicely to not do that. They ignore the request and continue building the technology. At that point you can either do the following: - Ignore it and hope they don't destabilize the region / world. - Economic and Trade sanctions to slow down their progress, and impact the economy of the country. - Physical blockade / severing of Internet connections. - Declaration of war. Unless you're saying we should simply ignore these states and let them do what ever they want. I don't really know what solution you would envision that would be _less_ impactful to the average citizen.
  - Alir3z4 7y ago
    Country B is the one having many weapon of mass destruction and used it 2 times already.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      And is the only country to have ever used such weapons in wartime, and on a civilian population, nonetheless.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        I suppose you'd prefer that, instead, the entirety of Japan would have had to be bombed into oblivion using non-nuclear weapons, not to mention the extra loss of life on the Allied side that would have almost certainly occurred during a more traditional invasion that would have likely been necessary. War sucks, and there are rarely good choices; it's nearly always going to be a choice between something truly awful and something just merely really bad. Nuclear weapons suck, but I dare say they saved lives -- on both sides -- when used in that instance. Of course, after more people had them, and we realized the implications of MAD, using nuclear weapons is (thankfully) more or less off the table for any non-suicidal nation.
illumanaughty 7y ago
"How are people supposed to rise up and depose or vote for less tyranical governments if they cannot access information" I mean yeah, that's the idea.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
When regular diplomacy fails to resolve an international dispute, what further options do you believe exist? As far as I can tell, generally speaking, you have economic sanctions, and war. I know which of those I would personally consider to be more humane, but if you have a case for war, then please make it. I’m also not aware of any sanctions that have been put in place because a government sees the citizens of another country as second tier humans. But if you have any rationale to support that ridiculous claim, I’d be interested in hearing it.
xvector 7y ago
GitHub could take the approach of collecting less data and saying that they don't know where their users are. They could drop the IP at the LB, disassociate all location metrics from their user accounts, and thus have no ability to tell where developer accounts are from. But instead they choose to data mine users for their location and block them. Just like their ridiculous contract with ICE, GitHub is choosing to actively participate in these sort of things.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
Why should software or online services be treated different than any other good/service when it comes to an embargo? It's fine to debate an embargo, but that belongs in the political space and not technical or business realm. Personally I may not agree with the efficacy of particular embargoes, but I do support the ability of my government to enforce one wholeheartedly. Because by the same token that you want to sell your information services to people oppressed by hostile foreign powers, there are those that want to sell them to the oppressors, and it's generally impossible to tell the difference. I don't want to hear about another IBM selling bookkeeping tools to another Nazi regime to improve the bureaucracy of their death camps, and if that means a few indie developers can't get Iranians to use their front end JS framework that's ok with me. This debate belongs in the senate, not in the tech world.
downerending 7y ago
I don't think anyone reasonably expects that their citizens will have any useful reaction. Rather, it's simply a way to cause economic hardship to the country. Whether that's a wise or ethical idea depends on the particular situation, but it's certainly a much smaller hammer than (say) direct military action.
himinlomax 7y ago
The stupidest part is, people in affected countries easily and routinely circumvent the block. The only people affected are foreign companies from countries that do not have a sanction, but risk being sued in the US. For example, European oil companies operating in Iran.
mncharity 7y ago
> Sanctions for online services Not my field, but my impression is there's an ongoing argument over whether severe economic sanctions constitute a form of collective punishment as prohibited under the Geneva convention. Usually it's in the context of trade and infrastructure. "Once your government submits to our policy demands, we'll permit your infant mortality rates to drop back down - until then, don't blame us for your suffering". But where access to information is seen as a universal human right, a similar issue might arise with online services.

by vasco 7y ago

woofcat 7y ago

>What exactly is the plan? Are we expecting that individuals who disagree with their regimes would leave their country and their families? It just feels like cold blooded retribution with no care for the regular every day population. That it will impact the country economically and hopefully result in the Government changing coarse or for the People of the country to not want to live in a shitty place with a poor economy. I find sanctions vastly better than the alternative at that level, which would be some sort of blockade or other military intervention.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
Ostensibly. But the reality is probably more like the top levels of governments bullying, and they don’t give a flying fuck about the impacts on the average citizen.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Sounds good in theory but the evidence is lacking.
kelnos 7y ago
That sounds good in theory, but in reality you end up with worse outcomes than doing nothing: a) The target country just allows their citizens to feel the brunt of the sanctions while the ruling class hoards resources for themselves. b) The target country starts a propaganda campaign to blame the sanction-issuer for all their problems, which the citizens mostly believe. So ultimately you end up with regular-Joe citizens in the target country having a worse quality of life, while also being led to believe that your country is the evil one. Another poster hit the nail on the head: the politicians in the sanction-issuing country need to be seen as doing something by their populace, regardless of what the result of that something is.
- GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
  > The target country starts a propaganda campaign to blame the sanction-issuer for all their problems, which the citizens mostly believe Because it's at least partly true. They are the ones issuing the sanctions.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Heh, an excellent point. Obviously the sanctioner's goal is for the sanctionee's citizens to understand why the sanctions are in place, and ultimately blame their own government, but that can be a hard sell, even without a propaganda campaign.
hn23 7y ago
Sanctions are part of a war or often a preparation. You could also call it blackmailing. If people die from not having access to medical goods etc because of sanctions it just cheaper than sending troops.

Joker_vD 7y ago

Apparently, the idea is that those "Crimean or Iranian" would get pissed off at their government and revolt. Which, as the practice shows, doesn't quite work taht way. They get pissed off at the sanctioning government as well, and are less likely to believe that that government actually worries about their interests and rights and not, say, as using them as a free battering ram against their current government/regime.

woofcat 7y ago
However what's the alternative? Country 'A' would like to build a weapon of mass destruction. Country 'B' asks them nicely to not do that. They ignore the request and continue building the technology. At that point you can either do the following: - Ignore it and hope they don't destabilize the region / world. - Economic and Trade sanctions to slow down their progress, and impact the economy of the country. - Physical blockade / severing of Internet connections. - Declaration of war. Unless you're saying we should simply ignore these states and let them do what ever they want. I don't really know what solution you would envision that would be _less_ impactful to the average citizen.
- Alir3z4 7y ago
  Country B is the one having many weapon of mass destruction and used it 2 times already.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    And is the only country to have ever used such weapons in wartime, and on a civilian population, nonetheless.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      I suppose you'd prefer that, instead, the entirety of Japan would have had to be bombed into oblivion using non-nuclear weapons, not to mention the extra loss of life on the Allied side that would have almost certainly occurred during a more traditional invasion that would have likely been necessary. War sucks, and there are rarely good choices; it's nearly always going to be a choice between something truly awful and something just merely really bad. Nuclear weapons suck, but I dare say they saved lives -- on both sides -- when used in that instance. Of course, after more people had them, and we realized the implications of MAD, using nuclear weapons is (thankfully) more or less off the table for any non-suicidal nation.

illumanaughty 7y ago

"How are people supposed to rise up and depose or vote for less tyranical governments if they cannot access information" I mean yeah, that's the idea.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

When regular diplomacy fails to resolve an international dispute, what further options do you believe exist? As far as I can tell, generally speaking, you have economic sanctions, and war. I know which of those I would personally consider to be more humane, but if you have a case for war, then please make it. I’m also not aware of any sanctions that have been put in place because a government sees the citizens of another country as second tier humans. But if you have any rationale to support that ridiculous claim, I’d be interested in hearing it.

xvector 7y ago

GitHub could take the approach of collecting less data and saying that they don't know where their users are. They could drop the IP at the LB, disassociate all location metrics from their user accounts, and thus have no ability to tell where developer accounts are from. But instead they choose to data mine users for their location and block them. Just like their ridiculous contract with ICE, GitHub is choosing to actively participate in these sort of things.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

Why should software or online services be treated different than any other good/service when it comes to an embargo? It's fine to debate an embargo, but that belongs in the political space and not technical or business realm. Personally I may not agree with the efficacy of particular embargoes, but I do support the ability of my government to enforce one wholeheartedly. Because by the same token that you want to sell your information services to people oppressed by hostile foreign powers, there are those that want to sell them to the oppressors, and it's generally impossible to tell the difference. I don't want to hear about another IBM selling bookkeeping tools to another Nazi regime to improve the bureaucracy of their death camps, and if that means a few indie developers can't get Iranians to use their front end JS framework that's ok with me. This debate belongs in the senate, not in the tech world.

downerending 7y ago

I don't think anyone reasonably expects that their citizens will have any useful reaction. Rather, it's simply a way to cause economic hardship to the country. Whether that's a wise or ethical idea depends on the particular situation, but it's certainly a much smaller hammer than (say) direct military action.

himinlomax 7y ago

The stupidest part is, people in affected countries easily and routinely circumvent the block. The only people affected are foreign companies from countries that do not have a sanction, but risk being sued in the US. For example, European oil companies operating in Iran.

mncharity 7y ago

> Sanctions for online services Not my field, but my impression is there's an ongoing argument over whether severe economic sanctions constitute a form of collective punishment as prohibited under the Geneva convention. Usually it's in the context of trade and infrastructure. "Once your government submits to our policy demands, we'll permit your infant mortality rates to drop back down - until then, don't blame us for your suffering". But where access to information is seen as a universal human right, a similar issue might arise with online services.