3 ms·

The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? Which is a protected class by the way. Nationality is also very different from national origin.

by yibg 6y ago

The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? Which is a protected class by the way. Nationality is also very different from national origin. Eric is an American citizen as far as I aware. You can point to the requirement to be bore in the US to run for presidency, but 1) that’s an edge case and 2) where is the line? Is it ok to discriminate again foreign born Americans but not against native born? What about native born Americans with relatives in China / Russian / North Korea. I mean overall you really don’t find it an issue to blankedly judge an entire class of people based on what some people within that population does or could do?

smt88 6y ago
> The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? It absolutely is not a protected class. There are no protected classes when I am deciding whom I trust with my personal data. I can discriminate for any reason, including national origin. > I mean overall you really don’t find it an issue to blankedly judge an entire class of people based on what some people within that population does or could do? I would find that an issue if anyone (including me) were proposing it. We are not. You're attacking a straw man. Here are the facts, regardless of Yuan's citizenship, race, etc: 1. Yuan grew up in China. He still has Zoom employees and family there. 2. China is controlled by a regime that has no qualms about using physical threats and violence to maintain control. That's it. That's all I need to decide that I don't trust Zoom, if all of their extreme dishonesty and malware installations weren't enough. They haven't shown good judgment, and even if they did, it would be easy for CCP to put pressure on Yuan (or any other employee living in mainland China). If Yuan had no family in China, no employees, and enough bravery to speak against CCP, I would not feel this way. I am not judging an "entire class" of people. By the way, every firm that requires security clearance does judge entire classes of people as security risks. The question I asked, which you didn't answer, is whether you think that's also inappropriate.
- yibg 6y ago
  Yes you're free to make personal choices based on whatever factor you like. You can decide based on vendor's national origin, race, sex whatever. I just don't think it's right on those factors alone. You listed 2 things. First is where he's from, the second is the politics of the country. You are then basing your judgement (at least in this comment) purely on those factors. The implication here is you wouldn't trust your data to anyone that was born, grew up and has family and / or employees in China. I mean most of the large tech companies have some employees in China. How is this not judging an entire class (or group if you'd like) of people? As far as security clearance, they are at least in theory assessed based on established facts about a particular person. e.g. being born in China doesn't automatically disqualify you as far as I'm aware. If you know otherwise or can point to examples, I'm open to being corrected. I mean if it's been established that Eric has connections to the CPP then that's a different matter and we can look at that. My objection is with "Eric is a Chinese-American billionaire businessman so we shouldn't trust him".

by yibg 6y ago

smt88 6y ago

> The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? It absolutely is not a protected class. There are no protected classes when I am deciding whom I trust with my personal data. I can discriminate for any reason, including national origin. > I mean overall you really don’t find it an issue to blankedly judge an entire class of people based on what some people within that population does or could do? I would find that an issue if anyone (including me) were proposing it. We are not. You're attacking a straw man. Here are the facts, regardless of Yuan's citizenship, race, etc: 1. Yuan grew up in China. He still has Zoom employees and family there. 2. China is controlled by a regime that has no qualms about using physical threats and violence to maintain control. That's it. That's all I need to decide that I don't trust Zoom, if all of their extreme dishonesty and malware installations weren't enough. They haven't shown good judgment, and even if they did, it would be easy for CCP to put pressure on Yuan (or any other employee living in mainland China). If Yuan had no family in China, no employees, and enough bravery to speak against CCP, I would not feel this way. I am not judging an "entire class" of people. By the way, every firm that requires security clearance does judge entire classes of people as security risks. The question I asked, which you didn't answer, is whether you think that's also inappropriate.

yibg 6y ago
Yes you're free to make personal choices based on whatever factor you like. You can decide based on vendor's national origin, race, sex whatever. I just don't think it's right on those factors alone. You listed 2 things. First is where he's from, the second is the politics of the country. You are then basing your judgement (at least in this comment) purely on those factors. The implication here is you wouldn't trust your data to anyone that was born, grew up and has family and / or employees in China. I mean most of the large tech companies have some employees in China. How is this not judging an entire class (or group if you'd like) of people? As far as security clearance, they are at least in theory assessed based on established facts about a particular person. e.g. being born in China doesn't automatically disqualify you as far as I'm aware. If you know otherwise or can point to examples, I'm open to being corrected. I mean if it's been established that Eric has connections to the CPP then that's a different matter and we can look at that. My objection is with "Eric is a Chinese-American billionaire businessman so we shouldn't trust him".