4 ms·

What is GitHub supposed to do?

enriquto 6y ago
> What is GitHub supposed to do? Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  And if the consequences is that the police comes at their doors and ordering them to comply, then what exactly has Github achieved? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and taking an idealistic stance.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Are you really suggesting that companies should willfully break laws? We already have this in reality I guess, but don't think we should suggest them to do it further. Right way to get change would be for companies to get together and lobby for the change they wanna see, not just break the law. Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more. The law is not stupid, it's criminal. By following it, companies are precisely engaging in criminal behavior.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      You seem confused why GitHub did what they did. In the US there is something called "US Export Law", the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries (which spoiler, Iran is part of that list). The law itself is not illegal, as the lawmakers have created and enacted that law. It's the opposite, the law is declaring what's illegal. So, if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law in the US. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding on how things work.
      - papier2020 6y ago
        What happens if a company has Office 365? Does MS block entire company emails?
        capableweb 6y ago
        Who knows, probably? For the rest of the "Does X block Y if Y is in Iran|Other embargoed country" questions, the answers are either A) Yes, you'll get banned or B) No, they haven't thought of that yet, but they'll add banning as soon as they figure it out, as the law requires it.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        "the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries" is not the same as "if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law". GitHub could comply with the law without completely banning users who access their service from Iran, e.g. by making their website unavailable for Iranian IPs or by making paid features unavailable.
        capableweb 6y ago
        IANAL and I'm not 100% confident on my knowledge around the export laws in the US, as I've only have to deal with that mess once in my lifetime. But, if the CEO of GitHub (Nat Friedman) claims that they "do no more than what is required by the law" and end up banning a user, my understanding is that the lawyers are GitHub and Microsoft have made the judgement that banning users are a must, simply restricting them temporary is not enough. Again, I think export embargoes are shit and don't necessarily agree with the calls that GitHub/Microsoft did, but trying to understand the side they are coming from here.
    - eznzt 6y ago
      Yeah, that's not how the world works.
      - goodpoint 6y ago
        citation needed
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    To the extent that a law is unjust or otherwise morally wrong, it could be said there is a moral responsibility to disobey an unjust law (where one would otherwise be following it in a way which results in the unjust outcome). Note that GP isn't saying that it's permissible to break any law, only immoral ones. It may be countered that the law isn't actually unjust (nor immoral), but a more convincing point is that it opens the door for companies to do whatever they like. I don't think that holds up - morality is supposed to supercede law. It could be argued that anyone can disobey any law because anyone can find something moral or immoral - but that doesn't stand up; most people (and certainly society in general) admit some degree of objectivity in morality to the point where almost all moral questions either already have an answer, or the answer is currently being discussed (and that discussion is a process to find the right answer). People tend to say morality is "subjective" (whatever that means) or "relative", but act as though it is objective - with all the blame, shame, guilt, and assigning of responsibility. Even if it is "relative", it is relative to this society, in which GitHub operates. Some people are interpreting this discussion on morality and law as being a matter of what a company or person does or doesn't "like" - morality is (by most accounts) a different ballgame, and should not (epistemologically speaking) be conflated with mere preference. Disobeying a just law (and doing something unjust in the process) is just as morally blameworthy as obeying an unjust law (and doing something unjust in the process). It's not a carte blanche for companies to do as they please. I'm not commenting on this specific case; I'm silent on my moral reasoning of it, but I wanted to try and explain what I think GP was getting at.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      Thanks for the clarification, that was exactly my point.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      I'm surprised this got downvoted. Can anyone explain why and help me understand what mistake I've made in my argument?
      - capableweb 6y ago
        I for one enjoyed your comment, I think it's just a heated subject and HN tends to swing up/down with the votes on those topics, no matter if you argue well or not. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but it's well argued in general, and now I do understand the point of view I did not understand before. So thank you!
mantap 6y ago
Block requests from Iran, display a message that connections are blocked for legal reasons. Allow account to be used when not in Iran.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Would that comply with US law?
  - goodpoint 6y ago
    Yes, the law does not require blocking the account globally. It also does not require to do so without warning or clarification.
  - mantap 6y ago
    Compliance with the law is not binary. The US has a system of selective enforcement whereby they go after the most flagrant violators to make an example to everyone else. Blocking requests is compliance enough, practically speaking.

> What is GitHub supposed to do? Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.

FooBarWidget 6y ago
And if the consequences is that the police comes at their doors and ordering them to comply, then what exactly has Github achieved? It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and taking an idealistic stance.
capableweb 6y ago
Are you really suggesting that companies should willfully break laws? We already have this in reality I guess, but don't think we should suggest them to do it further. Right way to get change would be for companies to get together and lobby for the change they wanna see, not just break the law. Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more. The law is not stupid, it's criminal. By following it, companies are precisely engaging in criminal behavior.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    You seem confused why GitHub did what they did. In the US there is something called "US Export Law", the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries (which spoiler, Iran is part of that list). The law itself is not illegal, as the lawmakers have created and enacted that law. It's the opposite, the law is declaring what's illegal. So, if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law in the US. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding on how things work.
    - papier2020 6y ago
      What happens if a company has Office 365? Does MS block entire company emails?
      - capableweb 6y ago
        Who knows, probably? For the rest of the "Does X block Y if Y is in Iran|Other embargoed country" questions, the answers are either A) Yes, you'll get banned or B) No, they haven't thought of that yet, but they'll add banning as soon as they figure it out, as the law requires it.
    - yorwba 6y ago
      "the law includes declarations that makes companies unable to sell services/goods to certain countries" is not the same as "if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law". GitHub could comply with the law without completely banning users who access their service from Iran, e.g. by making their website unavailable for Iranian IPs or by making paid features unavailable.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        IANAL and I'm not 100% confident on my knowledge around the export laws in the US, as I've only have to deal with that mess once in my lifetime. But, if the CEO of GitHub (Nat Friedman) claims that they "do no more than what is required by the law" and end up banning a user, my understanding is that the lawyers are GitHub and Microsoft have made the judgement that banning users are a must, simply restricting them temporary is not enough. Again, I think export embargoes are shit and don't necessarily agree with the calls that GitHub/Microsoft did, but trying to understand the side they are coming from here.
  - eznzt 6y ago
    Yeah, that's not how the world works.
    - goodpoint 6y ago
      citation needed
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  To the extent that a law is unjust or otherwise morally wrong, it could be said there is a moral responsibility to disobey an unjust law (where one would otherwise be following it in a way which results in the unjust outcome). Note that GP isn't saying that it's permissible to break any law, only immoral ones. It may be countered that the law isn't actually unjust (nor immoral), but a more convincing point is that it opens the door for companies to do whatever they like. I don't think that holds up - morality is supposed to supercede law. It could be argued that anyone can disobey any law because anyone can find something moral or immoral - but that doesn't stand up; most people (and certainly society in general) admit some degree of objectivity in morality to the point where almost all moral questions either already have an answer, or the answer is currently being discussed (and that discussion is a process to find the right answer). People tend to say morality is "subjective" (whatever that means) or "relative", but act as though it is objective - with all the blame, shame, guilt, and assigning of responsibility. Even if it is "relative", it is relative to this society, in which GitHub operates. Some people are interpreting this discussion on morality and law as being a matter of what a company or person does or doesn't "like" - morality is (by most accounts) a different ballgame, and should not (epistemologically speaking) be conflated with mere preference. Disobeying a just law (and doing something unjust in the process) is just as morally blameworthy as obeying an unjust law (and doing something unjust in the process). It's not a carte blanche for companies to do as they please. I'm not commenting on this specific case; I'm silent on my moral reasoning of it, but I wanted to try and explain what I think GP was getting at.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, that was exactly my point.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    I'm surprised this got downvoted. Can anyone explain why and help me understand what mistake I've made in my argument?
    - capableweb 6y ago
      I for one enjoyed your comment, I think it's just a heated subject and HN tends to swing up/down with the votes on those topics, no matter if you argue well or not. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but it's well argued in general, and now I do understand the point of view I did not understand before. So thank you!

mantap 6y ago

Block requests from Iran, display a message that connections are blocked for legal reasons. Allow account to be used when not in Iran.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Would that comply with US law?
- goodpoint 6y ago
  Yes, the law does not require blocking the account globally. It also does not require to do so without warning or clarification.
- mantap 6y ago
  Compliance with the law is not binary. The US has a system of selective enforcement whereby they go after the most flagrant violators to make an example to everyone else. Blocking requests is compliance enough, practically speaking.