4 ms·

> ... one employee opened his laptop while visiting [h]is parents in Iran. I suppose this implies that the employee is Iranian. The U.S. sanctions are pretty

> ... one employee opened his laptop while visiting [h]is parents in Iran. I suppose this implies that the employee is Iranian. The U.S. sanctions are pretty aggressive, and I don't think preventing login from Iran is anywhere near enough to comply. The law is the problem here.

esolyt 6y ago
It implies he has parents in Iran. He could be a US citizen or an Iranian citizen. Or both. Or neither.
dustinmoris 6y ago
> I suppose this implies that the employee is Iranian Sorry what??? I have family in India, but not because I'm Indian, I just have family there. I have family in Poland, not because I am Polish (well I am kind of, but not on paper). I have family in the UK, but I'm not British. This is 2021, not Christopher Columbus times.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  You seem rather outraged by the sensible assumption that parents living in Iran are probably Iranian, and that a person with two Iranian parents is probably also Iranian. In 2021, people are still directly related to their parents, and the majority of citizens in most countries is indeed the local population. They may of course have obtained American citizenship now, but we're talking in the context of crazy US sanctions on Iran here, which I think work on connection to Iran. I don't think there should be any consequence to being Iranian, but I don't have a say in American politics.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    Such presumptions have, historically, led to such actions as the wholesale internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This included 2nd and 3rd generations born in America, who never had left America. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... So, no, it's not merely a "sensible" assumption. It's an assumption that carries collective trauma and negative connotations for many who's ancestors have experienced painful discrimination because of their ancestry. > I don't think there should be any consequence to being Iranian, but I don't have a say in American politics. No, you don't. But you do have a voice to ask critical and nuanced questions out loudly.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
      You cannot relate two different ideas by virtue of one tangentially common theme. It's common sense that most people are from the same country their parents are from, given what we know about immigration. Interning people based on predicting their behavior due to ancestry is a whole different ballgame.
      - CaptArmchair 6y ago
        > It's common sense that most people are from the same country their parents are from, given what we know about immigration. The legal concept you're referring to is called "ius soli". The legal concept which serves as a basis to determine someone's allegiance by their ancestry is called "ius sanguinis". [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis So, no, it's not "common sense" to make that assumption. Moreover, there's also the concept of "right to return" in international law. Many nations have implemented this in their nationality laws in a way that extends surprisingly far. For instance, if you're of Luxembourgish descent through the male line of your family, you could just claim Luxembourg citizenship - and by extension E.U. citizenship - under Article 7 of their nationality laws. Something which was recently pointed out on Reddit. Even if you weren't born in Luxembourg or never have set a foot in the E.U. proper. [3] [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/izkwzk/ysk_that_if_you_or_your_mother_have_an_allmale/ https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/izkwzk/ysk_t... I'm pretty sure some people might be surprised to discover they have a right to citizenship in another nation simply because they took the time to dig into their ancestry, their history and nationality laws. > Interning people based on predicting their behavior due to ancestry is a whole different ballgame. Of course it is. But, why discuss someone's citizenship or ancestry then if it - apparently - doesn't matter in this discussion at all? The only other theory that explains why this person got his access revoked from Github because he visited Iran, regardless of the reasons why, nevermind his citizenship or his ancestry. If citizenship and/or ancestry matters, as is seemingly implied but never voiced in this discussion, then bringing up the implications of how policies reflect on that assumption clearly is relevant given the historic perspective.
  - u801e 6y ago
    > that a person with two Iranian parents is probably also Iranian. It depends on the countries' respective laws, but it's certainly possible that the person in question is not Iranian at all in terms of nationality as opposed to ancestory. As I recall, the law in question pertains to Iranian nationals, not those who happen to have Iranian ancestory.
rurban 6y ago
Nope, not at all. Thousands of Europeans are travelling to Iran for tourism or conducting business. The trade sanctions don't block visitors to check their work. "The United States has imposed an arms ban and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which includes sanctions on companies doing business with Iran, a ban on all Iranian-origin imports, sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, ..." A private visit is not doing business, so the org cannot be blocked. And most other companies are ignoring the US sanctions, that's why we have the current propaganda push. The law is ok, because economical sanctions are the only way to get rogue nation states to comply. That's why we have sanctions on Iran, Russia, Crimes, North Korea. Unfortunately not against the US yet.

esolyt 6y ago

It implies he has parents in Iran. He could be a US citizen or an Iranian citizen. Or both. Or neither.

dustinmoris 6y ago

> I suppose this implies that the employee is Iranian Sorry what??? I have family in India, but not because I'm Indian, I just have family there. I have family in Poland, not because I am Polish (well I am kind of, but not on paper). I have family in the UK, but I'm not British. This is 2021, not Christopher Columbus times.

arghwhat 6y ago
You seem rather outraged by the sensible assumption that parents living in Iran are probably Iranian, and that a person with two Iranian parents is probably also Iranian. In 2021, people are still directly related to their parents, and the majority of citizens in most countries is indeed the local population. They may of course have obtained American citizenship now, but we're talking in the context of crazy US sanctions on Iran here, which I think work on connection to Iran. I don't think there should be any consequence to being Iranian, but I don't have a say in American politics.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  Such presumptions have, historically, led to such actions as the wholesale internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This included 2nd and 3rd generations born in America, who never had left America. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... So, no, it's not merely a "sensible" assumption. It's an assumption that carries collective trauma and negative connotations for many who's ancestors have experienced painful discrimination because of their ancestry. > I don't think there should be any consequence to being Iranian, but I don't have a say in American politics. No, you don't. But you do have a voice to ask critical and nuanced questions out loudly.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    You cannot relate two different ideas by virtue of one tangentially common theme. It's common sense that most people are from the same country their parents are from, given what we know about immigration. Interning people based on predicting their behavior due to ancestry is a whole different ballgame.
    - CaptArmchair 6y ago
      > It's common sense that most people are from the same country their parents are from, given what we know about immigration. The legal concept you're referring to is called "ius soli". The legal concept which serves as a basis to determine someone's allegiance by their ancestry is called "ius sanguinis". [1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis So, no, it's not "common sense" to make that assumption. Moreover, there's also the concept of "right to return" in international law. Many nations have implemented this in their nationality laws in a way that extends surprisingly far. For instance, if you're of Luxembourgish descent through the male line of your family, you could just claim Luxembourg citizenship - and by extension E.U. citizenship - under Article 7 of their nationality laws. Something which was recently pointed out on Reddit. Even if you weren't born in Luxembourg or never have set a foot in the E.U. proper. [3] [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/izkwzk/ysk_that_if_you_or_your_mother_have_an_allmale/ https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/izkwzk/ysk_t... I'm pretty sure some people might be surprised to discover they have a right to citizenship in another nation simply because they took the time to dig into their ancestry, their history and nationality laws. > Interning people based on predicting their behavior due to ancestry is a whole different ballgame. Of course it is. But, why discuss someone's citizenship or ancestry then if it - apparently - doesn't matter in this discussion at all? The only other theory that explains why this person got his access revoked from Github because he visited Iran, regardless of the reasons why, nevermind his citizenship or his ancestry. If citizenship and/or ancestry matters, as is seemingly implied but never voiced in this discussion, then bringing up the implications of how policies reflect on that assumption clearly is relevant given the historic perspective.
- u801e 6y ago
  > that a person with two Iranian parents is probably also Iranian. It depends on the countries' respective laws, but it's certainly possible that the person in question is not Iranian at all in terms of nationality as opposed to ancestory. As I recall, the law in question pertains to Iranian nationals, not those who happen to have Iranian ancestory.

rurban 6y ago

Nope, not at all. Thousands of Europeans are travelling to Iran for tourism or conducting business. The trade sanctions don't block visitors to check their work. "The United States has imposed an arms ban and an almost total economic embargo on Iran, which includes sanctions on companies doing business with Iran, a ban on all Iranian-origin imports, sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, ..." A private visit is not doing business, so the org cannot be blocked. And most other companies are ignoring the US sanctions, that's why we have the current propaganda push. The law is ok, because economical sanctions are the only way to get rogue nation states to comply. That's why we have sanctions on Iran, Russia, Crimes, North Korea. Unfortunately not against the US yet.