4 ms·

This isn't how these technologies work. There is no "other end of the wire" because this isn't about calling someone up and transferring a file. Rather, it's a

by EGreg 5y ago

This isn't how these technologies work. There is no "other end of the wire" because this isn't about calling someone up and transferring a file. Rather, it's about autonomous networks, that are run by global nodes. Such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, MaidSAFE, Freenet and others. You can't really stop them -- unless you ban encryption and packet sniff all the traffic, and then prosecute people running the local nodes. Most countries, not even China or North Korea, do all of that. There are countries that ban encryption, such as Monaco or some of the Emirates, but they really don't go after people running nodes. And even if they did, all that has to happen is that the files have to end up being hosted and retransmitted by nodes in countries which don't block Iran. So file gets uploaded onto IPFS or MaidSAFE or BitTorrent, it's game over. To access it in Iran, you just need to access a node in Iran, which is communicating with nodes in those other countries. How are you going to prevent that?

kube-system 5y ago
I think you misunderstand what the law does. It doesn't functionally prevent Fedora from sending source code to Iran, it prohibits it. Inserting intermediaries into the custody chain is not always a solution. This is typically referred to as "sanction circumvention" and is often also illegal. I am not sure whether it would be in this specific case, but I do know one thing for sure: If the law does require a particular type of compliance, choosing a technology that makes it impossible to comply (or easier to hide) is not a defense. For another example: Using bitcoin does not absolve people in the US from their legal obligation not to send money to sanctioned entities. If you do so, you can be prosecuted. The protocol isn't above the law. None are. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this type of sanction circumvention is legal in the scenario -- does Fedora allow, or think it's a good idea to have anonymous contributors? Solely for the purpose of circumventing US law? I just can't see this being a reasonable decision.
- EGreg 5y ago
  If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? I am NOT talking about me intending to send Bitcoin to people in Iran when I pay someone in China. Just because someone makes something available to people in China, doesn't mean they are responsible for what other people in China will do later. So, if someone ORIGINALLY uploads a public domain file on BitTorrent, for instance, and sometime later, that file winds up being downloaded (via Chinese nodes) by Iranians or North Koreans, does that mean the original uploader broke ANY law?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I think it’s an important distinction that the OP here is about a contributor to the Fedora project. That is a voluntary two-way arrangement with consent of both parties, no matter the technology in the middle. > If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? There are some cases where a scenario like this could violate the law. Particularly if one of the parties is a financial institution subject to anti money laundering laws. But yes, someone in China could download Fedora off of the internet and send it to someone in Iran. But this still doesn’t have anything to do with using a fancy technology, nor is it relevant to OPs scenario.
    - EGreg 5y ago
      Of course it is relevant. The OP wants access to FREE SOFTWARE and to websites. I am telling you that this can be done if we use the “fancy” technology
schwartzworld 5y ago
The penalties for violating the sanctions are too big. Ridiculously massive. So massive that the question of trying to work around them is a no-brainer. Right or wrong, there's little to gain and everything to lose.

by EGreg 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago

I think you misunderstand what the law does. It doesn't functionally prevent Fedora from sending source code to Iran, it prohibits it. Inserting intermediaries into the custody chain is not always a solution. This is typically referred to as "sanction circumvention" and is often also illegal. I am not sure whether it would be in this specific case, but I do know one thing for sure: If the law does require a particular type of compliance, choosing a technology that makes it impossible to comply (or easier to hide) is not a defense. For another example: Using bitcoin does not absolve people in the US from their legal obligation not to send money to sanctioned entities. If you do so, you can be prosecuted. The protocol isn't above the law. None are. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this type of sanction circumvention is legal in the scenario -- does Fedora allow, or think it's a good idea to have anonymous contributors? Solely for the purpose of circumventing US law? I just can't see this being a reasonable decision.

EGreg 5y ago
If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? I am NOT talking about me intending to send Bitcoin to people in Iran when I pay someone in China. Just because someone makes something available to people in China, doesn't mean they are responsible for what other people in China will do later. So, if someone ORIGINALLY uploads a public domain file on BitTorrent, for instance, and sometime later, that file winds up being downloaded (via Chinese nodes) by Iranians or North Koreans, does that mean the original uploader broke ANY law?
- kube-system 5y ago
  I think it’s an important distinction that the OP here is about a contributor to the Fedora project. That is a voluntary two-way arrangement with consent of both parties, no matter the technology in the middle. > If I send Bitcoin to someone in China, and they happen to send Bitcoin to someone in Iran, who broke the law? There are some cases where a scenario like this could violate the law. Particularly if one of the parties is a financial institution subject to anti money laundering laws. But yes, someone in China could download Fedora off of the internet and send it to someone in Iran. But this still doesn’t have anything to do with using a fancy technology, nor is it relevant to OPs scenario.
  - EGreg 5y ago
    Of course it is relevant. The OP wants access to FREE SOFTWARE and to websites. I am telling you that this can be done if we use the “fancy” technology

schwartzworld 5y ago

The penalties for violating the sanctions are too big. Ridiculously massive. So massive that the question of trying to work around them is a no-brainer. Right or wrong, there's little to gain and everything to lose.