8 ms·

I have no sympathy for crypto whatever and I really don't care about who sanctioned whom and for what reason, but... Sanctioned project's contributors must be

I have no sympathy for crypto whatever and I really don't care about who sanctioned whom and for what reason, but... Sanctioned project's contributors must be deleted from the server - where is that written in the list of things Microsoft has to do since you went out of your way calling everyone on the reply train ignorant?

nojito 4y ago
> These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. It's pretty cut and dry.
- treesprite82 4y ago
  Cut and dry if the open-source contributors are "blocked persons", but are they? They'd no longer be allowed to contribute to the project, but does someone having contributed in the past mean the sanction on the project extends to their person? Github themselves provided hosting to the project.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    It's quite possible these contributors had forks, which is why they were blocked.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      More importantly, these contributors are likely to have local forks when they can quickly upload under a different name. They can still create new accounts though.
      - 8note 4y ago
        And GitHub can continue to ban them under OFAC compliance?
  - nojito 4y ago
    Yes it almost certainly does. Sanctions work because they are virulent.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
personjerry 4y ago
It's written in the definition of the sanction given by the Department of the Treasury [0], i.e. at the level of US federal law, of which Microsoft must follow as a US company. > Sanctions Implications > These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. [0]: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916
- whatisweb3 4y ago
  Is this the first time the US has sanctioned a cryptographic protocol? The quote you pulled specifically refers to "blocked person" but in this case they are not sanctioning a person - they are sanctioning a mathematical protocol that happens to have a popular open source implementation.
  - personjerry 4y ago
    I'm not familiar with the industry history but a look at the Treasury website suggests there's been similar past precedents: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/sanctions-related-to-significant-malicious-cyber-enabled-activities https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/virtual_currency_guidance_brochure.pdf https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/virtual_currency_...
    - whatisweb3 4y ago
      I don't see a past precedent that targets an open protocol. Imagine the US sanctioning the open Matrix protocol.
  - zaphar 4y ago
    No they aren't. They are sanctioning a software project and service that runs on Blockchains not a protocol.
bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
Because others are answering you in much more detail, I’ll give them more generalized answer – This is quite simply not how a sanctions regime works. The US government does not make a list of all the sanctioned persons’ assets, then start going after those in court. Instead, it goes the other way: any company with a US nexus watches those sanction lists carefully. When someone is listed they look at their internal records for hits and denies them service. So no one told Microsoft anything; they self-enforced a sanction that applies to everyone in the US. And I mean everyone: if an individual knowingly violates these sanctions they’re breaking federal law - it’s not just companies.
- plq 4y ago
  Be that as it may, isn't this still an unacceptable collateral damage? So when you contribute code to an open source project, you generally do so under an open source license. All of them generally contain something akin to the following: IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (this particular excerpt is from the BSD license) I can understand taking action against the people who run the code. I can even understand taking action against people who were hired to contribute. But why kick some random open source contributor in the guts? What did they do wrong? Are there open source licenses that protect the contributors from such unforeseeable damage? Or are we to watch our step from now on as open source contributors?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Why is it unacceptable?
    - ensignavenger 4y ago
      The US Constitution provides protection against ex post facto laws. A retroactive punishment is unconstitutional. It may be argued that these github accounts did not belong to us citizens and thus were not protected. Or it may be argued that Microsoft was doing this of their own freewill and therefore the constitutional prohibition does not apply. But there is generally within the American psych a distaste for retroactive punishments such as this.

nojito 4y ago

> These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. It's pretty cut and dry.

treesprite82 4y ago
Cut and dry if the open-source contributors are "blocked persons", but are they? They'd no longer be allowed to contribute to the project, but does someone having contributed in the past mean the sanction on the project extends to their person? Github themselves provided hosting to the project.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  It's quite possible these contributors had forks, which is why they were blocked.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    More importantly, these contributors are likely to have local forks when they can quickly upload under a different name. They can still create new accounts though.
    - 8note 4y ago
      And GitHub can continue to ban them under OFAC compliance?
- nojito 4y ago
  Yes it almost certainly does. Sanctions work because they are virulent.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

personjerry 4y ago

It's written in the definition of the sanction given by the Department of the Treasury [0], i.e. at the level of US federal law, of which Microsoft must follow as a US company. > Sanctions Implications > These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. [0]: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916 https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916

whatisweb3 4y ago
Is this the first time the US has sanctioned a cryptographic protocol? The quote you pulled specifically refers to "blocked person" but in this case they are not sanctioning a person - they are sanctioning a mathematical protocol that happens to have a popular open source implementation.
- personjerry 4y ago
  I'm not familiar with the industry history but a look at the Treasury website suggests there's been similar past precedents: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/sanctions-related-to-significant-malicious-cyber-enabled-activities https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/virtual_currency_guidance_brochure.pdf https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/virtual_currency_...
  - whatisweb3 4y ago
    I don't see a past precedent that targets an open protocol. Imagine the US sanctioning the open Matrix protocol.
- zaphar 4y ago
  No they aren't. They are sanctioning a software project and service that runs on Blockchains not a protocol.

bad416f1f5a2 4y ago

Because others are answering you in much more detail, I’ll give them more generalized answer – This is quite simply not how a sanctions regime works. The US government does not make a list of all the sanctioned persons’ assets, then start going after those in court. Instead, it goes the other way: any company with a US nexus watches those sanction lists carefully. When someone is listed they look at their internal records for hits and denies them service. So no one told Microsoft anything; they self-enforced a sanction that applies to everyone in the US. And I mean everyone: if an individual knowingly violates these sanctions they’re breaking federal law - it’s not just companies.

plq 4y ago
Be that as it may, isn't this still an unacceptable collateral damage? So when you contribute code to an open source project, you generally do so under an open source license. All of them generally contain something akin to the following: IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (this particular excerpt is from the BSD license) I can understand taking action against the people who run the code. I can even understand taking action against people who were hired to contribute. But why kick some random open source contributor in the guts? What did they do wrong? Are there open source licenses that protect the contributors from such unforeseeable damage? Or are we to watch our step from now on as open source contributors?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Why is it unacceptable?
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    The US Constitution provides protection against ex post facto laws. A retroactive punishment is unconstitutional. It may be argued that these github accounts did not belong to us citizens and thus were not protected. Or it may be argued that Microsoft was doing this of their own freewill and therefore the constitutional prohibition does not apply. But there is generally within the American psych a distaste for retroactive punishments such as this.