3 ms·
I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here. If this is the requirement for the type of business someone ones, it's expected they are following t
by csydas 3y ago
I'm not really sure what you're trying to communicate here. If this is the requirement for the type of business someone ones, it's expected they are following the law, and corrected when they are not. Ignorance might grant some clemency, but you still need to follow it.
My above post is not commenting on the validity of the regulations surrounding ITAR, SpaceX, etc, it was responding to the implication that this effort was politically motivated when it clearly was not.
I don't know how many other companies the governmental department was checking, and it's not really relevant, just like the naughty things other kids may or may not have done when you're explaining why it's not correct to punch another kid just because they didn't share their toys.
"It's hard" isn't really an excuse; other industries are held to pretty strict regulatory standards (the entire medical industry for example) and while there are violations and it's a lot of work to validate that a hospital and the doctors and nurses are meeting these requirements, they do it. There are times hospitals need to be corrected, but they still do it. Same with the legal field, same with engineering fields, etc.
So I'm not sure what exactly is meaning to be communicated here; especially with a company like SpaceX, I expect they should be able to follow the regulations and check their applicants appropriately, not just decide "it's too much work" and deny legitimate and legal candidates a chance for employment.
- pc_edwin 3y agoYes it is extremely difficult and expensive but thats besides the point, what I'm getting at here is its unworkable/unfeasible. You will inevitably break ITAR, this is why most companies under ITAR (& gov agencies like NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/careers/working-with-nasa https://www.nasa.gov/careers/working-with-nasa) does exactly what SpaceX is being prosecuted (persecuted) for. This is a cut and dry case of political persecution. Not only was this practice not scrutinised, its commonplace and recommended by other agencies (intelligence/enforcement). Refugees/Asylees is a common way to get spies into the country. SpaceX (any other company) would love to hire cheap labour that would be extremely gracious for the opportunity. They are literally using videos by Elon Musk in the case where he is saying ITAR laws are silly (I disagree btw).
- bigbillheck 3y ago> You will inevitably break ITAR, this is why most companies under ITAR (& gov agencies like NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/careers/working-with-nasa https://www.nasa.gov/careers/working-with-nasa) does exactly what SpaceX is being prosecuted (persecuted) for. NASA employees are in civil service, not the private sector; there are different rules.
- xyzzyz 3y agoYes, it's not like we can hold the government to the same standard that the government tries hold the private companies to. Clearly, government couldn't possibly be expected to follow the regulations it imposes on everyone else.
- bigbillheck 3y agoThe regulations for the government are more stringent than the regulations for private employers.
- xyzzyz 3y agoNo, not the ones that are under discussion.