3 ms·
I was thinking this exact thing, they have the Massachusetts subsidiary, so why not? I would still call this a "refuse to" vs "can do", but hey, Apple can keep
by bastard_op 2y ago
I was thinking this exact thing, they have the Massachusetts subsidiary, so why not?
I would still call this a "refuse to" vs "can do", but hey, Apple can keep that money - keeps the layoffs away.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoViolating OFAC sanctions can result in extreme consequences, including prison for up to 30 years and fines in the millions of dollars. It would be prudent and reasonable for Apple to do nothing rather then to do something that invites this type of inquiry. To do nothing invites, at most, a de minimis amount of reputational risk.
- mcv 2y agoReputational risk can lead to security risk if researchers think Apple is not paying bounties anymore.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoIf you’re a security researcher who potentially falls under OFAC sanctions. Everyone else will likely still get paid.
- pdpi 2y agoYes, of course, they can't work around OFAC sanctions, but donating the bounty to a charity would probably have been 100% fine, and a show of good will. It's not the first time we've seen Apple not playing nice with their bug bounty programme, so it's something of a pattern of behaviour. "A show of good will" is exactly what they need.
- xw390112 2y ago“probably fine” is not the comment I would’ve wanted from my lawyer. There are tons of ways this could’ve gone south. For example, which charity? What if Kaspersky benefited from a tax break as a result. Etc. etc. why take a chance?
- chatmasta 2y agoSo why are they even able to have the Massachusetts subsidiary? Is every vendor doing business with that corporation also violating sanctions?