4 ms·

Who on earth decided that when a foreign citizen is on US soil, selling to them consitutes "exporting"? What if he's a refugee or has dual citizenships? To me,

Who on earth decided that when a foreign citizen is on US soil, selling to them consitutes "exporting"? What if he's a refugee or has dual citizenships? To me, this mostly sounds like Apple taking US laws too literal/general.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
It sounds like these situations are more complicated than that. http://distributioninsider.electronicproducts.com/articles/export-security.php http://distributioninsider.electronicproducts.com/articles/e... "Similarly, sharing documents containing technical data with non-U.S. persons, either overseas or in the states, without export authorization would be an ITAR violation. “There are very few people who understand that an illegal export can be as simple as discussing design and technical information over lunch, if the person you are dining with is a non-U.S. person,”
- mturmon 14y ago
  Note, however, that ITAR is not the same thing as EAR. They are two different laws pertaining to two different "export" situations (both with serious penalties for breaking).
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    In my experience the system is: Senior representatives from the european and US partnering aerospace companies sit in a big boardroom with their respective legal team and discuss what they can and cannot discuss. Actually they generally get no further than discussing if they can discuss what they can or can't discuss. Meanwhile the American and British engineers go for a quiet coffee on their own (preferably off site) and sort out any technical questions between them without anything being written down. The French engineers from the european company have to sit in the corner and sulk. German/Dutch engineers sit there looking extremely confused as to why all this is necessary.
pash 14y ago
> To me, this mostly sounds like Apple taking US laws too literal/general. Unfortunately not. The relevant definition of "export" is the one at Export Administration Regulations § 734.2(b)(2)(ii): (2) Export of technology or software. ...: (i) Any release of technology or software subject to the EAR in a foreign country; or (ii) Any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national. Such release is deemed to be an export to the home country or countries of the foreign national. This deemed export rule does not apply to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and does not apply to persons who are protected individuals under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)). Note that the release of any item to any party with knowledge a violation is about to occur is prohibited by §736.2(b)(10) of the EAR. [0] Apple's interpretation is the one almost all export-control lawyers will give their clients and is the one the Bureau of Industry and Security will give you if you ask for clarification. EDIT: By the way, the reason Apple won't/can't sell iPads to foreigners in the US but can sell them the same product abroad likely comes down to paperwork. I am not Apple's lawyer, but I imagine Apple exports iPads under a provision of the export-control regulations that allows export of (a great many) controlled products without needing to obtain a license so long as the use of the regulatory licensing exception is properly noted on the export documentation. But Apple's retail stores presumably are not equipped to fill out and submit those documents, so they simply won't/can't sell to foreigners. 0. http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/ear/734.pdf http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/ear/734.pdf [PDF]
- joelhaasnoot 14y ago
  Smartest legislation ever... (NOT) Any sane person will tell you that there's no way to police or check it. If I buy an iPad (as a Dutch citizen in the US or in the Netherlands) and happen to sell my iPad to a North Korean or Iranian, what's the US government going to do?
  - ori_b 14y ago
    If they care enough, they can probably extradite you. Having laws that you can selectively enforce are great that way.
fleitz 14y ago
If you think Apple takes the law too literally you should read the SCOTUS on interstate commerce.
ThePherocity 14y ago
When I was working at Dell, we were told that if we shipped/sold or willing sold to someone who we suspected would sell to someone in to one of the embargoed countries, we could be personally charged and imprisoned with no amnesty.
philipbroadway 14y ago
This makes a lot of sense to me. If the responsibility doesn't fall on a business to not sell the technology does it fall on customs agents then to prevent the guests from leaving the country with the items? Would the guests be happier being able to purchase the tech to only be prevented from leaving the country with it? I seriously doubt it. [edit] IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling, its unpleasant, but what aspect of the relationship between the US and Iran isn't?
- schiffern 14y ago
  >IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling I've never been asked to produce proof of US citizenship or immigration status when I bought an iPad, let alone refused service. Do you honestly think that being a white male who speaks fluent English had nothing to do with that?

waterlesscloud 14y ago

It sounds like these situations are more complicated than that. http://distributioninsider.electronicproducts.com/articles/export-security.php http://distributioninsider.electronicproducts.com/articles/e... "Similarly, sharing documents containing technical data with non-U.S. persons, either overseas or in the states, without export authorization would be an ITAR violation. “There are very few people who understand that an illegal export can be as simple as discussing design and technical information over lunch, if the person you are dining with is a non-U.S. person,”

mturmon 14y ago
Note, however, that ITAR is not the same thing as EAR. They are two different laws pertaining to two different "export" situations (both with serious penalties for breaking).
- excuse-me 14y ago
  In my experience the system is: Senior representatives from the european and US partnering aerospace companies sit in a big boardroom with their respective legal team and discuss what they can and cannot discuss. Actually they generally get no further than discussing if they can discuss what they can or can't discuss. Meanwhile the American and British engineers go for a quiet coffee on their own (preferably off site) and sort out any technical questions between them without anything being written down. The French engineers from the european company have to sit in the corner and sulk. German/Dutch engineers sit there looking extremely confused as to why all this is necessary.

pash 14y ago

> To me, this mostly sounds like Apple taking US laws too literal/general. Unfortunately not. The relevant definition of "export" is the one at Export Administration Regulations § 734.2(b)(2)(ii): (2) Export of technology or software. ...: (i) Any release of technology or software subject to the EAR in a foreign country; or (ii) Any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national. Such release is deemed to be an export to the home country or countries of the foreign national. This deemed export rule does not apply to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and does not apply to persons who are protected individuals under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)). Note that the release of any item to any party with knowledge a violation is about to occur is prohibited by §736.2(b)(10) of the EAR. [0] Apple's interpretation is the one almost all export-control lawyers will give their clients and is the one the Bureau of Industry and Security will give you if you ask for clarification. EDIT: By the way, the reason Apple won't/can't sell iPads to foreigners in the US but can sell them the same product abroad likely comes down to paperwork. I am not Apple's lawyer, but I imagine Apple exports iPads under a provision of the export-control regulations that allows export of (a great many) controlled products without needing to obtain a license so long as the use of the regulatory licensing exception is properly noted on the export documentation. But Apple's retail stores presumably are not equipped to fill out and submit those documents, so they simply won't/can't sell to foreigners. 0. http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/ear/734.pdf http://www.bis.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/ear/734.pdf [PDF]

joelhaasnoot 14y ago
Smartest legislation ever... (NOT) Any sane person will tell you that there's no way to police or check it. If I buy an iPad (as a Dutch citizen in the US or in the Netherlands) and happen to sell my iPad to a North Korean or Iranian, what's the US government going to do?
- ori_b 14y ago
  If they care enough, they can probably extradite you. Having laws that you can selectively enforce are great that way.

fleitz 14y ago

If you think Apple takes the law too literally you should read the SCOTUS on interstate commerce.

ThePherocity 14y ago

When I was working at Dell, we were told that if we shipped/sold or willing sold to someone who we suspected would sell to someone in to one of the embargoed countries, we could be personally charged and imprisoned with no amnesty.

philipbroadway 14y ago

This makes a lot of sense to me. If the responsibility doesn't fall on a business to not sell the technology does it fall on customs agents then to prevent the guests from leaving the country with the items? Would the guests be happier being able to purchase the tech to only be prevented from leaving the country with it? I seriously doubt it. [edit] IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling, its unpleasant, but what aspect of the relationship between the US and Iran isn't?

schiffern 14y ago
>IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling I've never been asked to produce proof of US citizenship or immigration status when I bought an iPad, let alone refused service. Do you honestly think that being a white male who speaks fluent English had nothing to do with that?