These kind of policies don't have the Iran government as target, they target Iran citizens.
By making the lives of Iran citizens miserable, the US government expects the Iran citizens to go against their government.
If citizens put enough pressure on the Iran government and go rebel against it, the US government can justify a military intervention to protect "human rights" or something like that.
It's the same Cold War playbook over and over again.
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe the vast majority of people in Iran, NK, Syria, etc. rarely have internet access and these embargoes are plain 'war-time' embargoes.These measures that affect the population effectively affect the government aswell, it's an _entire_ country embargo, not the population/gov one.
By the way i find it amusing that we're talking only about 'it/tech'. Every product/service that an outsider tries to sell to these countries is bound by these rules, not just virtual products.
While i understand OP's feelings,what I still don't understand is why he's surprised about this: it has not been happening since yesterday(more like 5+ years, but only recently all major tech companies implemented their compliance w/ them)
During the recent Cuban protests, republican pointed towards the fact that some protesters were waving american flags as a proof that the cuban government was Satan and any measure was justified in trying to bring them down.
Anybody pointing out that US sanctions were responsible for a fair share of the suffering of these protesters was denounced as a commie sympathizer.
I suppose the distinction isn't as much the freedom as intended by the originator, but the freedom as restricted by the country in which the originator exist and the destination is restricted from accessing.
Yes, on paper it's politics and military and sanctions, but the real effect is that nobody wants to get burned by ITAR or EAR so if your country is on that list, you're just going to get banned, period.
It's not great, but it's also not something you can easily solve. It does affect a lot of people, but in the end, a country is represented by its government and policies, and a sanction against breaking of some arbitrary rule isn't effective if it isn't applied to the country as a whole.
I really doubt you have tried all of them. As for the legal concerns, these are technologies, and the author of the article was talking about actual access, NOT politics or laws.
No technology can enable you to communicate with someone who will not communicate with you. In order to get "actual access" you need a willing participant on the other end of the wire.
The law prohibits transfer "in any manner". Fedora isn't going to implement any of those in violation of the law.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
According to that post, "fixing it" was quite a lot of effort:
> And separately, we took our case to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the US Treasury Department, and began a lengthy and intensive process of advocating for broad and open access to GitHub in sanctioned countries.
Over the course of two years, we were able to demonstrate how developer use of GitHub advances human progress, international communication, and the enduring US foreign policy of promoting free speech and the free flow of information. We are grateful to OFAC for the engagement which has led to this great result for developers.
And I bet that if Fedora wanted to do the same, they couldn't simply invoke GitHub as a precedent, they would have to do the whole process again.
On the other hand, there is a tendency of projects to massively overshoot the target just to be on the safe side - see Project Gutenberg blocking all access from Germany because they got sued over 3 (three!) books.
"On the other hand, there is a tendency of projects to massively overshoot the target just to be on the safe side - see Project Gutenberg blocking all access from Germany because they got sued over 3 (three!) books."
Do I remember correctly that the German courts wanted those three (3!) books removed from Project Gutenberg entirely?
In any case, here's your two choices:
* At a minimum, block access to those three books in Germany, allowing German courts' decisions to apply the Project, which is officially based on US copyright law, where those decisions are more stringent than US law.
* Block all access to Germany. (If Germans want to complain, let them complain to their own government.)
Only Muslims (and sometimes Zoroastrians), otherwise you're in the clear to make and drink your own. In fact alcohol is very popular generally, considering how forbidden it is. Non-alcoholic beer sells well, and people often re-alcholicise it later at home.
Other than shooting him an email there's nothing else you can really do. You don't fuck around with ITAR regulations. This isn't the the part of government that slaps meaningless cost of business fines. $1mil and 10 years prison per violation that pierces the corporate vale.
This is a defeatist view. Fedora and the author are not violating anything here and the ban is indefensible. It's a broad sweeping spineless overreaction, and we can do better.
> (6) General Prohibition Six—Export or reexport to embargoed destinations (Embargo). (i) You may not, without a license or License Exception authorized under part 746, export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to a country that is embargoed by the United States or otherwise made subject to controls as both are described at part 746 of the EAR.
> (a) Except as set forth in §734.17 or §734.18, Export means:
> (1) An actual shipment or transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of an item out of the United States, in any manner;
> (2) Releasing or otherwise transferring “technology” or source code (but not object code) to a foreign person in the United States (a “deemed export”);
No, I don't think they mean like that because that was an exceptional international scandal while people are normally and consistently afraid of violating ITAR regulations.
I'd probably shoot them an email, and publish a blog/tweet/... along the lines of "We appreciate the contributions of <NAMES> over the last few years, unfortunately we can no longer accept contributions from Iranian citizens in compliance with US law." The sneakiness really is unnecessary.
If the issue is knowingly keeping someone on the platform, then why did Fedora have to acknowledge that they knew of this user's existence at all? Could they not have kept 'unknowingly' allowing him to have an account? They did for an X amount of time already, obviously, why not for a longer Y amount? What's the difference?
The issue is not them knowing it. The issue is that it is illegal, period.
If you do it knowingly, there may be additional provisions that you're breaking, or additional penalties, and you increase the length of time that you are out of compliance. This doesn't mean that you're totally in the clear if you "didn't know", which would be hard to demonstrate anyway, considering their own wiki had this information listed.
I hate to say this, but it sounds to me like the sanctions are in a way doing pretty much what they were intended to do: make it harder for Iran to have good engineers and technology scene, that could later be used for other things. It sucks for the average Iranian for sure, but that's true for all sanctions. What's the alternative? How do you put sanctions without hurting the people?
"Targeted sanctions" as a geopolitical tool are a complete myth. They fall apart at the slightest scrutiny: from outside a sovereign nation, how do you prevent a target from colluding with a non-target to get around the targeted sanction?
You can't reasonably ensure that, so by induction the only solution is to sanction (read: blockade) the entire population and its real economy. Which is a massive human rights abuse.
It's not pointless. The people are the power of any government and the US is saying that they don't want to interact with this government or people until they change certain things.
It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.
It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
The evolution of what people understand as violence simply evolved hand in hand with the evolution of our understanding of medical conditions, especially psychiatric disorders.
For instance, it's also a very contemporary thing to avoid calling war vets wimps, but it's better explained by the evolution of our understanding of their condition than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
> ... than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. You're in basic agreement that "violence" in contemporary understanding has evolved to include non-physical contexts but you seem to have imputed that I have the belief that it is due to an "ideological plot to reframe discourse". That's odd and completely absent from any statement I've made.
My apologies, then. That part of the answer was in response to the general reaction to what I meant to be an uncontroversial statement. I should have clarified that it wasn't yours.
Why leave out the very next sentence in your source?
> Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
Sanctions _are_ backed by the threat of very real physical force and power. Pretty much all state violence is.
This just seems like it stretches the concept of "violence" to the point of uselessness. If I went to a store and refused to leave at closing time, they'd eventually call the police to drag me out - does that mean closing times are violence?
Why do people insist on making these trite comparisons between businesses and literal governments, especially governments that are straight up among the most powerful entities on the planet?
A lot of us just don't agree with the perspective that businesses and governments are on separate planes of existence and shouldn't be compared. I'm not sure how to close the inferential gap here.
But they straight up are on separate planes of existence.
Then again I keep forgetting that I am often talking to people who are so removed from the ill effects of the state that they can even begin to think that a company's actions can ever compare.
Because it doesn't apply in the context of OP where they said
> Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
Where even the WHO definition requires physical force to be a part of the calculation. Calling someone insulting names could easily be considered bullying, but that has nothing to do with violence.
All that aside, I'm fine with words being 'abused' to help make a rhetorical point. My issue was attempting to redefine the word rather than acknowledge it as an attempt to borrow the connotation. I.e. borrowing violence to describe bulling by name calling is fine, but saying that bullying is violent by definition does a disservice to both.
I mean, PTSDs only started being documented about a century ago, for instance. Before that, sufferers were just called wimps.
Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion.
> even the WHO definition
A quick lookup at the WHO page [1] further clarifies this point by listing different types of violence:
> This typology distinguishes four modes in which violence may be inflicted: physical; sexual; and psychological attack; and deprivation.
This is not an invitation to debate the definition of violence, though, and my initial message isn't an appeal to a rhetorical debate. This topic is covered by an extensive litterature, and my initial message was merely a reminder of what people currently understand to be violence.
using your own PTSD example they created a new word (initialism) rather than try to redefine what a whimp is. if you want to include actions that aren't physical in any reasonable way why not use the word abuse or abusive which carries a similar connotation to violence without actually corrupting the word violence.
The word literally also includes the definition for the word figuratively. Just because a word happens to include additional definitions doesn't make those additional definitions reasonable or beneficial.
> Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion.
I never claimed to want to use a dated definition of the word violence but I think you'll find that straw manning an argument is also counterproductive to establishing an open discussion.
people die because of sanctions, and they're only respected because of the threat of violence. so who cares what your sources say about the definition of the word violence?
> How do you put sanctions without hurting the people?
It's not possible. If a country enacting sanctions has a large enough economy (and thus significant global influence)*, the sanctions are essentially a siege of an entire country. Those who advocate or consent to them in policy should be aware that they are waging a war of attrition and the goal (and only possible effect) is for the castle to run out of food and water or, before that happens, for the peasants to revolt and fight their war against the king for them.
* This is because that country can force all other countries it trades with to get in line with those sanctions by refusing to trade with them if they don't. If those countries are dependent enough, then they have essentially no choice. Even if they are not, they may end up facing their own internal revolts by giving up that trade.
That may be, but US sanctions and blockades are famously uselesss --- hell they probably helped the survival of the Cuban government, for example, since globalized trade tends to dominate small open economies which Cuba was until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Iran has an actual civil society unlike the gulf oil slave states we've sucked up to for ages, so they way we've picked sides with that regional rivalry in particular is also a pointless mockery of good planning.
This seems to be a like pointless tradgedy that will in no way benefit the citizens of the United States.
There is always somebody that wins and somebody that loses, what really counts is if people lives better under the new ruler or not.
Do you think that to occupate the nazi germany was wrong? Or that Cuba was a fine democratic place when ruled by the dictator Batista? Are you aware that the British Company of East India assasinated anybody that would stand in the middle of their way or that US United Fruit Company assasinated more than 1800 people and promoted coups in several countries?
If everybody is evil there is not any difference when people in power change.
Americans thinking that Cuba is a terrible place now and should be punished by that (and it IS a terrible place in lots of ways, for sure), forget that living under the iron fist of the big fruit companies was a slave distopic nigthmare. But this never was a problem for them, for some reason.
Is ridiculous if we think about it. Americans are taxed since that "to keep alive, generation after generation, the flaming revenge of a bunch of great-grandpa mobsters that everybody today would find despicable". A terrible business for US that were paying good money to people for things like to infiltrate and put concrete in the milk truck of Cuban scholars. Benefit to the operation for American people: Zero; here is your bill. How many years the US people will need to pay still for this dusty "revenge business" nonsense?
> make it harder for Iran to have good engineers and technology scene, that could later be used for other things.
Perhaps Iranians will be forced to use the Chinese versions of Github, Fedora and kernel.org. Is that the future anyone wants? I don't think the Iranian engineers will quit and become plumbers or farmers.
"The nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment plants.[1] In 1970, Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),[2] making its nuclear program subject to the IAEA's verification. ... In the 2000s, the revelation of Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment program raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA launched an investigation in 2003 after an Iranian dissident group revealed undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran.[5][6] In 2006, because of Iran's noncompliance with its NPT obligations, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. ... However, in July 2019 the IAEA stated that Iran had breached the agreement.[19] Iran has, since its breach in July 2019 of the JCPOA,[20] embroiled itself in controversy with half of the JCPOA signatories because a November 2020 IAEA report said that Iran had further developed centrifuge technology, the novelty of which was explicitly prohibited by the JCPOA.[21] The IAEA report also said that Tehran "holds more than 12 times the amount of enriched uranium permitted under the JCPOA, and that "work has also begun on the construction of new underground facilities close to Natanz, its main enrichment facility".[22]"
Blame for incurring the wrath of the US? I don't think so. Sounds a bit like "stop hitting yourself" or "how dare you resist our CIA overthrow!" Maybe if this guy was on a terrorist list or something, but I as an American don't like being blamed for things my government does.
If you punish individuals for the actions of their government, what punishment do you deserve? Should you suffer for every Iranian who loses their life because of US sanctions?
It's not what they were saying, they said so themselves, but if you think they're related then answer my question. Should you be punished for the actions of your government?
As far as I know there aren't any sanctions against individual Iranians. This might seem like splitting hairs, but since you're framing it as the US "punishing" individual Iranian citizens it's an important distinction to point out.
I am not mischaracterizing anything. There were no individual sanctions enacted against Ahmad Haghighi yet he individually was punished by the US sanctions.
I get the impression that you are trolling, but...
I don't think the Iranian government is "blameless" in general. (If countries were individual people, all of them would be in jail, with most of them about to hang for war crimes.)
But in the very specific context of embargoing software devs (versus weapons), I do think all of the blame for that is on countries on the imposing end of embargo. Big difference between "systemWMD" and actual WMDs. ;)
The horribly broken crypto we all had to deal with in the 2000s was partially due to US trying to treat it like a "munition" and thus weakening everyone - even themselves - by the mere existence of the hobbled "export-grade" ciphers.
I do. And Cuba, and North Korea, and wherever else.
"If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries on missions of war, goods must cross them on missions of peace." - Mallery, Economic Union and Durable Peace
Thus, embargoes are acts of war. Also, as evidenced by this very article, they don't tend to have the desired effect on their targets anyway, instead largely affecting innocent people and especially those of lesser means.
Collectively. Not on an individual basis. You can't blame Gordon Ramsay for Brexit either. That would be silly.
And there wasn't even a referendum for the Iran sanctions AFAIK.
I stated facts, and you concluded I assumed bad faith. I could write a lengthy explanation, but as I said: You're not offering anything to the conversation. When you are willing to, we can engage.
It might be best if Iran didn't do that, but "illegal" is open to interpretation.
Funny thing, international law. Nobody's in charge.
Between countries, everything resembling law is held together by diplomacy, persuasion, agreements, treaties, etc. Sanctions are part of that network, for better or worse.
Technically, Iran agreed to a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in, like, 1972, violated it which led to UN resolutions in the early 2000s, then agreed to a "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...) in 2015, which led to a partial lifting of sanctions. (The US went crazy around this time and broke the agreement as well, but...) In 2019, Iran "suspended implementation" of "part" of the JCPoA.
Treaties are generally treated as law by signatories. So, "illegal". Not that it really matters any; who's going to arrest a country?
Or possibly any FVEY nation? But I have the "naive hacker" view that software should be able to transcend this sort of thing, in a cyberspace orthogonal to the space of nation-states. Ahmad's experience shows we are clearly not there.
More or less, yes. The unfortunate nature of having a project operate on a global scale of that the project is then subject to politics and problems at a global level, and to some extent needs to be aware of the relationships and conflicts between global-level entities like nation states. They are part and parcel.
Such a project can only make it best effort and choose to rely on domains where it thinks it will have the least problems. Sometimes that isn't the US, and sometimes it is.
If it was truly global, I could accept it grudgingly. But this is a single actor: the US. The US gets to decide who has access in other countries to stuff built by people all over the world. It's not the US saying "this cannot be accessed by US citizens", effectively only affecting its own citizens (who can then exert some pressure on their own government if they disagree with the restriction); it's the US deciding what other countries can access. And the stuff they are deciding on is collaborative, not 100% built by US citizens.
The company is based in the US. It's therefore subject to US law. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
Your answer reinforces what I'm saying: the US is unilaterally enforcing, through sanctions or legal pressure on a US company, restrictions on a shared "free" project. Hence, "free" isn't free.
> There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian?
More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk.
This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.
> This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric
That's fair. Interpreting or framing this as [the US valuing a specific kind of influence on Iran over them valuing the benefits of collaboration] makes sense.
If a foreign company breaks sanctions they are banned from doing business in the US, and any company they do business with is banned to. Without being an international pariah there is no way the get around US sanctions. Unless you want to base your free software project in North Korea (do they even have LLC's?) not being in the US won't help you here.
The truth is that to most users of software “free” means “free of charge.” The subtleties of the FSF notion of free software escape them. See, software is a product of one’s creative mind, like a piece of art or, say, the design of an airplane engine, so how and, especially, why it should be “set free” remains unclear.
This isn't who we're talking about in this case, we're talking about the actual producers.
> why it should be “set free” remains unclear.
This is like a layman saying why quantum tunneling occurs remains unclear. It's well documented, despite anyone's ignorance. People have written volumes on their reasons for producing free software. A lot of the people involved in Fedora and GNOME blog about it daily.
I keep on arguing with my friends - the only way to reduce the tyranny of US is for a group of countries to join and ignore US sanctions. Who is perceived to be moral, pro democracy and pro human rights is irrelevant. Unilateral US action is dangerous and MUST not impact the rest of the world.
Don't most countries ignore the US's sanctions against Cuba?
Aren't most of the sanctions against Iran related to the UN resolutions against their nuclear weapon program? Doesn't the EU also have their own set of sanctions against Iran?
The current bulk of sanctions against Iran were unilaterally imposed by the Trump administration in violation of the JCPOA. The UNSC, including "allies" like Germany, explicitly opposed the US's illegal application of sanctions in 2020.
The US violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Both the Rouhani and Raisi governments have the stated policy that they will return the the JCPOA if the US first reverses its violation.
The US behaviour in this is disgusting. They should be paying freaking reparations to Iran for breaking their end of the deal like this. (Not that there's any chance of that.)
The fact that they have the power to bully the rest of the world into complying with their unilateral 180 decision is infuriating.
I believe the real issue here is that Fedora serves as an upstream test bed for Red Hat Enterprise. Since the code changes made in Fedora trickle through to Red Hat, and Red Hat is widely used as the distro of choice in military private clouds, and the UBI distro from Red Hat is the container image base of choice for the DoD assured containers repository, they're trying to keep contributors from countries hostile to the US military out of the supply chain. It's not that they're trying to punish the guy for being from Iran. They're trying to keep Iranian contributors out of the code base because they fear the Iranian government can lean on him to plant malicious code.
I can rightfully see this leading to questions about how "free" Red Hat really is when it needs to bow to military interests like this for commercial reasons (they want to keep those enterprise support contracts with the DoD). Software freedom was always meant to refer to freedom for users, though, not freedom for developers.
> I can rightfully see this leading to questions about how "free" Red Hat really is
I think it's a very apt question. Free Software isn't free if you can only use it as long as the US doesn't deem your country as hostile. (Note: your country, not even you as a specific individual. It's that crazy). Free Software isn't Free-as-in-friendly-to-the-US, or at least it shouldn't be.
You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else.
I can write a FLOSS app and decide to distribute it only to people whose name is Amy, and it will remain 100% FLOSS as long as these Amys have all their freedoms guaranteed (including the freedom to redistribute that software to anyone else).
The only thing that seems at odds with software freedom (at least as understood by FSF and OSI) shown in this article is Fedora's "By clicking on and downloading..." screen. IANAL, but "you can't redistribute this to XYZ" sounds like "this software is non-free" to me.
This is actually an interesting problem. If I make a FLOSS app, but my government decides against my will that neither I nor anyone I shared it with can share it any further, is it FLOSS anymore? I guess no, but what if I break the law and share it anyway?
I think the main argument is indeed spelled out in your last paragraph. Can it be Free Software if access to it is legally restricted based on nationality? I'm going to guess that it can't be, at least not according to FSF's definition of Free as in "libre". If it turns out it's just US-centric-free, that's a disappointing narrowing down of the concept.
> You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else.
I think using the distro or even getting access to the source code is not the issue. This dev likely already has a local copy. But how is he going to legally get newer copies of the source code or meaningfully collaborate with other contributors?
Let's say he says "screw this" and manages to somehow host a fork in an Iranian server. How are other contributors based in the US going to share their contributions without legal risks?
Collaboration is orthogonal to the software being free though. You're free to make a fork and accept (or not) any contributions you want to - not just based on your country laws, but also even just on your whim. If the laws prohibit you from collaborating with someone, it's you who's not free, not the software you make.
Also, being able to get newer copies is not an issue from the Free Software definition point of view. All it cares about is whether you're free to do things with a copy you already got.
Don't get me wrong, taking away the ability to collaborate and having to jump through hoops to be able to participate in modern world are real and severe problems - it just has nothing to do with software freedom per se (at least unless you're prevented from sharing the obtained software with someone else).
> Software freedom was always meant to refer to freedom for users, though, not freedom for developers.
Honest question, what is your source for this? Is it opinion or is it part of some declaration from some group?
What happens when a developer is also a user? As I get it, for this particular developer, the end effect is the same.
For me, a developer and a user are one in the same here, just different parts on a spectrum with many shades. I am extremely sympathetic to the author of the article because I really don't agree with the position alleged here:
>They're trying to keep Iranian contributors out of the code base because they fear the Iranian government can lean on him to plant malicious code.
This is not a threat vector, not really. Crytpo has made it that any developer with the skill and will can become the vector for such an attack. We can see this in ransomware readily, with almost weekly articles on how relatively unsuspecting developers are bought up and used to develop/spread ransomware, and I see absolutely no reason why a truly interested government couldn't do the exact same. If it's good enough for the billions of dollars the crypto-gangs are running, I'm sure a government could make it work all the same...
I'm not sure I can see sanctions like this as anything but political posturing, and I question the efficacy of it when in practice, the result is stuff like this that just denies simple freedoms that the US has no right denying to anyone.
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not proposing you are personally responsible for the above claims or expecting you to defend them, my question(s) are in earnest and combined with some personal opinions of course. So if some of the statements seem challenging towards you, it is not intentional, just a late friday post for me.
> Honest question, what is your source for this? Is it opinion or is it part of some declaration from some group?
> What happens when a developer is also a user? As I get it, for this particular developer, the end effect is the same.
I think the parent comment's point was that open source doesn't mean everyone is entitled to contribute back to the main project. As a user you may be a developer by trade, and you are certainly free to modify and share the source code, but the project maintainers are free to not include your changes back into their repository. A prime example of this is SQLite, which is open source despite the fact that they don't accept code submissions outside of the core team.
>> They're trying to keep Iranian contributors out of the code base because they fear the Iranian government can lean on him to plant malicious code.
> This is not a threat vector, not really.
It really is. The Linux kernel has itself thwarted what appeared to be an attempt by U.S. intelligence services to inject vulnerabilities into the kernel source code. Now the fact that the U.S. government was itself the threat may make worries about Iran doing the same seem rather silly, but in this case I think the fact that Fedora source code is used by the DoD makes sense.
All this to say, I'm certainly not happy about this situation. A big part of the spirit of open source is to overcome our differences in an attempt to solve shared problems. That's why the OSI definition of open source requires that open source licenses not discriminate against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor. That being said, however much open source may not want to be interested in politics, it is certainly true that politics is interested in open source.
I appreciate all that, but at least with the example of SQLLite, that's a decision by the developers, not because of an external influence (presumably). My issue here is that a government has decided that a specific country is not allowed to participate in open source; yes, Redhat implemented it, but they did so out of fear of retribution from the US government and because their understanding is that the US government required it. Maintainers controlling what gets into the project is not the same as a foreign entity not at all contributing/participating in a project declaring who can and cannot participate.
>It really is. The Linux kernel has itself thwarted what appeared to be an attempt by U.S. intelligence services to inject vulnerabilities into the kernel source code. Now the fact that the U.S. government was itself the threat may make worries about Iran doing the same seem rather silly, but in this case I think the fact that Fedora source code is used by the DoD makes sense.
I think this is tangential though to what I'm saying. It's not about whether or not attacks like this __are possible__, it's that there's absolutely no reason that a contributor from a specific region is any more of a threat than any other. Nothing stops Iran or any other sanctioned country from getting US based VMs + crypto and slipping/sneaking in some code. It's not about if a specific country makes a backdoor, it's "is there a backdoor at all?" Any secret backdoor snuck in for sale by an interested party is just as usable by a given government as one made by Iran.
For me, it just falls flat as a real security analysis; heck, I imagine a sick irony where a US created back-door inserted by one agency ends up being used to leak data from another agency. A backdoor is a backdoor.
> this action prevents the Iran government from accessing the source codes and prevents the Iran government from using them for military purposes! Isn’t that ridiculous?
No, not really. Originally the US government considered crypto-cipher implementations — including FOSS implementations thereof, if done by domestic parties — to be munitions and carefully regulated their export.
That specific interpretation was struct from the books, but the spirit of it lives on. Rather than manually white-listing both FOSS projects and export partners (a lot of work for some government agency somewhere), the process is now simplified: it’s a blacklist of countries to which one is not allowed to export pretty much anything of use.
It is my understanding that this wide net isn’t there because the US government really believes that random FOSS libraries are useful to the Iranian military; but rather because there’s no way to keep track of every time someone creates another FOSS implementation of a crypto-cipher, or military-precision GNSS receiving, or an atomic clock VLSI, etc. — the types of things that would actually advantage an “enemy nation”’s military to not have pre-made well-tested implementations of. The US government cannot — without work that it doesn’t have the time/money for — tell your FOSS library apart from one of military value. So it’s prohibited from ITAR-blacklisted countries by default.
The argument wasn't about the military purposes, but against the idea that these restrictions are actually effective against the military or government accessing the source code that is available in the rest of the world.
Is it of any effect though? The internet is pervasive, easy to access and censorship-resistant. If they want access to any resource on the public web anyone can get it -- at this point it's effectively impossible to prevent this.
This measure seems to only make the life of ordinary citizens in the open. Not only that, but the measure seems to cause the opposite effect: the Iranian government seems to be making efforts at censoring its users, censorship which just serves the control of the regime.
What's really the most disgusting thing here to me isn't just the sanctions and laws around them, but the fact that these laws have so much weight behind them, as compared to others.
Compare this to any number of other egregious events - like the latest rounds of personal data exposure from various corporations on the front page all of this week - and the fact that things like that have zero repercussions for the corporations who failed to secure our data.
Expose the PII of millions of citizens - zero punishment or repercussions. But oh no, if you happen to have someone in Iran working on your project, then watch out!
Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here?
Nuclear proliferation tends to do that. Especially nuclear proliferation to countries where the cultural norm promoted by the government is to profess to love death more than life.
I do realize technology is just a tool. And not all technology is nuclear. Sanctions are a tool as well. Not perfect, very blunt. While the author isn’t interested in politics, the underlying concerns driving the politics are real.
> countries where the cultural norm is to profess to love death more than life.
This comes off as insulting. One could just as easily come up with a glib derogatory summary of the 'cultural norms' of Western nations too.
Propagating the belief that some cultures don't treasure life is dehumanizing, because it is a direct pathway to rationalize exterminating them ('oh, they value death more anyway').
To save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.
Indeed it is amazing how US citizens feel compelled to religiously believe this oft-repeated pretext. I guess it helps them sleep better at night. The more likely reasons were to "field test" the bombs and to act as a warning shot for the Russians. Japan's belligerent actions and fatigue of war provided the perfect opportunity. It is far more complicated and risky to repeat something like that now.
> "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
Not agreeing or disagreeing but this is a poor argument. First, it's not like wars of the size and intensity of WW2 happen often, so a lack of similar action since then isn't surprising. Second, the lack of use may be partially explained by threat of repercussions. Are you not aware of standoffs like the cold war? Third, agreements between nuclear powers to not launch under almost any circumstance.
"...the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history."
I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
> I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring?
I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
Those are real numbers. You drop a bomb to prevent millions from dying. Containment of Japan is not something that would have been successful for long.
Well, ok, this is inappropriate for the overall topic here, but since you're not sure what my point is...
Since WWII, wars of conquest have been rather rare and have not so far grown to the scale as to even appear to justify, in any way, the use of anything like nuclear weapons. World War II, as it is known in the US, was different.
The Empire of Japan had been engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since 1937 (or possibly 1931, depending on how you look at it). (I did mention the death toll in China, right?)
The United States was engaged in a justified war with the Empire of Japan in 1945. (Do you dispute that?)
Both countries were engaged in total (or absolute) war, meaning that both had fully engaged their economies in the war effort. (This is important because, under total war conditions, the civilian economy is a legitimate target of war. Practically speaking, not doing so leads to World War I, a lengthy military stalemate, and the eventual collapse of governments and other ... bad stuff. I admit this is a personal moral viewpoint. On the other hand, fine logic chopping over the ethics and legality of warfare is pretty irrelevant. War is evil.)
The terms under which the Empire of Japan was willing to surrender were essentially that the military government of Japan be allowed to continue unmolested.
In August, 1945, the United States had two (2) options:
1. Invasion of the Japanese Islands. Two things of note: The Battle of Okinawa (which ended the previous month), involving (according to Wikipedia) ~75,000 Japanese soldiers and ~40,000 Okinawan conscripts, resulted in the deaths of between 40,000 and 100,000 civilians, or between 10% and 30% of the islands population. The Imperial Japanese Army had ~900,000 soldiers in Kyushu.
2. Continue with the blockade of the Japanese Islands. Many authors suggest that by 1946, this would have led to the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians. Christopher Clary (https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/6...) makes a pretty compelling argument that they were not very near starvation, so there's that. He also quotes,
"Early surrender? With no atom bombs, no Russians, no invasion? Careful inspection of the "testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved"--even that incomplete sample available to the USSBS during its two short months in 1945--shows only [Marquis] Kido [Koichi, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal] supporting Nitze, everyone else [including more than twenty other high level officials] stating that Japan would have fought on indefinitely. When would Japan have surrendered without the bomb and the Russians? The only credible answer is that given by Robert Butow when Freeman Dyson asked him about it: "The Japanese leaders themselves do not know the answer to that question.""
In any case, both options would have included continued strategic bombing (see also Operation Meetinghouse), of which the use of atomic weapons was an extension (no, really, check out Operation Meetinghouse). The use of large scale bombing of civilians had been settled far, far earlier in the war.
As a final point, consider a role playing exercise: Put yourself in the position of a US government or military official explaining the decision not to use some weapons at your disposal, because they were too horrific, to the mothers of US soldiers who had been killed in subsequent fighting. To criticize someone for (not) doing something, it has to have been possible for them to not do it (or to do it).
I'm assuming you are then fine with Iran and other countries having a nuclear enrichment program as well, yes? As otherwise, why should "we" be able to "use it if we needed to", but not other countries?
No that would not make sense from an American perspective. You would try to stop an enemy from getting a weapon that could kill many American or allies and cause massive environmental issues for the planet. Plus Iran gives money to group who perform terror.
You may not think that is fair. Everyone should have equal amounts of geopolitical power but it doesn't reflect reality. If Iran took over the US their version of fair would be very different from yours.
Most historians disagree with you. There is significant historical evidence that Japans ruling class was close to surrender (IIRC they actually had offered to surrender already, but not unconditionally). In particular the second bomb on Nagasaki was probably more about a sign to other nations (the USSR) than ending the war.
"Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
Honest question, assuming he was aware of the full picture, do you believe Truman would have come out and said "we really just dropped the bombs to send a message to the Soviets"?
The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time.
An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.
This is a misrepresentation of the situation on the ground facing allied forces.
Though with full 20/20 hindsight, we can dig up historical facts and adjust our historical conclusions, Allied forces were obviously not privy to the immediate situation with respect to Soviet forces.
Moreover, to suggest that the instantaneous destruction of major bases and cities the likes of which history has never seen shouldn't bee seen as a primary impetus in Japanese decision making is irrational.
Japanese Imperialism was effectively a mass murdering machine let loose on the entirety of E/SE Asia and America, and the Americans did the necessary fighting leading to the weakening of the Japanese regime which put them in a state where the threat of some Soviet antagonism would even be a real problem.
If the US had not entered the war against Japan, the Soviets wouldn't be much of a real threat.
The dropping of the bombs was easily justified, and thankfully, since that moment, there have been fewer and fewer major wars.
The odd logic trying to paint the US as somehow antagonists in that situation is anti rational on it's face, it's just petty.
Would it been better to keep firebombing the hell out of every japanese city then? Have you seen "Grave of the Fireflies?" Don't you think that the people of the 40's had a conscience too, only us the awaken 2021 homo sapiens have it?
They obviously did have a conscience. That was why it was deemed a war crime in the Hague Conventions to fire bomb cities, it was then re-iterated in much more explicit terms in the Geneva Conventions.
I don't love the firebombing, but think it was stupid of the Hague to criticize actions taken after said country attacked others. Wars you start you do not get sympathy for.
Relatively short war, especially compared to some of the more recent occupations. Obviously a terrible war but arguably no less so because the US dropped an extra bomb on Nagasaki.
> Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here?
If I understand you right, you're asking why the state prioritizes enforcement of laws that encourage harm to Iran rather than laws that are supposed to discourage harm to US (and maybe other) consumers?
I think that happens because the state is a tool of the overclass and overthrowing Iran is in their interest while protecting consumers is not. In fact, the lalter is likely counter to their interests.
The question of how overthrowing Iran is useful used to be easier to explain so it deserves some attempt given the current situation. Iran acting independently has some ability to effect oil and gas prices, although this has decreased significantly over time. It's still of interest to the US and especially to some of the US's allies though because alternative sources of energy feed not only Iran but other opponents of the US (e.g. NK, Afghanistan, Syria, etc) and can also still threaten if not decimate smaller producers. In other words, it reduces the geopolitical power of the US and they have less ability to coerce other states. Then there's the the geopolitical game more local to Iran, where Iran is funding multiple opponents to Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and opponent of KSA in Yemen. Why care about Isarel's interests? Well obviously there's significant economic overlap but also consider the famous quote by General (and former Secretary of State) Alexander Haig "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." So, again, defeating Iran is consolidation of power in another way. There's more to it than that and it's become more complicated as time goes on but this is what I can think of off the top of my head.
On the other hand, ask yourself why would most of the powerful lobbies in the US be interested in advocating enforcement of the privacy laws and such that you care about? How does that benefit who pays for them? And where there are interests of outright corruption or coercion, why would anyone pay for that to be in your interest rather than prioritize their own?
You can work the logic backwards from realist rules too: Normally, you aren't going to get any result that doesn't benefit the state and those who have most influence over its use. (See neorealism in IR and public choice theory but also all of anarchist and "Libertarian" theory for why.)
So, in some ways it benefits the overclass directly and in other ways it just sharpens (or keeps sharp) their tool.
The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing.
The notion that Iran's military threat exclusively down to antagonism of Israel is another conspiracy theory - because their actions clearly are much broader.
The concern over Iran is founded in the fact that since their Islamic Revolution, they've been an open antagonist of the US and the West, they constantly threaten the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Middle East. Since they have embarked on their Nuclear Program which they are using to Blackmail the world, it's become a much more significant issue.
Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
Iran's destabilizing and support of terrorism against Israel is of course well founded, but their actions against Saudi Arabia are more direct and have much bigger direct repercussions. Of course, the overthrow of Israel has probably the most indirect knock-on effects which would throw the entire region into chaos.
And by the way 'Big Business' in the world would much prefer to end sanctions. All of that Iranian Oil will be spent on US and German 'stuff' and Tim Cook would definitely want to sell them all iPhones.
Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups. We're seeing more progress on issues of privacy so cross your fingers.
I don't appreciate your dismissive, condescending and confrontational tone but I'll respond to some of your points.
> The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing.
The 1979 oil crisis [1] is evidence to the contrary, but as I said, that influence has declined with the rise of American and Russian gas, especially the agile dynamism of American fracking. I also explicitly mentioned that it is a threat to minor producers and aide to opponents of the US (Think about those under sanction.) It would certainly effect Saudi Arabia's bottom line to some extent. The exact degree of any of these effects is something hotly debated in IR.
> Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
No, the problem is much older than the Houthi rebellion and I did explicitly mention them. The Houthi rebellion began only in 2004. This conflict has existed since 1979 at the absolute latest. Let's not forget that the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, replacing him with their proxy the Shah, in 1953. Mossaddegh's most significant policy being the nationalization of oil. [5]
> This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
I can't agree. I think all causes are material and based on the security and economic interests of all actors involved as is basic to modern realist international relations theory. [2] Any flavor of Islam, by these theories, is just a means to an end, just a tool.
> Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
Yes, as I said, it's not in their interests and contrary to their interests since it would cost, which answers the question that was asked.
> This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups.
That rests on a refuted premise, but I'll say there's nothing nebulous about the section of the capitalist class able to afford lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes to effectively influence foreign policy. [3][4]
Overall, the main thing I think you miss is that all of the Iranian state's actions are perceived by it as being in its material interest. Its goal is to maximize its security and satisfy its economic needs and it's attempting to do that, just as every other state.
Anyway, it was just off the top of my head. The situation is complex and changing. I had no intention of writing a comprehensive dissertation.
1. The 1979 'shock' is not relevant in 2021 as the global energy situation is completely different so there's no point to make with respect to current strategy.
In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
2. Your response re: Houthi's, completely side-stepped the main point, which is that Iran is currently an antagonizing agent, directly attacking Saudi Arabia - literally knocked out 1/2 their refining capability in a military assault, and that the situation in Yemen is considerably worse than it ever was, with Houthis launching Iranian missiles directly into Saudi Arabian airports.
In any other situation - the result of 'missiles knocking out 50% production, and missiles raining down on major airports' would be war.
This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Of course, they're also grabbing merchant ships, shooting down airplanes (their own) - all that has to be put in the mix.
3. Finally - that a 'class of lawyers and lobbyists are trying to influence foreign policy' - doesn't make your argument.
There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
It's irrational that the 'Capitalist Class' wants to maintain sanctions, it does not benefit them in any way.
Here's is Boeing's loss of billions of dollars in contracts due to sanctions. [1]
The argument that Boeing and other F100 CEO's are pushing for sanctions, which costs them billions ... is not going to work.
Ergo - it's far more complicated than your argument insinuates.
> The 1979 'shock' is not relevant in 2021 as the global energy situation is completely different so there's no point to make with respect to current strategy.
> In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
Iran owns 10% of the worlds oil reserves and 17% of the worlds gas reserves. In 2012 before the embargo, Iran was the second largest oil exporter in OPEC. Natural gas production was skyrocketing, growing vertically to 700 million cubic meter/day by 2012. The US currently produces 766,200 cubic meters/day.
If you don't think Iran had the power to effect oil and gas prices before the embargo then I don't know what to tell you. It's just supply and demand. So far you're just making assertions without any analysis or evidence.
> This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Again, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really interested in this "antagonizing" (or not) dichotomy. States act in their own interests. All of these states have resource and security conflicts with each other that aren't new and that aren't going to go away. Also, I said that the Houthi rebellion is a relatively new thing, not old. The conflict predates them. The US and UK orchestrated a coup d'etat in 1953 prior to everything you mention. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979 prior to everything you mention.
> There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
> You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
I didn't claim anything about "as a whole." If you re-read what I wrote more carefully, you will see that. Whoever's policy was implemented is the dominant section of the overclass. They won, it's how we know they had (or still have) the most power. That's basically a tautology. Moreover, I refuted the premise for this part of your argument rests on twice now, so I hope that works for you.
I'm not trying to be patronizing, but please read what I've written more carefully before you respond and chill your tone.
"Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here? "
The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program, attempting to overthrow House of Saud, having destroyed 50% of it's refinement industry by direct military attack (aka major act of war) with the objective turning Saudi Arabia into a Syrian mess, supporting Houthi rebels towards direct attacks on Saudi civilians, destroying Israel, arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah towards that objective, and the United States as well, if they could, among other things including state sponsored terrorist attacks around the world including bombings and assassinations in Europe [1].
AT&T has accidently made public some people's phone numbers, it isn't trying to get nuclear weapons to use as cover to overthrow nations in it's periphery.
> The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program
This sounds an awful lot like what the American government is and has been doing for a long, long time...In fact, America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. Where are the international sanctions?
"America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. "
Which is false of course. It was the key ingredient in ending the worst war the world has ever seen, and since then, major wars have gone by the wayside.
Decade by decade in the US-backed world order, there have been fewer and fewer major conflicts.
The world is inherently unstable, it's barely held together by somewhat organized powers of which the US is by far the biggest pillar.
The world as we know it with open seas, open Panama, Suez, Gulf, peace between Egypt, Israel and Saudi, relative freedom of movement and commerce is an artifact of that order of which the US is the biggest pillar.
Without that order (and possibly just without the US alone, as it's hard to know if Europe+Japan+Korea+Aussie etc. could step up in a coordinated way), it would be something completely different, and in almost every scenario, much worse.
The Iranian Regime is a toxic entity that literally their own citizens would overthrow in an instant given an opportunity to do so - we're all waiting for the time when they collapse so everyone, especially Iranians citizens such as the author of this article, can move forward and participate in FOSS without getting caught up in geopolitics.
The most interesting thing in this is the US unconditional support for Saudi Arabia, arguably the largest destabilising force in the Middle East, (one of) the largest supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world (remember where bin Laden came from, who financially supported the Taliban...) and one of the worst dictatorships in the region (and that says a lot), who spies on critics overseas through infiltrating western companies and carries out assassinations of their critics overseas. But the US (and most other western countries) unconditionally support them no matter what they do. The overthrow of the House of Saud would like to be one of the best things that could happen.
I sympathize with the author, but I don't agree with the framing.
> I am talking about free and open source projects that are increasingly restricting the access of Iranian users and in the most ridiculous case, they are blocking all Iranian IPs! which, as far as I know, is not mandatory, and US law does not force companies to block IPs, but only prohibits them from providing services and trading with Iran
OK. I guess these companies have lawyers telling them that to be safe they should block Iranian IPs, and they take their word over that of some Iranian programmer.
And what is the alternative? To make a special version of your website for Iran, minus everything that could be thought of as providing a service?
The blame for this should fall squarely on the sanctions.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the developers' personal opinions, but presenting OP's issue as unilateral bullying from the US government is dishonest IMO.
The most well known problem with sanctions is that they fall hardest on the people, not the government. And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all.
But the biggest problem with sanctions is that people in the sanctioning country are so removed from the problem that it never quite seems to become a priority to remove them. Americans typically don't know a thing about Iran, the people that live there, the problems that they themselves have with their own government, and the problems we cause them by sanctioning them. We cannot put a face to the name. So because it costs us nothing, we do nothing.
While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country.
I believe this could actually enhance the power of a worthy sanctioning action: it not only causes the standard economic harm to the country's trade system, but it also imposes a brain drain on them as well. It also gives the voteless a way to vote against their country's leaders. And if the sanctions aren't actually effective or worthy enough of a cause, then we at least are exposing that via the cost of supporting a large refugee population.
We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country. Let's make that the standard.
Sanctions can be effective without harming the people. You just need to apply them against the non-democratic government and its allies: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28244670.
"First, the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption”, which will enable the taking of uniform measures against groups of countries, rather than imposing sanctions on particular states.
"Second, the main sanction – the main tax on corruption, if you will – for this group of countries should be “enforced transparency”. All documentation relating to contracts concluded between western companies and partners from countries representing corruption risks should be published if the contracts are to the slightest degree connected with the state, its officials, or their relatives."
Frankly, I think you'd have to extend that to "the slightest degree connected with the country." Money laundering is a thing. That's going to make tourism a bit less appealing.
"Third, combating corruption without combating corrupt individuals is the merest hypocrisy and undermines voters’ trust. Until personal sanctions are imposed on oligarchs, primarily those in the entourage of Putin – the role model for all the world’s corrupt officials and businessmen – any anti-corruption rhetoric from the west will be perceived as game-playing and hot air."
As I said, money laundering is a thing. And at some point you're going to catch innocent people in that net. Further, at this point you are no longer in the position of one government opposing the actions of another government; you have governments punishing the actions of individuals in that country that may not have ever committed a crime outside that country. Kinda makes me nervous.
"Fourth, the US, UK and Germany already have excellent tools for combating foreign corruption, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act, and so on. Guess how many cases have been brought following reports by our Anti-Corruption Foundation, now categorised as an extremist organisation by Putin’s government?
"Fifth, obstructing the export of political corruption clearly deserves the establishment of an international body or commission. Take a look at what is going on right now. By investing relatively small sums of money, the redoubtable Putin is buying up extreme-right and extreme-left movements throughout Europe – turning their politicians into oligarchs and agents of his own. Legalised bribery is flourishing, often in the form of board memberships at state-owned companies. A former German chancellor, or a former Italian prime minister, or a former Austrian foreign minister, can act as background dancers for the Russian dictator, normalising corrupt practices. All contracts linking former or current western politicians with business partners from corrupt authoritarian countries should also have to be open to public scrutiny."
I absolutely agree that corruption is the major international problem. And it would be really nice to at least enforce current laws against it and even better to stop enabling it intentionally. All of those steps, in some form would likely improve the situation.
But I'm not sure that targeted actions against the officials of a foreign government is the appropriate way to oppose the deliberate decisions of that government. Corruption, sure. Trying to embarrass and bankrupt Iranian government officials because they approved a project to build nuclear weapons? I'm not even sure it would be effective.
> But I'm not sure that targeted actions against the officials of a foreign government is the appropriate way to oppose the deliberate decisions of that government.
Most of the officials take holidays in Europe and US spending their dirty money. They will definitely suffer from personal sanctions disallowing them the entrance or money storage there.
> the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption"
Would "The West" then impose sanctions on itself?
Sanctions, as imposed on various countries in the Middle East, are a form of warfare. They aren't imposed "for corruption", they are imposed for being an enemy. After all, all of the USA's friends are at least as corrupt as Iran.
Does "the export of political corruption" include covert operations to overthrow duly-elected governments in faraway places? Who arranged the overthrow of Mossadeq, I wonder?
"And in most cases, those sanctioned governments are non-democratic, meaning the people who are hit hardest by the sanctions are people that have no say in the matter at all."
Well, on the other hand...
There is an Enlightenment-era principal that the legitimacy of a government comes from the assent of the governed. I know it sounds twee and "rah-rah", but it's actually a difficult position. (But consider the effects of alternatives like the divine right of kings and force majeure.) The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government.
On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government. (Yes, the US's tendency to jack around with other governments is the political philosophy equivalent of a mortal sin.) It's both their responsibility and their power to do so. Yes, the attempt would suck. It would be costly and painful. As my mother said, the world wasn't created to make us happy.
And on the third side, the rest of the world has exactly three options if they do not care for the behavior of a government: do nothing, diplomatic and economic sanctions, and military force. They're all flawed in various ways. Most places are taking the first option with China in response to, say, the Uyghur situation; is anyone happy and satisfied with that? The second option is applied by the US here to Iran and Cuba. Sanctions suck, yes. The military option is taken far too often by the US and previous imperial countries, who also don't tend to follow through. It's a blunt instrument, no matter what the military says. In the best case, it causes as many problems as it addresses. But anyway, those are the choices; pick your option.
What about those in Iran protesting their government's actions? They get punished by their government as well as by the sanctions. I have a lot of respect for those willing to protest what they consider unjust. I do not have a lot of respect for those don't agree with their government's actions but just want to go along with it for various reasons.
"While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country."
That is a brilliant idea!
"We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country."
On the other hand, the Cuban refugee community in the US is one of if not the most important power blocs maintaining sanctions against Cuba, particularly after the death of Fidel Castro. So, yeah.
> The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government.
> On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government.
This is extremely naive. Populations that rebel against authoritarian governments get slaughtered. Even Americans protesting get gassed and beaten. Imagine the state and military turned against the majority of Americans. You wouldn't stand a chance. Labor disputes in Iran, fuel cost protests, all have been absolutely brutal. Look up footage and then come back and tell unarmed Iranians who are just getting by to go to war with that.
Furthermore, the last time Iranians chose their own government, the CIA and MI6 immediately overthrew that government and installed their own puppet. [1]
"Furthermore, the last time Iranians chose their own government, the CIA and MI6 immediately overthrew that government and installed their own puppet."
Now I'm confused. Who is responsible for the Iranian Revolution and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader?
This is absolutely disgusting, they should be ashamed to call themselves free software, they are violating the License and the principles of Free software, which is meant for the end user and not for corporations and governments. People living in oppressive regimes benefit more from free software than any other. If they can do this the License means nothing to them, they are just leeching of the work of free software developers, We should all boycott them for violating the License.
Totally, how dare they follow the orders of their government under penalty of prosecution. They should be willing to go to jail to protect the terms of the GPL!
Nothing in the GPL requires you to give the software to anyone who wants it. It just says that if you do give it to someone, you need to give them the source code too and not impose any restrictions of your own on what they can do with it. There's nothing wrong with what happened here from a software freedom perspective.
wow, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to sound as racist as this does... but it's pretty insulting. Why didn't you take the extra minute to write a reply that doesn't appear to insult a bunch of people? Or were you trying to be mean? Do you think being mean helps your suggestion?
Either way, you didn't actually read the article did you? The author explained why VPNs don't really work as a backup.
I don't think there should be much of a surprise, Fedora project is part of Red Hat which is now owned by IBM. Now would they fight to open it back up?
If you expected the Fedora project, which is basically controlled by Red Hat, to not be controlled by Red Hat's corporate interests, that was your mistake. We have this crazy idea that money can flow into open-source without tainting it, but that's not true. Truly libre, distributed projects exist. You just can't expect to have your cake (corporate sponsorship and funding of core devs) and eat it too.
Does this affect other countries working with Iran? I run a small software startup in the UK and am currently in communication with an Iranian developer about doing remote contract work and I’m struggling to understand whether any of this applies to us, or whether it is strictly between Iran and the US?
Well the letter of the law wouldn't apply since it is US law, but in spirit I guess all Western countries are expected to treat US's "enemies" as their enemies too. But the CIA won't be having tabs on you unless you're a billion $ company recruiting Iranians.
They can't put you in jail, but if you violate US sanctions they can put you on a blacklist that no US business is allowed to deal with (assuming they notice you, and you get caught).
It's up to you to decide if that threat is enough to intimidate you. Most people won't blame you if it does.
242 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 240 ms ] threadBy making the lives of Iran citizens miserable, the US government expects the Iran citizens to go against their government.
If citizens put enough pressure on the Iran government and go rebel against it, the US government can justify a military intervention to protect "human rights" or something like that.
It's the same Cold War playbook over and over again.
By the way i find it amusing that we're talking only about 'it/tech'. Every product/service that an outsider tries to sell to these countries is bound by these rules, not just virtual products.
While i understand OP's feelings,what I still don't understand is why he's surprised about this: it has not been happening since yesterday(more like 5+ years, but only recently all major tech companies implemented their compliance w/ them)
During the recent Cuban protests, republican pointed towards the fact that some protesters were waving american flags as a proof that the cuban government was Satan and any measure was justified in trying to bring them down.
Anybody pointing out that US sanctions were responsible for a fair share of the suffering of these protesters was denounced as a commie sympathizer.
Yes, on paper it's politics and military and sanctions, but the real effect is that nobody wants to get burned by ITAR or EAR so if your country is on that list, you're just going to get banned, period.
It's not great, but it's also not something you can easily solve. It does affect a lot of people, but in the end, a country is represented by its government and policies, and a sanction against breaking of some arbitrary rule isn't effective if it isn't applied to the country as a whole.
The law prohibits transfer "in any manner". Fedora isn't going to implement any of those in violation of the law.
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?
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.
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?
> 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.
> And separately, we took our case to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the US Treasury Department, and began a lengthy and intensive process of advocating for broad and open access to GitHub in sanctioned countries.
Over the course of two years, we were able to demonstrate how developer use of GitHub advances human progress, international communication, and the enduring US foreign policy of promoting free speech and the free flow of information. We are grateful to OFAC for the engagement which has led to this great result for developers.
And I bet that if Fedora wanted to do the same, they couldn't simply invoke GitHub as a precedent, they would have to do the whole process again.
On the other hand, there is a tendency of projects to massively overshoot the target just to be on the safe side - see Project Gutenberg blocking all access from Germany because they got sued over 3 (three!) books.
Do I remember correctly that the German courts wanted those three (3!) books removed from Project Gutenberg entirely?
In any case, here's your two choices:
* At a minimum, block access to those three books in Germany, allowing German courts' decisions to apply the Project, which is officially based on US copyright law, where those decisions are more stringent than US law.
* Block all access to Germany. (If Germans want to complain, let them complain to their own government.)
Which precedent do you choose?
A bar can't give literal free beer to a 20 year old in the US either.
Are you sure about that? This sounds pretty clear as day that sending source code to embargoed countries is illegal:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?mc=true&node=pt15.2.73...
> (6) General Prohibition Six—Export or reexport to embargoed destinations (Embargo). (i) You may not, without a license or License Exception authorized under part 746, export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to a country that is embargoed by the United States or otherwise made subject to controls as both are described at part 746 of the EAR.
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?mc=true&node=pt15.2.73...
> (a) Except as set forth in §734.17 or §734.18, Export means:
> (1) An actual shipment or transmission out of the United States, including the sending or taking of an item out of the United States, in any manner;
> (2) Releasing or otherwise transferring “technology” or source code (but not object code) to a foreign person in the United States (a “deemed export”);
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
Would it have been against the relevant laws to send him a notice that his accounts are going to be locked/deleted within a week, for example?
If you do it knowingly, there may be additional provisions that you're breaking, or additional penalties, and you increase the length of time that you are out of compliance. This doesn't mean that you're totally in the clear if you "didn't know", which would be hard to demonstrate anyway, considering their own wiki had this information listed.
You don't.
You can't reasonably ensure that, so by induction the only solution is to sanction (read: blockade) the entire population and its real economy. Which is a massive human rights abuse.
It is selfish and demanding and bullying, but it's not pointless. Iran and its people can change things to pursue further interaction with the US sphere of business influence or they can choose to go their own way. It is nonviolent pressure towards one of two outcomes where either is acceptable to the US.
Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
All my sources seem to disagree with you.
ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close.
silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent
For instance, it's also a very contemporary thing to avoid calling war vets wimps, but it's better explained by the evolution of our understanding of their condition than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. You're in basic agreement that "violence" in contemporary understanding has evolved to include non-physical contexts but you seem to have imputed that I have the belief that it is due to an "ideological plot to reframe discourse". That's odd and completely absent from any statement I've made.
My apologies, then. That part of the answer was in response to the general reaction to what I meant to be an uncontroversial statement. I should have clarified that it wasn't yours.
> Other definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
Sanctions _are_ backed by the threat of very real physical force and power. Pretty much all state violence is.
Why do people insist on making these trite comparisons between businesses and literal governments, especially governments that are straight up among the most powerful entities on the planet?
Then again I keep forgetting that I am often talking to people who are so removed from the ill effects of the state that they can even begin to think that a company's actions can ever compare.
> Violence isn't restricted to physical harm, though. Bullying people is a violent process.
Where even the WHO definition requires physical force to be a part of the calculation. Calling someone insulting names could easily be considered bullying, but that has nothing to do with violence.
All that aside, I'm fine with words being 'abused' to help make a rhetorical point. My issue was attempting to redefine the word rather than acknowledge it as an attempt to borrow the connotation. I.e. borrowing violence to describe bulling by name calling is fine, but saying that bullying is violent by definition does a disservice to both.
Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion.
> even the WHO definition
A quick lookup at the WHO page [1] further clarifies this point by listing different types of violence:
> This typology distinguishes four modes in which violence may be inflicted: physical; sexual; and psychological attack; and deprivation.
This is not an invitation to debate the definition of violence, though, and my initial message isn't an appeal to a rhetorical debate. This topic is covered by an extensive litterature, and my initial message was merely a reminder of what people currently understand to be violence.
[1]: https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/e...
The word literally also includes the definition for the word figuratively. Just because a word happens to include additional definitions doesn't make those additional definitions reasonable or beneficial.
> Of course, you may want to use a dated definition of violence, which doesn't account for the evolution of our medical knowledge. You may find out that it's not very helpful to establish an open discussion.
I never claimed to want to use a dated definition of the word violence but I think you'll find that straw manning an argument is also counterproductive to establishing an open discussion.
I 100% agree that it is not peaceful, I think I just (incorrectly) assumed a specific definition of the word.
It's big picture and definitely not pointless to do this to the ITAR countries.
It's not possible. If a country enacting sanctions has a large enough economy (and thus significant global influence)*, the sanctions are essentially a siege of an entire country. Those who advocate or consent to them in policy should be aware that they are waging a war of attrition and the goal (and only possible effect) is for the castle to run out of food and water or, before that happens, for the peasants to revolt and fight their war against the king for them.
* This is because that country can force all other countries it trades with to get in line with those sanctions by refusing to trade with them if they don't. If those countries are dependent enough, then they have essentially no choice. Even if they are not, they may end up facing their own internal revolts by giving up that trade.
Iran has an actual civil society unlike the gulf oil slave states we've sucked up to for ages, so they way we've picked sides with that regional rivalry in particular is also a pointless mockery of good planning.
This seems to be a like pointless tradgedy that will in no way benefit the citizens of the United States.
Do you think that to occupate the nazi germany was wrong? Or that Cuba was a fine democratic place when ruled by the dictator Batista? Are you aware that the British Company of East India assasinated anybody that would stand in the middle of their way or that US United Fruit Company assasinated more than 1800 people and promoted coups in several countries?
If everybody is evil there is not any difference when people in power change.
Americans thinking that Cuba is a terrible place now and should be punished by that (and it IS a terrible place in lots of ways, for sure), forget that living under the iron fist of the big fruit companies was a slave distopic nigthmare. But this never was a problem for them, for some reason.
Is ridiculous if we think about it. Americans are taxed since that "to keep alive, generation after generation, the flaming revenge of a bunch of great-grandpa mobsters that everybody today would find despicable". A terrible business for US that were paying good money to people for things like to infiltrate and put concrete in the milk truck of Cuban scholars. Benefit to the operation for American people: Zero; here is your bill. How many years the US people will need to pay still for this dusty "revenge business" nonsense?
Perhaps Iranians will be forced to use the Chinese versions of Github, Fedora and kernel.org. Is that the future anyone wants? I don't think the Iranian engineers will quit and become plumbers or farmers.
Tell me more about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"The nuclear program of Iran has included several research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment plants.[1] In 1970, Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),[2] making its nuclear program subject to the IAEA's verification. ... In the 2000s, the revelation of Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment program raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The IAEA launched an investigation in 2003 after an Iranian dissident group revealed undeclared nuclear activities carried out by Iran.[5][6] In 2006, because of Iran's noncompliance with its NPT obligations, the United Nations Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. ... However, in July 2019 the IAEA stated that Iran had breached the agreement.[19] Iran has, since its breach in July 2019 of the JCPOA,[20] embroiled itself in controversy with half of the JCPOA signatories because a November 2020 IAEA report said that Iran had further developed centrifuge technology, the novelty of which was explicitly prohibited by the JCPOA.[21] The IAEA report also said that Tehran "holds more than 12 times the amount of enriched uranium permitted under the JCPOA, and that "work has also begun on the construction of new underground facilities close to Natanz, its main enrichment facility".[22]"
I don't think the Iranian government is "blameless" in general. (If countries were individual people, all of them would be in jail, with most of them about to hang for war crimes.)
But in the very specific context of embargoing software devs (versus weapons), I do think all of the blame for that is on countries on the imposing end of embargo. Big difference between "systemWMD" and actual WMDs. ;)
The horribly broken crypto we all had to deal with in the 2000s was partially due to US trying to treat it like a "munition" and thus weakening everyone - even themselves - by the mere existence of the hobbled "export-grade" ciphers.
"If soldiers are not to cross international boundaries on missions of war, goods must cross them on missions of peace." - Mallery, Economic Union and Durable Peace
Thus, embargoes are acts of war. Also, as evidenced by this very article, they don't tend to have the desired effect on their targets anyway, instead largely affecting innocent people and especially those of lesser means.
Sorry - not going to play that game.
> Sorry - not going to play that game.
You assume bad faith on my part for no good reason.
You accused me of "playing games". How else should I have interpreted that?
> I could write a lengthy explanation, but as I said: You're not offering anything to the conversation.
You're assuming bad faith again.
Funny thing, international law. Nobody's in charge.
Between countries, everything resembling law is held together by diplomacy, persuasion, agreements, treaties, etc. Sanctions are part of that network, for better or worse.
Treaties are generally treated as law by signatories. So, "illegal". Not that it really matters any; who's going to arrest a country?
Such a project can only make it best effort and choose to rely on domains where it thinks it will have the least problems. Sometimes that isn't the US, and sometimes it is.
It's not global. It's unilateral.
> There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian?
More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk.
This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.
That's fair. Interpreting or framing this as [the US valuing a specific kind of influence on Iran over them valuing the benefits of collaboration] makes sense.
This isn't who we're talking about in this case, we're talking about the actual producers.
> why it should be “set free” remains unclear.
This is like a layman saying why quantum tunneling occurs remains unclear. It's well documented, despite anyone's ignorance. People have written volumes on their reasons for producing free software. A lot of the people involved in Fedora and GNOME blog about it daily.
Aren't most of the sanctions against Iran related to the UN resolutions against their nuclear weapon program? Doesn't the EU also have their own set of sanctions against Iran?
The US violated the JCPOA, not Iran. Both the Rouhani and Raisi governments have the stated policy that they will return the the JCPOA if the US first reverses its violation.
The fact that they have the power to bully the rest of the world into complying with their unilateral 180 decision is infuriating.
I can rightfully see this leading to questions about how "free" Red Hat really is when it needs to bow to military interests like this for commercial reasons (they want to keep those enterprise support contracts with the DoD). Software freedom was always meant to refer to freedom for users, though, not freedom for developers.
I think it's a very apt question. Free Software isn't free if you can only use it as long as the US doesn't deem your country as hostile. (Note: your country, not even you as a specific individual. It's that crazy). Free Software isn't Free-as-in-friendly-to-the-US, or at least it shouldn't be.
I can write a FLOSS app and decide to distribute it only to people whose name is Amy, and it will remain 100% FLOSS as long as these Amys have all their freedoms guaranteed (including the freedom to redistribute that software to anyone else).
The only thing that seems at odds with software freedom (at least as understood by FSF and OSI) shown in this article is Fedora's "By clicking on and downloading..." screen. IANAL, but "you can't redistribute this to XYZ" sounds like "this software is non-free" to me.
This is actually an interesting problem. If I make a FLOSS app, but my government decides against my will that neither I nor anyone I shared it with can share it any further, is it FLOSS anymore? I guess no, but what if I break the law and share it anyway?
> You can use all these software even in Iran though. You just have to get it from somewhere else.
I think using the distro or even getting access to the source code is not the issue. This dev likely already has a local copy. But how is he going to legally get newer copies of the source code or meaningfully collaborate with other contributors?
Let's say he says "screw this" and manages to somehow host a fork in an Iranian server. How are other contributors based in the US going to share their contributions without legal risks?
Also, being able to get newer copies is not an issue from the Free Software definition point of view. All it cares about is whether you're free to do things with a copy you already got.
Don't get me wrong, taking away the ability to collaborate and having to jump through hoops to be able to participate in modern world are real and severe problems - it just has nothing to do with software freedom per se (at least unless you're prevented from sharing the obtained software with someone else).
Honest question, what is your source for this? Is it opinion or is it part of some declaration from some group?
What happens when a developer is also a user? As I get it, for this particular developer, the end effect is the same.
For me, a developer and a user are one in the same here, just different parts on a spectrum with many shades. I am extremely sympathetic to the author of the article because I really don't agree with the position alleged here:
>They're trying to keep Iranian contributors out of the code base because they fear the Iranian government can lean on him to plant malicious code.
This is not a threat vector, not really. Crytpo has made it that any developer with the skill and will can become the vector for such an attack. We can see this in ransomware readily, with almost weekly articles on how relatively unsuspecting developers are bought up and used to develop/spread ransomware, and I see absolutely no reason why a truly interested government couldn't do the exact same. If it's good enough for the billions of dollars the crypto-gangs are running, I'm sure a government could make it work all the same...
I'm not sure I can see sanctions like this as anything but political posturing, and I question the efficacy of it when in practice, the result is stuff like this that just denies simple freedoms that the US has no right denying to anyone.
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not proposing you are personally responsible for the above claims or expecting you to defend them, my question(s) are in earnest and combined with some personal opinions of course. So if some of the statements seem challenging towards you, it is not intentional, just a late friday post for me.
> What happens when a developer is also a user? As I get it, for this particular developer, the end effect is the same.
I think the parent comment's point was that open source doesn't mean everyone is entitled to contribute back to the main project. As a user you may be a developer by trade, and you are certainly free to modify and share the source code, but the project maintainers are free to not include your changes back into their repository. A prime example of this is SQLite, which is open source despite the fact that they don't accept code submissions outside of the core team.
>> They're trying to keep Iranian contributors out of the code base because they fear the Iranian government can lean on him to plant malicious code.
> This is not a threat vector, not really.
It really is. The Linux kernel has itself thwarted what appeared to be an attempt by U.S. intelligence services to inject vulnerabilities into the kernel source code. Now the fact that the U.S. government was itself the threat may make worries about Iran doing the same seem rather silly, but in this case I think the fact that Fedora source code is used by the DoD makes sense.
All this to say, I'm certainly not happy about this situation. A big part of the spirit of open source is to overcome our differences in an attempt to solve shared problems. That's why the OSI definition of open source requires that open source licenses not discriminate against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor. That being said, however much open source may not want to be interested in politics, it is certainly true that politics is interested in open source.
>It really is. The Linux kernel has itself thwarted what appeared to be an attempt by U.S. intelligence services to inject vulnerabilities into the kernel source code. Now the fact that the U.S. government was itself the threat may make worries about Iran doing the same seem rather silly, but in this case I think the fact that Fedora source code is used by the DoD makes sense.
I think this is tangential though to what I'm saying. It's not about whether or not attacks like this __are possible__, it's that there's absolutely no reason that a contributor from a specific region is any more of a threat than any other. Nothing stops Iran or any other sanctioned country from getting US based VMs + crypto and slipping/sneaking in some code. It's not about if a specific country makes a backdoor, it's "is there a backdoor at all?" Any secret backdoor snuck in for sale by an interested party is just as usable by a given government as one made by Iran.
For me, it just falls flat as a real security analysis; heck, I imagine a sick irony where a US created back-door inserted by one agency ends up being used to leak data from another agency. A backdoor is a backdoor.
That doesn't quite explain why you don't even have read access in Iran though:
> Through Iran’s IP range, you cannot even clone a simple project from GitLab or pull the Nginx image from Docker Hub or Google Container Registry!
No, not really. Originally the US government considered crypto-cipher implementations — including FOSS implementations thereof, if done by domestic parties — to be munitions and carefully regulated their export.
That specific interpretation was struct from the books, but the spirit of it lives on. Rather than manually white-listing both FOSS projects and export partners (a lot of work for some government agency somewhere), the process is now simplified: it’s a blacklist of countries to which one is not allowed to export pretty much anything of use.
It is my understanding that this wide net isn’t there because the US government really believes that random FOSS libraries are useful to the Iranian military; but rather because there’s no way to keep track of every time someone creates another FOSS implementation of a crypto-cipher, or military-precision GNSS receiving, or an atomic clock VLSI, etc. — the types of things that would actually advantage an “enemy nation”’s military to not have pre-made well-tested implementations of. The US government cannot — without work that it doesn’t have the time/money for — tell your FOSS library apart from one of military value. So it’s prohibited from ITAR-blacklisted countries by default.
This measure seems to only make the life of ordinary citizens in the open. Not only that, but the measure seems to cause the opposite effect: the Iranian government seems to be making efforts at censoring its users, censorship which just serves the control of the regime.
Compare this to any number of other egregious events - like the latest rounds of personal data exposure from various corporations on the front page all of this week - and the fact that things like that have zero repercussions for the corporations who failed to secure our data.
Expose the PII of millions of citizens - zero punishment or repercussions. But oh no, if you happen to have someone in Iran working on your project, then watch out!
Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here?
I do realize technology is just a tool. And not all technology is nuclear. Sanctions are a tool as well. Not perfect, very blunt. While the author isn’t interested in politics, the underlying concerns driving the politics are real.
This comes off as insulting. One could just as easily come up with a glib derogatory summary of the 'cultural norms' of Western nations too.
Propagating the belief that some cultures don't treasure life is dehumanizing, because it is a direct pathway to rationalize exterminating them ('oh, they value death more anyway').
I fully agree that many and perhaps most of the people don’t feel that way.
Fake moral high ground is aggravating.
If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
> "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
They were doing some incredibly heinous shit at that time.
Since WWII, wars of conquest have been rather rare and have not so far grown to the scale as to even appear to justify, in any way, the use of anything like nuclear weapons. World War II, as it is known in the US, was different.
The Empire of Japan had been engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since 1937 (or possibly 1931, depending on how you look at it). (I did mention the death toll in China, right?)
The United States was engaged in a justified war with the Empire of Japan in 1945. (Do you dispute that?)
Both countries were engaged in total (or absolute) war, meaning that both had fully engaged their economies in the war effort. (This is important because, under total war conditions, the civilian economy is a legitimate target of war. Practically speaking, not doing so leads to World War I, a lengthy military stalemate, and the eventual collapse of governments and other ... bad stuff. I admit this is a personal moral viewpoint. On the other hand, fine logic chopping over the ethics and legality of warfare is pretty irrelevant. War is evil.)
The terms under which the Empire of Japan was willing to surrender were essentially that the military government of Japan be allowed to continue unmolested.
In August, 1945, the United States had two (2) options:
1. Invasion of the Japanese Islands. Two things of note: The Battle of Okinawa (which ended the previous month), involving (according to Wikipedia) ~75,000 Japanese soldiers and ~40,000 Okinawan conscripts, resulted in the deaths of between 40,000 and 100,000 civilians, or between 10% and 30% of the islands population. The Imperial Japanese Army had ~900,000 soldiers in Kyushu.
2. Continue with the blockade of the Japanese Islands. Many authors suggest that by 1946, this would have led to the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians. Christopher Clary (https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/6...) makes a pretty compelling argument that they were not very near starvation, so there's that. He also quotes,
"Early surrender? With no atom bombs, no Russians, no invasion? Careful inspection of the "testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved"--even that incomplete sample available to the USSBS during its two short months in 1945--shows only [Marquis] Kido [Koichi, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal] supporting Nitze, everyone else [including more than twenty other high level officials] stating that Japan would have fought on indefinitely. When would Japan have surrendered without the bomb and the Russians? The only credible answer is that given by Robert Butow when Freeman Dyson asked him about it: "The Japanese leaders themselves do not know the answer to that question.""
In any case, both options would have included continued strategic bombing (see also Operation Meetinghouse), of which the use of atomic weapons was an extension (no, really, check out Operation Meetinghouse). The use of large scale bombing of civilians had been settled far, far earlier in the war.
As a final point, consider a role playing exercise: Put yourself in the position of a US government or military official explaining the decision not to use some weapons at your disposal, because they were too horrific, to the mothers of US soldiers who had been killed in subsequent fighting. To criticize someone for (not) doing something, it has to have been possible for them to not do it (or to do it).
We don't use it because we don't have to but we would if we needed to.
You may not think that is fair. Everyone should have equal amounts of geopolitical power but it doesn't reflect reality. If Iran took over the US their version of fair would be very different from yours.
This is not an argument, it's not even rational.
The first reason that 'that decision has not been made again' is because international actors since then have to take into consideration that outcome.
If that situation were duplicated, the bomb would be dropped again.
Eisenhower ordered a demonstration of tactical nuclear weapons which decisively 'ended' direct hostilities on the Korean Peninsula.
Were the Chinese to have continued their advance, then 'nukes would have been used again'.
"Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
Here is one source which details some of the questions being raised https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir...
However I was probably wrong in saying most historians disagree, it seems there is still significant debate https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-...
The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time.
An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.
Though with full 20/20 hindsight, we can dig up historical facts and adjust our historical conclusions, Allied forces were obviously not privy to the immediate situation with respect to Soviet forces.
Moreover, to suggest that the instantaneous destruction of major bases and cities the likes of which history has never seen shouldn't bee seen as a primary impetus in Japanese decision making is irrational.
Japanese Imperialism was effectively a mass murdering machine let loose on the entirety of E/SE Asia and America, and the Americans did the necessary fighting leading to the weakening of the Japanese regime which put them in a state where the threat of some Soviet antagonism would even be a real problem.
If the US had not entered the war against Japan, the Soviets wouldn't be much of a real threat.
The dropping of the bombs was easily justified, and thankfully, since that moment, there have been fewer and fewer major wars.
The odd logic trying to paint the US as somehow antagonists in that situation is anti rational on it's face, it's just petty.
If I understand you right, you're asking why the state prioritizes enforcement of laws that encourage harm to Iran rather than laws that are supposed to discourage harm to US (and maybe other) consumers?
I think that happens because the state is a tool of the overclass and overthrowing Iran is in their interest while protecting consumers is not. In fact, the lalter is likely counter to their interests.
The question of how overthrowing Iran is useful used to be easier to explain so it deserves some attempt given the current situation. Iran acting independently has some ability to effect oil and gas prices, although this has decreased significantly over time. It's still of interest to the US and especially to some of the US's allies though because alternative sources of energy feed not only Iran but other opponents of the US (e.g. NK, Afghanistan, Syria, etc) and can also still threaten if not decimate smaller producers. In other words, it reduces the geopolitical power of the US and they have less ability to coerce other states. Then there's the the geopolitical game more local to Iran, where Iran is funding multiple opponents to Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and opponent of KSA in Yemen. Why care about Isarel's interests? Well obviously there's significant economic overlap but also consider the famous quote by General (and former Secretary of State) Alexander Haig "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." So, again, defeating Iran is consolidation of power in another way. There's more to it than that and it's become more complicated as time goes on but this is what I can think of off the top of my head.
On the other hand, ask yourself why would most of the powerful lobbies in the US be interested in advocating enforcement of the privacy laws and such that you care about? How does that benefit who pays for them? And where there are interests of outright corruption or coercion, why would anyone pay for that to be in your interest rather than prioritize their own?
You can work the logic backwards from realist rules too: Normally, you aren't going to get any result that doesn't benefit the state and those who have most influence over its use. (See neorealism in IR and public choice theory but also all of anarchist and "Libertarian" theory for why.)
So, in some ways it benefits the overclass directly and in other ways it just sharpens (or keeps sharp) their tool.
The notion that Iran's military threat exclusively down to antagonism of Israel is another conspiracy theory - because their actions clearly are much broader.
The concern over Iran is founded in the fact that since their Islamic Revolution, they've been an open antagonist of the US and the West, they constantly threaten the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Middle East. Since they have embarked on their Nuclear Program which they are using to Blackmail the world, it's become a much more significant issue.
Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
Iran's destabilizing and support of terrorism against Israel is of course well founded, but their actions against Saudi Arabia are more direct and have much bigger direct repercussions. Of course, the overthrow of Israel has probably the most indirect knock-on effects which would throw the entire region into chaos.
And by the way 'Big Business' in the world would much prefer to end sanctions. All of that Iranian Oil will be spent on US and German 'stuff' and Tim Cook would definitely want to sell them all iPhones.
Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups. We're seeing more progress on issues of privacy so cross your fingers.
> The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing.
The 1979 oil crisis [1] is evidence to the contrary, but as I said, that influence has declined with the rise of American and Russian gas, especially the agile dynamism of American fracking. I also explicitly mentioned that it is a threat to minor producers and aide to opponents of the US (Think about those under sanction.) It would certainly effect Saudi Arabia's bottom line to some extent. The exact degree of any of these effects is something hotly debated in IR.
> Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
No, the problem is much older than the Houthi rebellion and I did explicitly mention them. The Houthi rebellion began only in 2004. This conflict has existed since 1979 at the absolute latest. Let's not forget that the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, replacing him with their proxy the Shah, in 1953. Mossaddegh's most significant policy being the nationalization of oil. [5]
> This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
I can't agree. I think all causes are material and based on the security and economic interests of all actors involved as is basic to modern realist international relations theory. [2] Any flavor of Islam, by these theories, is just a means to an end, just a tool.
> Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
Yes, as I said, it's not in their interests and contrary to their interests since it would cost, which answers the question that was asked.
> This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups.
That rests on a refuted premise, but I'll say there's nothing nebulous about the section of the capitalist class able to afford lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes to effectively influence foreign policy. [3][4]
Overall, the main thing I think you miss is that all of the Iranian state's actions are perceived by it as being in its material interest. Its goal is to maximize its security and satisfy its economic needs and it's attempting to do that, just as every other state.
Anyway, it was just off the top of my head. The situation is complex and changing. I had no intention of writing a comprehensive dissertation.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism#Main_tenets
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953...
In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
2. Your response re: Houthi's, completely side-stepped the main point, which is that Iran is currently an antagonizing agent, directly attacking Saudi Arabia - literally knocked out 1/2 their refining capability in a military assault, and that the situation in Yemen is considerably worse than it ever was, with Houthis launching Iranian missiles directly into Saudi Arabian airports.
In any other situation - the result of 'missiles knocking out 50% production, and missiles raining down on major airports' would be war.
This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Of course, they're also grabbing merchant ships, shooting down airplanes (their own) - all that has to be put in the mix.
3. Finally - that a 'class of lawyers and lobbyists are trying to influence foreign policy' - doesn't make your argument.
There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
It's irrational that the 'Capitalist Class' wants to maintain sanctions, it does not benefit them in any way.
Here's is Boeing's loss of billions of dollars in contracts due to sanctions. [1]
The argument that Boeing and other F100 CEO's are pushing for sanctions, which costs them billions ... is not going to work.
Ergo - it's far more complicated than your argument insinuates.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-are-the-businesses-most-af...
> In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
Iran owns 10% of the worlds oil reserves and 17% of the worlds gas reserves. In 2012 before the embargo, Iran was the second largest oil exporter in OPEC. Natural gas production was skyrocketing, growing vertically to 700 million cubic meter/day by 2012. The US currently produces 766,200 cubic meters/day.
If you don't think Iran had the power to effect oil and gas prices before the embargo then I don't know what to tell you. It's just supply and demand. So far you're just making assertions without any analysis or evidence.
> This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Again, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really interested in this "antagonizing" (or not) dichotomy. States act in their own interests. All of these states have resource and security conflicts with each other that aren't new and that aren't going to go away. Also, I said that the Houthi rebellion is a relatively new thing, not old. The conflict predates them. The US and UK orchestrated a coup d'etat in 1953 prior to everything you mention. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979 prior to everything you mention.
> There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
> You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
I didn't claim anything about "as a whole." If you re-read what I wrote more carefully, you will see that. Whoever's policy was implemented is the dominant section of the overclass. They won, it's how we know they had (or still have) the most power. That's basically a tautology. Moreover, I refuted the premise for this part of your argument rests on twice now, so I hope that works for you.
I'm not trying to be patronizing, but please read what I've written more carefully before you respond and chill your tone.
The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program, attempting to overthrow House of Saud, having destroyed 50% of it's refinement industry by direct military attack (aka major act of war) with the objective turning Saudi Arabia into a Syrian mess, supporting Houthi rebels towards direct attacks on Saudi civilians, destroying Israel, arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah towards that objective, and the United States as well, if they could, among other things including state sponsored terrorist attacks around the world including bombings and assassinations in Europe [1].
AT&T has accidently made public some people's phone numbers, it isn't trying to get nuclear weapons to use as cover to overthrow nations in it's periphery.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
This sounds an awful lot like what the American government is and has been doing for a long, long time...In fact, America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. Where are the international sanctions?
Which is false of course. It was the key ingredient in ending the worst war the world has ever seen, and since then, major wars have gone by the wayside.
Decade by decade in the US-backed world order, there have been fewer and fewer major conflicts.
The world is inherently unstable, it's barely held together by somewhat organized powers of which the US is by far the biggest pillar.
The world as we know it with open seas, open Panama, Suez, Gulf, peace between Egypt, Israel and Saudi, relative freedom of movement and commerce is an artifact of that order of which the US is the biggest pillar.
Without that order (and possibly just without the US alone, as it's hard to know if Europe+Japan+Korea+Aussie etc. could step up in a coordinated way), it would be something completely different, and in almost every scenario, much worse.
The Iranian Regime is a toxic entity that literally their own citizens would overthrow in an instant given an opportunity to do so - we're all waiting for the time when they collapse so everyone, especially Iranians citizens such as the author of this article, can move forward and participate in FOSS without getting caught up in geopolitics.
No, that's Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
> I am talking about free and open source projects that are increasingly restricting the access of Iranian users and in the most ridiculous case, they are blocking all Iranian IPs! which, as far as I know, is not mandatory, and US law does not force companies to block IPs, but only prohibits them from providing services and trading with Iran
OK. I guess these companies have lawyers telling them that to be safe they should block Iranian IPs, and they take their word over that of some Iranian programmer.
And what is the alternative? To make a special version of your website for Iran, minus everything that could be thought of as providing a service?
The blame for this should fall squarely on the sanctions.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the developers' personal opinions, but presenting OP's issue as unilateral bullying from the US government is dishonest IMO.
But the biggest problem with sanctions is that people in the sanctioning country are so removed from the problem that it never quite seems to become a priority to remove them. Americans typically don't know a thing about Iran, the people that live there, the problems that they themselves have with their own government, and the problems we cause them by sanctioning them. We cannot put a face to the name. So because it costs us nothing, we do nothing.
While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country.
I believe this could actually enhance the power of a worthy sanctioning action: it not only causes the standard economic harm to the country's trade system, but it also imposes a brain drain on them as well. It also gives the voteless a way to vote against their country's leaders. And if the sanctions aren't actually effective or worthy enough of a cause, then we at least are exposing that via the cost of supporting a large refugee population.
We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country. Let's make that the standard.
"First, the west should formulate and recognise a special category of “countries that encourage corruption”, which will enable the taking of uniform measures against groups of countries, rather than imposing sanctions on particular states.
"Second, the main sanction – the main tax on corruption, if you will – for this group of countries should be “enforced transparency”. All documentation relating to contracts concluded between western companies and partners from countries representing corruption risks should be published if the contracts are to the slightest degree connected with the state, its officials, or their relatives."
Frankly, I think you'd have to extend that to "the slightest degree connected with the country." Money laundering is a thing. That's going to make tourism a bit less appealing.
"Third, combating corruption without combating corrupt individuals is the merest hypocrisy and undermines voters’ trust. Until personal sanctions are imposed on oligarchs, primarily those in the entourage of Putin – the role model for all the world’s corrupt officials and businessmen – any anti-corruption rhetoric from the west will be perceived as game-playing and hot air."
As I said, money laundering is a thing. And at some point you're going to catch innocent people in that net. Further, at this point you are no longer in the position of one government opposing the actions of another government; you have governments punishing the actions of individuals in that country that may not have ever committed a crime outside that country. Kinda makes me nervous.
"Fourth, the US, UK and Germany already have excellent tools for combating foreign corruption, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bribery Act, and so on. Guess how many cases have been brought following reports by our Anti-Corruption Foundation, now categorised as an extremist organisation by Putin’s government?
"Fifth, obstructing the export of political corruption clearly deserves the establishment of an international body or commission. Take a look at what is going on right now. By investing relatively small sums of money, the redoubtable Putin is buying up extreme-right and extreme-left movements throughout Europe – turning their politicians into oligarchs and agents of his own. Legalised bribery is flourishing, often in the form of board memberships at state-owned companies. A former German chancellor, or a former Italian prime minister, or a former Austrian foreign minister, can act as background dancers for the Russian dictator, normalising corrupt practices. All contracts linking former or current western politicians with business partners from corrupt authoritarian countries should also have to be open to public scrutiny."
I absolutely agree that corruption is the major international problem. And it would be really nice to at least enforce current laws against it and even better to stop enabling it intentionally. All of those steps, in some form would likely improve the situation.
But I'm not sure that targeted actions against the officials of a foreign government is the appropriate way to oppose the deliberate decisions of that government. Corruption, sure. Trying to embarrass and bankrupt Iranian government officials because they approved a project to build nuclear weapons? I'm not even sure it would be effective.
Most of the officials take holidays in Europe and US spending their dirty money. They will definitely suffer from personal sanctions disallowing them the entrance or money storage there.
Would "The West" then impose sanctions on itself?
Sanctions, as imposed on various countries in the Middle East, are a form of warfare. They aren't imposed "for corruption", they are imposed for being an enemy. After all, all of the USA's friends are at least as corrupt as Iran.
Does "the export of political corruption" include covert operations to overthrow duly-elected governments in faraway places? Who arranged the overthrow of Mossadeq, I wonder?
Well, on the other hand...
There is an Enlightenment-era principal that the legitimacy of a government comes from the assent of the governed. I know it sounds twee and "rah-rah", but it's actually a difficult position. (But consider the effects of alternatives like the divine right of kings and force majeure.) The bottom line is that the Iranian people are responsible for the behavior of the Iranian government just like the American people are responsible for the behavior of the US government---even if they don't have any official input into the choices of that government.
On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government. (Yes, the US's tendency to jack around with other governments is the political philosophy equivalent of a mortal sin.) It's both their responsibility and their power to do so. Yes, the attempt would suck. It would be costly and painful. As my mother said, the world wasn't created to make us happy.
And on the third side, the rest of the world has exactly three options if they do not care for the behavior of a government: do nothing, diplomatic and economic sanctions, and military force. They're all flawed in various ways. Most places are taking the first option with China in response to, say, the Uyghur situation; is anyone happy and satisfied with that? The second option is applied by the US here to Iran and Cuba. Sanctions suck, yes. The military option is taken far too often by the US and previous imperial countries, who also don't tend to follow through. It's a blunt instrument, no matter what the military says. In the best case, it causes as many problems as it addresses. But anyway, those are the choices; pick your option.
What about those in Iran protesting their government's actions? They get punished by their government as well as by the sanctions. I have a lot of respect for those willing to protest what they consider unjust. I do not have a lot of respect for those don't agree with their government's actions but just want to go along with it for various reasons.
"While I do think that sanctions can be an effective tool against authoritarianism, I do think that we should be forced to put a face on those who we are sanctioning. Since in the US our sanctions are applied at the Executive Branch level, I would propose a Legislative Branch check on the issue: If we sanction a country, for whatever reason, we automatically remove all Refugee visa and green card quotas for that country."
That is a brilliant idea!
"We've already effectively done this with Cuba, and it has turned out extremely well, IMO. Cuban refugees very quickly adapted to our country and have become an economic powerhouse of their own, while depriving undemocratic cuban leaders from the benefits of those people staying in their country."
On the other hand, the Cuban refugee community in the US is one of if not the most important power blocs maintaining sanctions against Cuba, particularly after the death of Fidel Castro. So, yeah.
> On the other side of that coin, it means that the Iranian people are the only ones who can legitimately force change on their government.
This is extremely naive. Populations that rebel against authoritarian governments get slaughtered. Even Americans protesting get gassed and beaten. Imagine the state and military turned against the majority of Americans. You wouldn't stand a chance. Labor disputes in Iran, fuel cost protests, all have been absolutely brutal. Look up footage and then come back and tell unarmed Iranians who are just getting by to go to war with that.
Furthermore, the last time Iranians chose their own government, the CIA and MI6 immediately overthrew that government and installed their own puppet. [1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
Now I'm confused. Who is responsible for the Iranian Revolution and the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader?
What if they disagree with your interpretation of the meaning and requirements of the GPL?
Either way, you didn't actually read the article did you? The author explained why VPNs don't really work as a backup.
Not going to jail is not an exclusively 'corporate' interest.
It's up to you to decide if that threat is enough to intimidate you. Most people won't blame you if it does.
(Also, probably talk to a lawyer)
Basically false advertising.