An Open Letter to Google and Apple: Stop Hindering Iranian Entrepreneurs
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Now, your services that you host on Google Cloud are not available. Say you are Gitlab, and you host there (they do!). Now, if you put your Open Source project on Gitlab, that project is not accessible to Iranians either (as well as other sanctioned countries).
As someone you spends a couple of weeks every year in Iran, I can tell you that arbitrary websites breaking because of blocks on the US side have a far worse effect on my ability to work then the fact that Facebook and Twitter is blocked.
Why doesn't the documentation for date-fns work? Oh, they load the data from Firebase.
Why can't I compile by Android app? Oh, the Android repository is hosted on Google Cloud.
Etc.
Great for him, not so good for a couple of angry customers that got no answers to emails.
He set an out of office but also said to those customer that he would reply to any queries ... oops
Detecting and terminating activity on Google properties
"Actors engaged in this type of influence operation violate our policies, and we swiftly remove such content from our services and terminate these actors’ accounts. Additionally, we use a number of robust methods, including IP blocking, to prevent individuals or entities in Iran from opening advertising accounts."
https://www.blog.google/technology/safety-security/update-st...
Your explanation makes no sense - state hackers are not foiled by an IP block.
This is US foreign policy. Bullish and stupid.
So this isn't really a problem with Apple or Google; it's a problem with the way US enforces sanctions on countries.
> Two years ago, under the guise of complying with American sanctions against Iran — sanctions that have existed for decades — Apple started removing Iranian apps from its platform.
Sanctions aren't always clear-cut, and if a buck is to be made, companies often try to stretch interpretations, try to fly under the radar or rely on the administration on being lenient in some aspects. So I'm not sure it's as simple as "sanctions existed before, so this must be the companies fault".
I'd much rather see sanctions in this space limited/removed - but I hold no hopes for enabling moves in this geopolitical game of power.
All these things are true. But this letter is written to the wrong people. This situation stems from a problem between our governments, and that is where it needs to be fixed. We have limited power to change this, but what power we do have is enacted by electing leaders who will work for a better solution. We get a chance to pick a US President again in just over a year.
Please, when the opportunities arise over the next 18 months, get out, get involved, and vote.
Big companies and governments go hand in hand, so the only way to enact some REAL change is to strike where the MONEY is and cut their economic power.
A vote becomes worthless in a society where lobbying is legalized and media channels have economic interests in play.
What does that mean, exactly? What specific actions do you propose people take?
1. Outlaw lobbying;
2. Tax the ass off the filthy rich;
3. Break up big corporations in tech, oil, media, you name it. No more monopolies or monopsonies;
4. Change the electorate system.
5. Increase work conditions. Higher wages, jobs availability, social welfare, etc.
The obvious takeaway is that if you reduce wealth inequality you get a healthier society and democracy.
I would personally prefer direct democracy, but I think it is extreme to claim that every politician is corrupt.
I've written about my own experience at https://alireza.gonevis.com/how-i-didnt-get-my-first-paying-...
Shouldn't trade sanctions be more fine grained? Having part of the population be part of the global economy seems like the best way to eventually push for change in those countries...
You see that happening right now with Iran ramping up enrichment again, and if they play their cards right, they can absolutely go the North Korea route and get it done.
> I want to see India and Pakistan give up their weapons
Since you are so strongly against nuclear weapons, wouldn't you agree the US should lead by example instead of "do as I say, not as I do" (which is the current policy) and start by giving up its own nukes?
Be the change you want to see in the world and all that.
America's companies and government might very well be giving up a very comfortable monopoly in some key sectors right now by encouraging new ecosystems out of necessity.
At the same time, they are exploiting the monopoly (the US as a hole, that is). I suppose there's a line between "this is too much pain, I'm jumping ship" and "this is an acceptable amount of pain, I'll just pay my tribute and stay". I don't know whether they've crossed that line - especially when adopting a Chinese system won't really change a lot, it will only change who you depend on and whose wishes you need to comply with.
It's my opinion that the excluded, Iranians in the case of this article, should be having hard discussions about how they could get away from the likes of Google and Apple, not talks about how to integrate into an ecosystem that appears hostile.
I understand the difficulty of that in practice, but integrating into a group that makes hostile world-changing decisions about groups of people based on geography and cultural differences seems to just empower that group further the next time they try to inject political maneuvering into their business -- making them an even larger threat to those it disagrees with in the future.
In other words : Second verse, same as the first -- vote with your dollar, vote with your participation.
Sure, sure, but that's often not an option. If you're black and the only grocery store in town has a "no colored people" policy, you're out of luck.
With the internet getting more and more centralized to a few large US corporations, you're in a similar spot. Banned from using their services? There's no alternative, because everybody else relies on them and will have their contracts canceled unless they also not do business with you.
The only major resources which have permanent ban I know of are PornHub and LinkedIn (not including the sites which were blocked during the Hunt for Telegram, 95% of IPs have been removed after the body which operates the blacklist admitted their fail).
> majority of Russians applaud the wars
If you got the data from official Russian survey agencies or government, you can divide it by 0 twice. And don't forget that more than half of the population were born in USSR, a third part had been educated in soviet schools and a sixth part in current propaganda-driven schools (started in 2004) which makes a majority alone.
It's all a huge pile of steaming manure, especially that the US considers companies in the US liable for things that their holding or child companies do in other countries - even if the behavior is fully legal in the place where it happens.
And banks and other corporations with even the tiniest amount of US connections are rightfully scared of excessive punishments dealt by the US "judicial" system.
>> No it's not, [banks are scared if the US]
Yes, banks are scared of the US. And perhaps the racism stems from the Italian bank, perhaps it stems from the US government, perhaps it stems from the Iranian definition of citizenship, perhaps all share a part of the blame. But regardless of who gets the blame, it most definitely IS straight up racism.
And that's wrong. By any moral standard.
As an example, it would be interesting to know if relocating to some other country, or give up your nationality solves the issue. In the case of racism, it wouldn’t for sure. In this case, i don’t know.
From 2010, written into UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9
> 9 Race
> (1)Race includes—
> (a)colour;
> (b)nationality;
> (c)ethnic or national origins.
From 1976 (over 40 year ago), written into the previous UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted
> 1 Racial discrimination
[...]
> (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied ; and
> In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Both "descent" and "national or ethnic origin" appear relevant here.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizen...
[2] - https://nomadcapitalist.com/2018/06/16/tax-consequences-of-r...
As someone who has paid a truckload of these taxes: I don't think it's that absurd. You're not double-taxed. And if you want to relinquish citizenship, you can.
That's just reaction to stupid US FATCA laws pushed by US down the throat all countries out there. Same is for Switzerland - quite hard to open an account for anybody qualifying as US citizen, although banks are mostly fully compliant with FATCA processes. But this was pushed by the guy before the Big Blonde
The reasons for the act (racist or not) does not affect it being racism?
200 years ago, everyone would have understood "racism" to mean what you have implied it means: conscious individual racial prejudice. And of course, one problem that (say) blacks in the US face is widespread, individual, conscious racial prejudice.
But there's yet another problem blacks face: the mechanisms of society as a whole disproportionately cause problems for black people, even when nobody involved is consciously prejudiced. When this was pointed out, people would respond, "But nobody in this organization is prejudiced". Well, it doesn't matter if the people are prejudiced or not, the emergent property of the system as a whole affects black people as though it was set up by people who are racist; and so the system is called "racist", even if nobody in it is trying to be racist.
I think the argument here is the same: Iranians are facing persecution for no other reason than the country they were born in. It doesn't matter if people making the policies of the US government is prejudiced against Iranians as individuals or not; the net effect is the same.
(FWIW I think the concept of "institutional racism" is useful, but the overloading of the term 'racist' to describe it is counterproductive in the long run.)
It is absurd to characterise this president's foreign policy on Iran as separate from that background.
The Iranian people are not the target, the West wants to see their potential released.
When is the turn of the Saudis? Is Iraq potential totally released already?
And the grandparent is the one missing the point..
I want to recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
Or the transcription: https://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-f...
Your definition of the West is pretty narrow, by the way, because everybody was OK with the deal until the USA decided unilaterally to break it.
More specifically discrimination of nationality, but almost the same as discrimination of race in this case. Either way, it's not fair on any of the people affected.
As an European I would love to visit Iran. Amazing country, some friends there, direct flights... But I would lose ESTA and would need to apply for a visa before visiting US.
A few years back, one of my ex-colleagues who needed to travel to US frequently for work was stopped right before boarding a plane because he had a layover in one of the blacklisted countries while on holiday. He didn't even know he lost his ESTA.
It's an amazing country. A price of "more paperwork to enter the USA" was an absolute bargain in my book.
I gained much respect for persians and their history when doing a short trip there (Mont Damavand, Isfahan, Yazd & desert, Tehran).
Losing an ESTA for such an enriching experience? Definitely worth it. Plus when I flew through Miami last year, I had already new passport and all was OK.
Edit: and people abiding by them because “it is the law”...
This is exactly where reality meets history. And not as a metaphor.
How did she even get Iranian citizenship? Iranian law does not provide citizenship to children of Iranian mothers with foreign fathers even if they are born in Iran, and the Guardian Council has so far vetoed all attempts to change it[0].
[0] https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/05/iran-nati...
Just to restate, i'm quite sure her mother is iranian and i thought her father is italian because in Italy ius sanguinis law is the rule, so one of the parents should be italian born to get the citizenship from birth, if i mixed up the nationality of both parents is me being dumb, so thanks for pointing that out.
[0] https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/435807/Iranian-nationality-...
EDIT: "seldomly" should be "to a less extent"
Best to hope for in this environment is to expect nation states to waste more and more resources toward such unproductive endeavors and exploit the gaps.
Does anyone know enough about the legal angle to talk about what it would take to develop an alternative platform not impacted by US sanctions?
I recently got contacted about an old genetics project that stopped working because Java applets. I told them I can reimplement it in JS, just pay for my time. They said they would love to, but they are an Iranian institute, and I'm a US citizen. So it's a lose-lose situation.
The Iranian people are not the target -- Persia is a rich ancient civilization that's being repressed -- the West knows this and wants to see the Iranian people's massive creative potential unleashed.
Sanctions are designed as a non-kinetic force applied to pressure the Iranian government into a weakened position. The Iranian people play a significant role in amplifying the pressure. The louder and more vocal their voice becomes, the more pressure their government will feel. If the Iranian people want a change, the change has to come from within.
At some point, when the people amplify the pressure beyond the point the government can withstand, the situation tips and the people force their government to release. This is the effect the sanctions are designed to create.
Given that "the West" is largely responsible for installing/supporting repressive Regimes in Iran, that sounds a bit too naive. "Wants to replace the oppressive Regime with an oppressive Regime that will do their bidding" sounds closer to the truth to my ears.
Given the recent examples US led "Regime Change" in the area (Egypt, Libya, Iraq, to a lesser degree Syria), as an Iranian, I'd have some reservations about lofty speeches.
"In this moment of national trial, Stephen and his son Hugh published an op-ed piece in The Times-Picayune. Recalling an episode from the Day after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, the piece started this way:
“On Dec. 8, 1941, a large group of Navajo Indians saddled
their horses, loaded their rifles and rode off their
reservation to the nearest Army recruiting center. They
told the surprised recruiting officer that they were ready
not just to enlist, but to start fighting that very day.
Their country had been attacked. They would go to war.”
These Native Americans had not been treated well by their government, by American society at large. Their culture and their language had been under attack, marginalized, discriminated against, for many years. Their opportunities in education and work were few.
But even these Navajo in their hardscrabble existence had a sense of the American ideal, the promise of individual rights, of opportunity for a good life as pursued first by our Puritan forebears, then by this country’s Founding Fathers—and as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
In 1941 these Native Americans knew this promise, this ideal—and their country too now—was under attack. So they joined millions of other Americans to fight Japan and Germany in faraway places.
In fact, the Navajo Code Talkers [2] became a legendary weapon in our WWII military arsenal, for they were able to speak openly over the radio in the field—confident that the enemy would never crack their language. The Navajo reflected the common sentiment of the day: “We’re all in this together.” And their selfless acts spoke to the enduring American Spirit, the bright connecting thread in the fabric of our Democracy. This spirit is sometimes difficult to define or to quantify, but it holds great power—and you know it when you see it.
Our country would never have survived and prospered without this spirit. In fact, it wouldn’t have survived its earliest days. But where did this spirit come from? ..."
[1] The American Spirit: What Does It Mean? https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-spir...
[2] Navajo Code Talkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker#Navajo_code_talker...
Unfortunately, they decided to use their freedom to take control of the oil in their country.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état,[..], was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United States [..] and the United Kingdom [..]"
"Mosaddegh had sought to audit the documents of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now part of BP) and to limit the company's control over Iranian oil reserves"
If what you said was true, that people being "free" was so important to the US and the reasoning behind all foreign policy, then please explain away slavery? Segregation? Discrimination? Explain the wars of aggression, which despite their operational Orwellian names, have had nothing to do with freedom, or freeing oppressed peoples. Explain policies of supporting brutal right wing dictators throughout Latin America, the training of death squads, the military school of the Americas, the CIA coups / assinations of democratically elected leaders, the torture prisons, the giving of asylum to those not only reported of being involved in the above, but charged (in their home countries).
If what you said was true, that the US really was the first, noble country doing everything to "free" oppressed peoples the above wouldn't happen, but it does. Unless you mean freedom is for some, oppression for others, that could be argued perhaps somewhat true, but if so, then it negates what you are saying.
This isn't to single out the US, as I said the same is true for all global power countries since the beginning of time, but the narrative that the US only starts wars in a selfless manner is quite frankly ridiculous and naive beyond belief to anyone who has even an elementary understanding of world history as opposed to home state propaganda
The American War of Independence [1] is how the country was founded. If you think that narrative is false, how did the US come to be?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this?
I don't, and therefore, I think the sanctions are a predatory policy designed to break the country so it could be attacked by the U.S., where the military-industrial complex is getting too horny.
I mean, I could understand sanctions in the style of European sanctions against Russia, which are targeted at oligarchs and very specific in avoiding damage to ordinary Russians. That at least would be understandable.
But Iran sanctions.. no, I think we know the history all too well.
> The Iranian people are not the target
This is just empty words. Action speaks louder.
And even if the sanctions work as you describe in practice:
Vaclav Havel said that it's not a moral obligation of oppressed people to revolt (and risk their life), and therefore, it is immoral to pressure them to do that. (What is the point of fighting for freedom if you don't get to choose whether you want to be fighting or not?) I think I agree with that, and I am certainly glad that my country (Czech Republic) was never a target of severe U.S. sanctions.
> Do you have any historic evidence that it ever worked like this?
It worked on South Africa. My hope is similar sanctions could be put on Israel to force it to end the occupation of Palestine. But in these cases the sanctions are for specific wrongdoings that the State can address. The US sanctions against Venezuela, Iran and previously on Cuba are much broader in scope. The US is essentially saying "we will sanction you until you roll over and die" which is of course completely counter-productive. The mullahs in Iran aren't going to surrender just because the US tells them to.
Apartheid South Africa was justifiably asked to change their entire government system, and to hand over power from the ruling racial minority to the majority. Iran - even according to Pompeo's maximalist "12 demands"[0] - is being asked for far less: none of the demands relate to internal affairs, much less asking the mullahs to lose influence on the government.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/mike-pompeo-speech-12...
Really, how is that going to work operationally. Let's say I am demonstrating at the street in Tehran. I can readily tell that there is undemocratic oppression, OK. But how can I check that the government is not developing nuclear weapons or supporting terrorism, when this is hard to tell for normal citizen even in democratic countries?
IMHO, for the objectives to make sense, it would require these to be verifiable by the people pressuring the government (which you have so kindly decided to pull into the conflict). The fact that these demands are not verifiable is casting a shadow over the motives.
At the international level, the international corporations located in multiple countries don't want the different countries they're in going to war with each other, and so the massive leverage of international corporations in open markets provide an invisible hand of unseen forces that keep wars at bay.
If there's is some space for an opposition (which your demonstration example implicitly assumes), there's some space for listening to non-regime media and organizations. Indeed, many people in Iran use Satellite TV despite it being officially banned. They may or may not trust American-owned TV, but there are plenty of alternatives.
If, for example, inspectors are not allowed to check for nuclear activity, the world would raise a ruckus and the average Iranian citizen will be able to hear it and evaluate the validity of these claims, even if the regime tried to hide it.
That said, I suspect the intention of the current American administration is to do a new deal with the regime, not to have the people rise up. They may wish for that scenario, but it's not something they are working towards or something they rely on in order to pressure the regime.
I think it depends on the issue. Things that affect lot of people (like can I criticize government official in public or police brutality against a minority) are easier to check than things that do not (development of nuclear weapons).
Also, democratic systems have sort of "defense in depth". I know that some free media exist, so I can reasonably trust their independence on government. We have freedom of information acts, which requires the government to at least tell the truth. And so on.
So it seems to me, to ask Iranians to rise up if they feel their government is lying about development of nuclear is effectively equivalent of developing a modern democratic society, at the very least.
> the world would raise a ruckus and the average Iranian citizen will be able to hear it and evaluate the validity of these claims
That is still very vague, how are they gonna do it. Based on my indirect experience with communist regime, majority will probably believe foreign media unconditionally (believe me, they will know state media lie constantly, I know many emigrants were surprised that there is unemployment in the West, they thought it was a state propaganda), and a decent minority (about 20-30%) will not believe these claims and support the ruling class.
But - only extremely small minority will consider "international ruckus" a large enough problem so they would risk a life for it. Especially from a community which decided to throw sanctions on the nation.
> intention of the current American administration is to do a new deal with the regime
Well, that's how this problem needs to be resolved - in a diplomatic way. That's the standard way to do it - mutual inspections to see if there are nuclear weapons, or mutual disarmament. You don't need to involve the citizens, especially since they cannot meaningfully keep tabs on their own government.
As for motivation, well, there are already significant sanctions on Iran, and that's with merely the US alone. If Iran restarts a significant nuclear program, I think the response would be much more than my previous euphemism of 'ruckus'.
But I don't expect (or ask) the Iranian people to rise up, though this regime well deserves it. That would be really nice, but it seems to me the other outcomes are more likely. Most likely both sides will be able to reach some diplomatic conclusion (since neither wants a war).
I think it's a moot point. If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should), then there is no purpose for them to hide the program from their own public.
There is a distinction between sanctions and diplomacy. Sanctions are not diplomacy. Diplomacy is making an agreement (on the level of national leadership, sidestepping the question of its legitimacy), which might be easier to get without threats or undermining the economy of the nation.
It's my opinion that nuclear disarmament can only happen if we treat everyone the same. So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up.
> But I don't expect (or ask) the Iranian people to rise up
Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?
Sure there is. It's to make them appear to be defending themselves from a nefarious foreign plot. 'We cheated because we can' is not a good PR point even in those regimes.
"If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should)"
The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME, nor do we want crazies which threatened to destroy another state to have nukes. That is treating Iran uniquely, but it's a unique regime with unique behaviour.
"So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up."
In our reality they can. That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.
"Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?"
To get an inspection deal without sunsetting clauses and other loopholes, to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour. I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.
That doesn't make any sense, once Iran has agreed to cooperate with the inspectors.
> The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME
If you truly don't want that, support denuclearization of Israel.
> That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.
No, it doesn't prevent new wars. How do you prove that, anyway?
> to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour
This is pretty rich coming from the U.S., which has literally no business on the other side of the planet.
> I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.
If this was their concern, they would stop supporting Saudis.
In the scenario we're talking about, Iran is cheating. Of course they'd want to hide it and claim to the populace they're just being persecuted.
"If you truly don't want that, support denuclearization of Israel."
Well, Israel has had it since the 1960s, without an arms race. Apparently neighbours are not so concerned, but with Iran involved, Saudi has already taken steps to build a reactor. Also, Iranian development can hardly be considered defensive when they are the ones threatening Israel and not the other way around.
"This is pretty rich coming from the U.S., which has literally no business on the other side of the planet."
The same argument could (and has) been used to ask US to let Europe go, first to the Germans, and then to the Commies. It's a bit rich hearing it from a continent which has profited so much from US involvement.
You're right. For economic sanctions to work, the Iranian people must choose to act. They are in a unique historical position with an opportunity to choose and prove kinetic wars obsolete.
The US just wants a war, it seems.
The funds received by an Iranian civilian entrepreneur are still open to subjugation by the government. Without these funds, it will be more difficult for this government to destabilize neighboring states, blackmail the Sunnis across the gulf, and energize Hezbollah in their explicitly stated goals to genocide the Jews.
The funds received by an Iranian civilian entrepreneur are still open to subjugation by the government.
So it's like civil asset forfeiture?
To the US credit, they were much more careful with applying sanctions to Russia: I am Russian (who lives abroad and doesn’t support our current government), and despite sanctions, I still can get the US visas, open a Github account, publish apps in App Store etc. I am really lucky I am not Iranian. I can’t do anything about the current government, Russia is not exactly a democracy, even if they maintain the motions and visibility of it.
That's the very definition of war. Sending an open letter to Google and Apple seems a bit misplaced?