Thanks! We try to be transparent by default and even when it is difficult. I think the OP is a good example of something that is hard to be transparent about because the decision isn't obvious and it takes discussion to come to the best conclusion.
I can understand being reluctant to deal with the full extent of the problem. Somebody from China, with a family in China and subject to Chinese law, does not cease to be a security threat by moving to the USA and getting a green card. This gets awkward.
It really is no surprise that valuable secrets of all types (private key, customer data, trade secret, insider info for trading, etc.) end up in other countries.
If you are really concerned about the confidentiality of your data, don't store it unencrypted in some SaaS where every customer service rep has full access to all your data. At that point you're already so vulnerable that exluding potenential employees from a whole country is just pointless security theater that some suit with an MBA thought up to justify his position.
People have to do what the state they live in and belong to orders them to do. That's part of the point of having a state. So if you can't trust a state you can't trust its people either.
> you are really concerned about the confidentiality of your data, don't store it unencrypted in some SaaS
I don't think dissolving the company is on the table.
Zing! Solid line but it misses the point. As with any other data, you can encrypt source code. It's perfectly easy to envision a setup where Gitlab employees in country X can only see plaintext Gitlab data they could already see over the public internet.
So, I could say that American is sucks if I think Trump is sucks?
That is ridiculous. The first is that 'state is unauthentic' is a subjective speculation. And the most funny is that the conclusion 'people is unauthentic' is came from your first thought.
I can not say American is terrorist if Hillary wanna burn other country. Am I right?
Where an employee's family lives seems like the single most important point to consider...
I hope we learned our lesson during WW2.
However, discriminating based on exposure to coercive pressure from aggressive and hostile foreign powers is probably OK, even if such exposure is heavily correlated with national origin. The key is that the discrimination must be based on an individual analysis of the applicant and his/her life circumstances.
It's not OK to blanket deny any person of Chinese ancestry.
Denying such a person access to sensitive data or positions might be OK, however, if that person is exposed to coercive threats by, e.g. having family located in a jurisdiction known to use its power over expatriates' families as leverage to recruit sources and agents.
So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest in protecting against security threats and the vetting policy is as narrowly tailored as possible to minimizing insider risk from applicants with vulnerability to certain threat actors, I think such a policy could pass ethical and (IANAL) maybe legal muster.
I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).
Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical.
> I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).
First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.).
Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.
This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. Security clearances are actually defined by law, I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities.
As far as I understand, companies are generally free to make their own hiring decisions, so long as they do not amount to discrimination against a protected class. That limitation, by the way, stems from federal legislation--so companies are very much not extra-legal entities operating without any judicial accountability. If a state or federal Congress decide to further regulate companies' hiring decisions, they are free to do so.
I don't understand what exactly you would like companies to do: Simply ignore potential security risks? Do you have a specific process you advocate should be used to evaluate risks? What different kind of restrictions on companies' personnel decisions would you like to see? Do you just have a problem with a focus on risk from family members in PRC as opposed to a broader vetting process where that is only one risk factor?
> Security clearances are actually defined by law
I am not sure that an exact formula for grant/deny decisions exists in statute. These decisions strike me as inherently subjective, although certain facts are obviously pertinent to the decision. I would be very interested to read the relevant laws and regulations, though, if you'd be so kind as to point me to them.
Companies like Apple and others should be allowed to be concerned about theft of sensitive data just as much as the government. Just because it’s not a matter of national security doesn’t mean it’s okay.
Nobody here is trying to discriminate against a race. The problem is having ties to relatives living under a government that is known for making people disappear. The same would apply for a white person with many relatives there, etc.
Your argument of companies not being allowed to take cautionary steps against a foreign government doesn’t hold water.
They already are, with most disputes being settled with Binding Arbitration rather than via the court systems.
Others have already pointed out though, that a company needs to act in its own interests and one of the things it would certainly find interesting is whether an individual is capable of being coerced into sabotaging/sharing corporate trade secrets.
If large numbers of voters felt that, then they would never get elected.
> nowhere justified by the constitution
The voters are entitled to vote however they like; that's implied by the constitution.
> I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national
Then you essentially agree with me.
> I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances
I agree. The question is, which jobs should require such clearances?
They notably did not include "or family".
The expectation presumably being that foreign powers were clearly enough signalled to tread carefully with regards to exerting pressure on government officials.
At high levels, that seems reasonable. At lower levels, where there's less scrutiny and less opportunity for diplomatic redress? "Reasonable" measures seem murkier.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein....
I think if Congress tried to pass a law limiting the President's access to classified information, the Supreme Court would likely find it to be unconstitutional.
Constitutional requirements can also be changed, and it is long past time that we do so. The country has been around for 2.5 centuries, and now has hundreds of millions of people. We wouldn't suffer a shortage of presidential candidates if we required that all 4 grandparents (determined all possible ways) and all descendants and spouses have been born in the USA, along with all living ancestors and descendants of all of those. The job is simply too important to allow otherwise. (this would disqualify the most recent two, along with failed candidates like Romney and Cruz)
For tech companies we shouldn't be quite so extreme, but it also isn't good to ignore the problems.
"Your honor, of course my intent was genuine ..."
Therein lies the rub ;)
You can rest assured that we did not, I have zero doubt that if there ever was another war at that scale we'd have internment camps for nationals of the enemy before the end of that war.
Yes it is. You know what's also a big no-no from an ethical perspective? Letting China win so they turn the world into a global dictatorship with concentration camps, organ harvesting and ubiquitous surveillance.
Sometimes you have to do a bad thing to prevent a worse thing.
Arguably now the FANGS are now CNI - which is going to suck if your on a H1B or Green Card.
The wiser among us know historically garbage thinking when we see it.
The thing is, coming from a country that is practicing cultural genocide against various ethnic groups, we can probably take those accusations and survive.
Even then, good old corruption of non-Chinese is still possible.
You can’t ignore the fact that the PRC uses those things as leverage against people abroad in order to get information. Until that stops, what are companies and governments supposed to do? Roll over and allow espionage because we’re so tolerant?
There's a growing hysteria in the US about China, which is leading to increasing signs of discrimination and harassment of Chinese people in the US. This sort of demonization of an entire country and the politics behind it (preservation of the US as the world's dominant power by containing China) are very dangerous. The thing that makes it most disturbing is the way people across the political spectrum have bought into the idea of the Yellow Peril, and are now okay with discriminatory policies, the trade war, and challenging Chinese territorial sovereignty.
People don't care about people from the ROC, aka Taiwan, aka China*. If people in our extremely polarized political environment are uniting on this, it's because it's a Serious Issue that needs to be addressed.
Any american or european living in either country would similarly be affected by the ban. Untwist your knickers please.
You keep calling it xenophobia even after you've been proven wrong when you claimed this is targetted at green-card holders. You are absolutely disengenuous and have no intention at good-faith discussion.
I then suggest you edit out your erroneous personal attacks.
I'm eager to find ways to be a more transparent person at work. I want to eliminate "politics" and "games" where possible and for work to be Wysiwyg.
I hoped that people would use the sentences I proposed on that page but that never happened.
What is helpful is that when people raise a concern I can recognize it more quickly and show them it is clearly my flaw. This doesn’t happen often but it happened last week.