> Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system.
And Git is open source.
Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power.
Stallman (RMS) was right once again.
And Git is open source.
Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power.
Stallman (RMS) was right once again.
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/...
118. I have a client that is in Iran to visit a relative. Do I need to restrict the account?
A: No. As long as you are satisfied that the client is not ordinarily resident in Iran, then the account does not need to be restricted. See FAQ 37.
My thoughts are my own. I do not represent anyone other than myself.
On the other hand, a sanctions violation could be a $65,000 fine (Trading with the Enemy Act) or $250,000 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) for each offense. (I leave aside the million-dollar narcotics-kingpin act). On top of this we also see the risk of criminal prosecution.
In what world is it reasonable to expect anyone to take this chance?
Now note that that we are discussing a name, a commmon, but somewhat reliable, if mutable, driver of our identity. Now compare it to IP address and tell me, which one is a better predictor of who you are.
Unless, we are assuming IP is a proxy for location, which is another story.
If no DOB or similar is also provided, though, scoring should not be too high - and if a match with Mohammad is enough to trigger an alert, the overnight alert delta would be either manually processed by Compliance, or bulk closed as false positives, depending on how much time you need to unblock the clients and similar risk considerations.
Except when you make a mistake and ruin someone’s morning.
Sanctions, compliance, etc. is a messy ordeal to manage (both technically and operationally), and the ways laws are written with so many intricacies and dependencies doesn't make it easier.
Because only 1 instance of violation could lead to fines equivalent to a person's salary, often the systems are made to be overly sensitive and less investigative to figure out whether a 'hit' is actually a false-positive because that also takes time/money and still carries potential risk.
Github cannot be expected to reliably differentiate between the coworker who just checked the status of a PR on a webapp versus the employee who opened a crucial piece of encryption code to leak it to the Iranian military or whatever.
Advancing developer freedom: GitHub is fully available in Iran
If they do that within the US market, that might be justifiable. But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Also in what to me appears to be a rather ruthless, totalitarian, maybe even draconian way.
I'm pretty certain that absent this US law within the EU market, this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis (within the US, yes .. outside the US, no).
GitHub may find itself stuck, between adhering to US laws and laws elsewhere (in this case EU, but China is probably a good example too). Still, is ultimately is a choice for GitHub to offer their products on multiple markets. If they have issues with that, they are free to exit a particular market. It certainly is never a valid excuse to start violating law in any market outside whatever country your headquarter might be located.
Tangentially, this rather typical popular belief that US companies can simply absolve themselves from legal liability, just by crafting clever TOS/EULA that supposedly does just that, has always confused to me. It was always my understanding that you can not create contracts that violate laws. In most countries with a somewhat sane state of law, governments really do not like or tolerate when companies start essentially making their own law in parallel. But apparently you can rewrite (even basic) law in the USA, as long as you can somehow get both parties to agree on it. Be that by free will or coercion.
Maybe it's time, for other parts of the world to no longer put up with this kind of bullshit, and demand that US companies actually adhere to the laws (and legal protections) that exist within their markets, or be free to buzz off and only operate on the US market alone.
With US foreign policy becoming increasingly self-serving, legally dubious, and in some case downright insane, having internationally operating companies enforcing those policies is becoming a seriously risky proposition for anyone outside the USA.
Isn’t that what YouTube and FaceBook do day in day out when their influencers run afoul of policy?
That of a commercial company, which does not have a legal mandate (at least not in the EU) to make make rules that violate EU law (including legal protections), or the US government, which does not have legal jurisdiction over the EU market?
Pick your poison
So if a policy or a law says X is disallowed or is unlawful, ipso facto, X can only run afoul of those bodies of governance and can’t be discriminatory? That’s interesting!
If you expect US companies to respect GDPR and cookie banners and the right to be forgotten, globally; you cannot be surprised that they will respect and enforce US law globally as well.
EU wants American companies to follow GDPR when acting in EU market.
Also, law do not require it to be shown for all cookies. Only for tracking ones.
So while foreign companies can decide whether they want to apply their GDPR policies (which generally should not require "cookie banners", though it is a popular choice) only to people in EU or all their users, an EU company does not have a choice, they have the obligation to treat personal data of Americans and Iranians and everyone else in a GDPR-appropriate manner.
Start complaining to those companies and stop pointing your finger in the wrong direction.
I'm not saying it's right, I am saying that these are the logical, practical responses to the way different jurisdictions expect their laws and regulations to be honored, respected, and applied.
Well, of course it can, if the company violates EU law inside the EU. Do you think US law trumps [sic] national law globally? If a US company doesn't want to comply with GDPR, it is free to cease trading in the EU, or cough-up the fines.
Extraterritoriality is an old US habit.
I'm not saying that US companies should not enforce US law. I think they should. That is: strictly within the US market.
When they operate outside the US market, they have to (also) adhere to whatever law exists for that market. If that creates a conflict, the company has a choice to either open up show elsewhere, outside of US jurisdiction (if that's the only way to comply with local market rules), or stay in the US and leave the foreign market alone.
Either way, being a US company should never be a valid excuse to violate laws (and/or legal protections) somewhere abroad.
It ultimately is up to a company to choose what they do and where they do it. To me, the current status quo appears to be that many US companies have been (illegally) enforcing US laws outside of US jurisdiction. Aside from that, and maybe even on a far worse level, they have been essentially been making up de facto "private laws", in their TOP/EULA "contracts".
Last time I checked, law should be left to governments. Preferable through democratic due process. Certainly not to commercial companies, who are either privately owned, or publicly by a select few rather undemocratic entities.
Bigger companies get a little bit more leeway to negotiate with the US Federal government on this but if the US decides that something is illegal or prohibited, the Justice Department doesn't really care what country the prohibited activity occurred in, it'll walk the executive chain to pick people to prosecute.
The only way a company could complete avoid this scenario is if it licensed its product or service to an independent entity outside the US. And even then the DOJ would likely attempt to force the termination of the license agreement if it results in a product or service being offered in a prohibited jurisdiction.
None of this is new, or due to Trump, or even partisan.
Sure, the US is (rightfully so) subjecting every company within its jurisdiction to US law, no matter on which market they operate. Sometimes they go even further and say non-US companies can be held liable, when they somehow interact with the USA or its citizens. That can sometimes become a bit dicey with jurisdictions, but even that is not the point here.
The point is that a US-based company is operating on a market outside the US and (most likely) is operating in a way that is within the law of that market.
To put bluntly: I don't give a #### about how the US treats companies on their territory, regardless where those operate. I care about US-based companies abiding to law wherever they do business. If they can not do that, they should cease to operate there. Whether it's the US government or something else that is to blame for the situation is irrelevant.
This is not new. The Internet exacerbates the potential for conflicts, but it’s not a new problem with the rise of the Internet.
The issue is that a US company should also be held accountable for whatever they violates abroad. Not by the US government, of course. But by the authorities of whatever foreign market they operate on (the only authority with jurisdiction anyways).
While the tide is gradually changing, so far a substantial part of the problem is that the US government has quite a few nasty ways to shield US companies from being seriously held accountable abroad. Still, the longer that reality exists, the more inevitable it will become that at some point US companies will simply be barred altogether from (some) foreign markets. You can only abuse a dominant position for so long, before the receiving end will no longer put up with it. That is, of course, when (or as soon as) they have the luxury of choice in the matter.
I don't expect any US entity to "respect" GDPR. Unless they are expecting to trade in the EU. If you trade in the EU, and violate EU law, then you can expect to be fined - wherever you choose to locate your HQ.
Incidentally, GDPR is pretty badly flawed. The intrusive cookie popups are an egregious example of unintended consequences - those popups are actually attacking privacy.
Surely enforcing your politics outside of your jurisdiction is the whole point of an embargo?
You may not agree with this situation, but it is how it works. The US government will investigate and penalize companies that violate US sanctions, even if the parts of those companies involved did so entirely outside of the US.
I find it rather shameful, that apparently everyone who responded to my question, did so by explaining that a US company has to abide by US law. You don't say!
That was never the question, but apparently even reading is even too much to ask from people these days.
Of course US companies have to follow US laws. But if that conflicts with law in wherever their services are offered, they no longer have any business operating there. They should consequently stop offering their services in that territory.
Since that's unlikely going to happen on their own initiative, maybe the EU should simply declare companies like these as illegal on their market.
Actually, that might even help to finally get rid of the stranglehold which many US have had for a long time on any emerging potential competition from EU companies. Something for which US companies have regularly used and abused differences in law and economy (between the US and EU), in order to obtain an (unfair) edge.
Maybe it's about time that comes to and end, so US companies can prove that they can compete on equal grounds. I personally doubt that, because for most of the last century this competition has been dominated by the US exploiting artificially created advantages.
Politics aside, it's rather sad that this aspect of legality is even a discussion topic. It should be a no-brainer that US companies should abide by whatever laws exist on a foreign market they operate on (of course on top of US law).
If they can't, the only (legal) option is to stop operating. Either that, or the company is a criminally operating organization. That is, the violations are systemic and not just a few unintended incidences, of course.
In this case, it's just leaving you to starve, so you're pretty well off on the whole vs other things Americans will do
I am not sure if most people realize this, but OFAC compliance is rather rigid with no room for error ('strict liability'). And US treasury enforces it hard. Recently, Amazon got caught in its cross-hairs ( though it managed to get away with a low fine relative to its size ).
I guess what I am saying, according to OFAC, everyone is responsible for enforcing US foreign policy.
edit: Everyone as in US person, person on US soil or someone using US dollar. I really should avoid exaggeration.
GitHub, as any other US company, has a choice/freedom to stop offering services to customers outside the US market, if the particulars of providing those services causes them to violate laws in at least one of the jurisdictions.
Of course, US companies should be rightfully pissed, if the US government puts them in a situation where they can not (legally) operate abroad. But that's something they should take up with US lawmakers.
At the end of they day, they are still (most likely) operating illegally on a foreign market, even if they are unlikely ever to be substantially punished for that. The thing is, the US has a rather questionable track record of coming to the rescue, whenever a US companies get into trouble for (illegally) doing business abroad. Ironically, whenever another country does that (e.g. China) the US immediately have a long list of choice words an allegations at the ready. Long story short: pure hypocrisy.
"constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis" - again, that does not indicate any wrongdoing. Inflicting serious damage on another company is, by default, permitted (matching the core principle of "everything which is not forbidden is allowed") and is regularly done in the course of normal competition, winning over some other company in bids, recruiting key employees by offering them lots of money, targeting their customers with specific discounts, etc, etc.
If you're inflicting serious damage on another company, then both the intent and result is by itself legal, the only question is about the means. If you're inflicting serious damage on another company by legally prohibited means (e.g. theft or arson or illegal access to computer systems) or violating some established legal duty (e.g. "duty of care" as required by law in various service relationships), then the other company would be entitled compensation. But in the absence of that, if there's no specific legal prohibition to your action (for example, laws on anti-competitive actions tend to impose various restrictions), if your action is legally permitted, then if some company suffers because of that, it's not your problem. There are restrictions on what actions are legally permitted (law on tortious interference might apply here, and if there's some fraud, injurious falsehood etc then it matters) but if they do have the right to arbitrarily end the contract, then that's it, they are not responsible for the damages.
You need to compare the cost of self-hosting to the cost of SaaS - INCLUDING the risk of getting locked out.
One downside of the SaaS model is that you are just a very small customer in the bigger scheme and they can't really justify spending money on servicing you. Let's say you are company of 5 people, paying 50 bucks a month for a service - how many hours per year can they spend on servicing you before you become a net-negative account? You much power do you have in a negotiation if you are a net-negative account?
It probably isn't sustainable for a business to only consider this aspect. One thing that comes to mind with companies that thrive with a large number of small non-B2B customers, who individually don't tend to have much power, is that they understand that people love to talk about customer service when it's bad, and occasionally when it's very good as well. Word spreads, and nearly everyone places at least a little weight on this public perception of kindness or flexibility with customers especially when it isn't in the immediate financial interest of the company to do so.
(I have been doing it for years)
If no one in your company can do that.. hire or outsource.
As far as maintaining the system is concerned: setups that are hosted by 3rd-parties also need maintenance. Someone has to understand how it all fits together, and how to fix it when it goes wrong. So you still need a team-member working part-time on SCC, CI and deployment.
Software needs to maintained, patched, backed up, verified etc. It has bugs, security issues, hardware breaks in weird ways. This takes time and skill - ideally you'd need two or three people that are capable of fixing problems with the install. (one ill, one on vacation, one available). This is something that detracts from the actual work you're doing. I'm very much an ops person and I actually like tinkering with a gitlab install - it's just so many moving parts that I prefer not to run this for my company since it would eat a substantial chunk of my time just caring for this.
I note that the Linux kernel lived with bare Git for many years.
The Linux kernel is a very specific case with a very specific development model that likely doesn’t apply to most other projects.
For example, the source code as well as the tickets around a software tend to be the most critical assets of a company. As such, you need one or better 2 systems to host the source host and ticketing. However, such a system needs backups, so suddenly you need to maintain a backup solution, you need to implement and monitor the backups being created, you need restore tests. You end up needing some kind of monitoring as well. As well as 2-3 dudes at least part-time maintaining all of this capable of replacing each other during sickness and vacation.
That's a lot of stuff as well as a lot of manpower as your base cost. Of course, once you have that, you can self-host a lot of things easily and maintain excellent uptime at minimal risk, because these base services scale very well in complexity. For us it makes sense to do this, because unplanned outages at 100+ developers are seriously expensive and risky.
However, if you have 3 developers and a clock ticking to find product market fit, you don't have that budget - or spending it this way does not make sense. So you buy.
"One click" fork + "one click" pull request are its killer features.
Git is designed for an environment where there are multiple canonical trunks. RedHats kernel is equally a master as SuSe's. So you are maintaining various tips in a semi-synchronized manner. In most projects there is a single repository branch that is the true branch (with perhaps a few tags for LTR) that represents the project. For that reason a lot of Git's mechanisms are unneeded complexity.
The killer features of Git is GitHub, and to a lesser degree local commits (after all, Mercurial has that too).