Beside the fact that GH is a private company that maybe doesn't want to be associated with some stuff.
I am not talking about what GH is at liberty to do; clearly they can do whatever they want. I’m asking about what they’re legally bound to do as a result of these sanctions. I find the precedent here more fascinating and troublesome (as an open source author myself) than the instance of the code in question.
So I guess a good question is: should it be illegal to tell people how to launder money? I would say no because I think laws should regulate behavior not speech.
I think for example that people should be able to make arguments why punching a Nazi should not be illegal, say, and maybe the best way to do it. But punching is clearly illegal, and threatening a Nazi directly should also be illegal.
However with abortion, some states that have made abortion illegal are trying to make it illegal to talk about where to get abortions, or how an abortion is performed. So if that is deemed legal by SCOTUS, then expect all kinds of laws to restrict speech in that manner.
Now everybody gets to learn that the United States regulatory policy machine will lean very hard on anything that'll threaten it's ability to flex soft power against its opponents.
>What even is GH required to do in response to this sanction, or are they just being overly cautious since we’re in uncharted waters?
Letter of the law is don't do financial transactions with those addresses.
The quiet part is: this technology is now associated with being a channel for money laundering, and will open up any parties hosting or making it available a potential subject of accessory to wire fraud/money laundering charges. As a publically funded company, I assure you, the legal, risk, and compliance departments are now erecting 100 foot poles between the company and this project.
You see, big business and government have a bit of an incestuous relationship. The bigger the market actor, the easier it is for the government to apply sufficient pressure where the easy way out is for said large actor to just "stop associating with that thing".
This is why OFAC is aptly named. You end up on it, and you basically fall out of the economy. The last sound you hear is the subject in question going O, FAC-<signal lost>.
Oh, actually, no, slight exaggeration, the truth is far more chilling.
You see, financial institutions will still process deposits. They just stop allowing withdrawals, turning the business relationship into a one-way trap for funds.
In theory, it may be possible to get off the OFAC list if you end up on it, however, financial institutions are instructed not to inform customers that they are sanctioned if asked. You're only told that a technical error precludes them from completing the transaction. If you mistakenly show up on OFAC, (like by sharing a name with someone who is on it), there are ways to get off of it by providing proof you are not the individual in question. In fact, most times, if you reach out, the service personnel you get are trained to get as much personal info as possible to try to determine whether or not you are actually the individual targeted by OFAC.
Companies will generally dig into it, and resolve it while playing coy. In this case though, it looks like businesses are taking the message to heart and just noping out of supporting it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "restricted," but publishing open source encryption software on the internet only requires that the BIS be notified. No review or approval is required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
er...the US government infringes on free speech all the time
?
you mean after Phil Zimmerman spent years in court, and then published a physical book of the source code?
and the US government then sucessfully restricted export of actual software with above 56-bit keys for years[1]? to the extent that Debian and OpenBSD did all their opensource crypto work outside the US to avoid trouble?
and they still explicitly ban export to "rogue states" and "terrorist organisations" in 2022[2]?
things have improved since the 90s but it's still not unencumbered by the US government and the changes mostly happened to make US tech companies more competitive, not due to a desire to free anyone's speech.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
From your link: "the BIS must be notified before open-source cryptographic software is made publicly available on the Internet, though no review is required."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
> Militarized encryption equipment, TEMPEST-approved electronics, custom cryptographic software, and even cryptographic consulting services still require an export license.
However:
> the BIS must be notified before open-source cryptographic software is made publicly available on the Internet, though no review is required.
So you're free to publish open source cryptographic software on the internet, you just have to let them know you're doing it. Bernstein vs US is the reason for that.
Is GitHub sanctioning just the accounts that they consider to be directly associated with the sanctioned organization, or, are they also sanctioning the upload of that open source code by unassociated third parties?