Slashdot Mirror
Georgia Apple Store Refuses To Sell iPad To Iranian-American Teen
pdclarry writes "An Iranian-American teenager was told by an Apple store employee that they could not sell her an iPad because it would violate U.S. trade restrictions. She returned to the store with a camera crew from a local TV station and was again turned down. Apparently an Apple employee heard her speaking Farsi. As he was also of Iranian extraction he recognized the language and used this as a basis for refusal."
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so it should be illegal for Iranians to buy iPads.
An Arabic name is bad news at US airports, speaking Farsi is bad news in Apple stores?
The angst-driven post 9/11 world is a shame :/
It's the same old think that is so tiresome -- which is really "not thinking."
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Sounds like the sales person is a bit confused about the regulations. I'm surprised they didn't call over a manager especially when a film crew showed up, or maybe they did after reading the article. It looks like all involved are a bit confused about the regulations.
There was absolutely nothing preventing them from selling the Ipad to the teen since they were in America and said nothing (according to them) about sending it overseas. Now, it would be illegal for the teen to send the Ipad back to Iran, but that would be the responsibility of the teen and not the Apple store. It sounds like the manager and employees have carried the restrictions on shipping certain products to countries like Iran a bit too far as it isn't meant to prevent them from selling those products to people from Iran living in this country.
Iranian, maybe? Does it matter? You hear someone speaking another language, demand to know what country they are from, and then refuse them service because they are from the wrong one. That is racism - pure and simple - none of the usual complexities.
Great Intellect...
It's not racism. It's either an employee correctly refusing to violate a (imo silly if it applies to consumer electronics) law, or the same employee INCORRECTLY doing same (pretty damned sure it's the second- the article implies that). Either way, it's clear that the employee's stated reason is not based on race.
Also unlike the summary states, she told the employee that it was a gift for her cousin, who is an Iranian citizen. It wasn't just "because she was speaking Farsi".
And no, I'm no Applepologist. But this doesn't look like it is the story that is being presented.
question. is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?
"Apparently an Apple employee heard her speaking Farsi. As he was also of Iranian extraction he recognized the language and used this as a basis for refusal."
So this isn't just another case of "racist white guy does something stupid to someone just because they're Middle Eastern*", this is "racist Middle Eastern guy does something stupid to someone just because they're Middle Eastern"
That's... wow. I was not prepared for this level of stupid today.
* Is is really correct to consider Iran "Middle Eastern"? I know they're ethnically and linguistically distinct from the Arabs, and also have a significant religious difference. But geographically (and geo-politically, at least from an American view), you could definitely argue that they are.
As Apple's devices are locked and the company isn't allowed to deal with Iranian carriers, her cousin couldn't use the device even if they sold it to her.
1. This is old 2. This has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or 9/11 3. This has nothing to do with Apple 4. This has to do with the US embargo on Iran, which includes selling goods to anyone in the US that could take them back to Iran. This is law. This is not Apple acting out of nowhere. It's in their legal terms that states they follow US embargo laws. If you don't like them, tell your congressman to change US embargo law or to lift the embargo against Iran. Good luck with that.
Persian?
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
If you're buying from Apple, I think it's fair to say you're not really thinking to begin with. However, I just find this astounding. This wouldn't happen at the hickish farming supply store here in the deep south if someone speaking Farsi bought a half a ton of fertilizer - why is it happening in a store which sells to people who at least think themselves to be progressives? It seems like death to their company image unless the reality distortion field gets turned up to 11.
Great Intellect...
that if the Iranians get their hands on an iPad, it's curtains for Western Civilisation.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Good luck proving the Iranian sales clerk was rasist to the Iranian customer.
Its illegal to export many products from the US, and selling to someone who could be easily mistaken as a 'foreign nation' could get you into hot water too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yeah, right. Which is why we hear this out of Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and all the other electronics-selling stores constantly, which sell orders of magnitude more than Apple stores do. No, sorry, this is Apple-specific. Take the blinders off.
Great Intellect...
Well Iranian isn't a race, so you fail on that part, and sure, if there is ANY suspicion with the customer, refuse them and tell them to leave the store. And if they don't leave, they are trespassing and have them arrested.
If Apple is found to be exporting by being negligent, that is a much larger deal then refusing to sell to some loser that cant speak English properly. One is a lost sale, the other is a huge fine and perhaps being audited by the DoJ.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
then I suppose there is a big fine coming Apple's way since they told her she could buy one. That's law. If Apple doesn't like it they can just ignore it. Apparently.
"Sabet says she later called Apple's corporate customer relations, where an employee reportedly apologized and told her she could buy an iPad online."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/iranian-american-woman-says-apple-refused-sell-her-002456511.html
The clerk in this case was probably over zealous/cautious. I don't think racist or mean or anything. He's trying to follow the policy the best he can. Apple HQ fixed the issue, but the fact still remains that your take on US export laws is false.
It's disheartening that a person ... can make a mistake. Oh, wait, no it's not. It's ordinary.
Since the apple employee is claimed to be fluent in Farsi why isn't the assumption that the buyer actually said something that gave a solid ground for believing it was actually for export?
Apple could be on the hook if they sold it "knowingly" for export. That is a judgement call for the US attorney and any sensible company would prefer not to be hostage to justice department "judgement" if they can help it.
Next time would be exporters to banned countries should make sure to not have conversations about it in the store. You can't assume that none of the staff or customers speak your language (I used to work with an Itailian guy who spoke at least one Chinese dialect perfectly (correct accent and all).
Persian.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Only if she tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran. At that point, it's like selling a gun to someone who says the intend to use it to break the law. You become liable.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The second article specifically states that she intended to send the iPad to Iran. Stupid policy or no, this is not racial profiling.
So if McDonalds tells you they can't serve you because you are black, you'd go to Burger King and just shrug at the situation? Yeah..., sounds like someone who has no idea what it means to be singled out.
Great Intellect...
Actually it's not. In this case it's due diligence. Apple is not allowed to export to Iran then they are obliged to not export to Iran, and are supposed to make sure whatever they sell isn't ending up in Iran. If they knowingly sell product to someone who will export or re-export it to Iran that would be illegal and could land them in a lot of trouble.
You could do the same with anyone speaking Korean or arabic. (North korea and syria) it would just be relatively rare that anyone is exporting to North Korea.
When you buy the product you're agreeing to the licence agreement that says you won't export it to Iran. If there is *any* evidence that you are going to violate that agreement Apple, or just about any other electronics manufacturer cannot sell it to you. They sell it to a warehouse in Qatar where people are smart enough to not open their mouths.
You could have every single transaction an employee at any computer products seller say "Now you understand that you aren't allowed to re-sell or otherwise export this to ..........." and sound off the long list of countries export is forbidden to. But most of the time that would be stupid (in the same way airport security long ago gave up on asking whether or not baggage is your own) and just a waste of everyones time. It's there in the fine print if you want to read it.
Nor, by the way is this unique to the US.
The UK page (which itself refernces the fact that the restrictions are EU wide) http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/services-we-deliver/export-controls-sanctions/country-listing/iran. There are so many layers of places you have to look, I don't see the value in linking them all to convey the point.
If you're buying from Apple, I think it's fair to say you're not really thinking to begin with. However, I just find this astounding. This wouldn't happen at the hickish farming supply store here in the deep south if someone speaking Farsi bought a half a ton of fertilizer - why is it happening in a store which sells to people who at least think themselves to be progressives? It seems like death to their company image unless the reality distortion field gets turned up to 11.
Where is at this store at which my Arab brothers can buy large quantities of fertilizer with none questions asked?
1) It's disheartening that someone on /. cannot distinguish between a country and a race.
2) The person doesn't just have "cultural links to said country", they're a citizen of that country and are studying in America on a visa.
3) The salesperson apparently heard them saying it was a gift for her cousin, an Iranian citizen.
4) Last I checked, if I sell something to someone who I know will be using it for illegal purposes, I can be held accountable for my part. Whether or not that was at play here, I can't say, but the employee may have felt that by having knowledge of the fact that the iPad would be going to Iran, they had a responsibility not to sell it.
5) I don't necessarily agree with what the employee did (and the article's writeup isn't great either, so it's hard to form a solid opinion), but I do get annoyed at inflammatory comments like yours that are quick to cry "racism!" without a complete picture of the situation, especially when there are plenty of other factors involved.
BS, Cuba is in the same boat as Iran as NK (as far as US export restriction is concerned) and I don't see anyone refusing to sell to spanish speaking people.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it. Quoting laws you do not understand, which do not seem applicable, does not convince me of anything other than that you are seeking to excuse racism because you can't believe your favorite company is capable of it.
Great Intellect...
If they're selling to Iran, they're violating the law.
"What "race" is "Iranian"?"
Iranian, maybe?
You seem to be confused about the concepts of race and nationality.
Even putting that aside, there cannot be anything racist about following the law regarding sanctions against Iran.
Because this is Slashdot.
If you're buying from Apple, I think it's fair to say you're not really thinking to begin with.
Bigot.
However, I just find this astounding. This wouldn't happen at the hickish farming supply store here in the deep south if someone speaking Farsi bought a half a ton of fertilizer - why is it happening in a store which sells to people who at least think themselves to be progressives?
Because the sales clerks at Apple know the law and the clerks at the "hickish farming supply store" don't?
I'm not a fan of Apple (nor a detractor), but even I can see that this story has zero value as news, but the content of TFA is arranged to deliver misleading understanding of the events for max sensationalism.
1) This has nothing really to do with Apple. The employee's decision was independent of official corporate direction, since it has no policy to prohibit in-house U.S. domestic sales to people suspected of being from Iran.
2) It definitely DOES NOT come across as "racial profiling". The reported reasoning behind the discrimination concerned the customer's country of origin (or destination), not the race.
3) I wonder what the employee was really thinking at the time, like, if the employee referred to a manager, or what. Did he fear for his job? Was he afraid he would violate a policy or law by making the sale, because he had an inadequate understanding of policies and laws? Does Apple have the right to refuse to do business with anyone?
4) It's amusing to read the employee's assessment (his unjust "racial profiling") was totally accurate. Apparently the customer's friend WAS from Iran.
She identified herself as being from Iran.
"When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' he said, 'I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,'" Sabet said.
And then there's the part about it being a gift for a relative living in Iran.
Talk about manufactured outrage. If y'all are going to be mad at someone, be mad at the US government for banning exports to Iran. What else was the sales drone supposed to do when confronted with someone identifying as a person from a country that is not allowed to have the product he's selling?
Being an Iranian who jumped through all the hoops to become a US citizen, there's no way she can be unaware of the export restrictions faced by Iran and Iranians. She knew exactly what would happen when she identified herself as being from Iran to a fellow Iranian selling a product containing technology subject to export controls. I hope she feels good about what she's done to that clerk.
Read the fucking article. Apple DID sell to her in the end. So no, Apple is NOT forbidden by law to sell.
I think I was reading another discussion about how apple store employees are paid poorly and they should unionize so they get better treatment.
I was in the group that said "they're just clerks"... and that made me a bad person for some reason. And now we get this... thus validating the point.
They're just clerks.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
this is political grandstanding between two iranian americans
it has nothing to do with US policy, or apple
don't let that stop a bunch of hobby intarwebs armchair analysts to use the contrived bullshit "event" to engage in holier than thou sophistry
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The person buying the iPad said (in Farsi) that they were sending it to Iran.
you == dumbass
"Our nuclear program has come to ruin, as the triggering mechanism was unobtainable. Operation Angriest Bird has failed!"
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Persians now live outside of Persia, because Persia is ruled by Iranians, who kicked them out of Iran for political and religious reasons. Although politics and religion are the same in Iran. I don't know how it was in Persia; ask a Persian (but not an Iranian). Persians and Iranians are not particularly fond of each other, and they can easily identify each other, because they both speak Farsi. So if an Iranian customer tried to buy an American iPad (made in China), from a Persian salesperson, and said, in Farsi, that it was bound for Iran (and not Persia), which the salesperson remembers as Persia, trouble was bound to happen.
Does that clear it up for you?
Oh, and Martha Stewart recommends NOT inviting Persians and Iranians to the same dinner party.
Now, you can run into similar problems when asking an Arab about the Persian Gulf, or an Iranian (or a Persian) about the Arabian Gulf . . .
That whole area of the world is God's Monkey House, if you ask me.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Apple is not exporting anything. They're merely selling to a US citizen. Their responsibility ends there. Since when did Apple become responsible for enforcing US embargo laws on US citizens?
You don't even know what that word means. So please stop using it.
Life is not for the lazy.
1) It's disheartening that someone on /. cannot distinguish between a country and a race.
Iranians are Farsis, and yes Farsi is a race.
2) The person doesn't just have "cultural links to said country", they're a citizen of that country and are studying in America on a visa.
True
3) The salesperson apparently heard them saying it was a gift for her cousin, an Iranian citizen.
Did the sale clerk confirm that the Iranian citizen lived in Iran and not in the US or some other country with no trade embargoes?
4) Last I checked, if I sell something to someone who I know will be using it for illegal purposes, I can be held accountable for my part. Whether or not that was at play here, I can't say, but the employee may have felt that by having knowledge of the fact that the iPad would be going to Iran, they had a responsibility not to sell it.
True, but there was nothing illegal about this
5) I don't necessarily agree with what the employee did (and the article's writeup isn't great either, so it's hard to form a solid opinion), but I do get annoyed at inflammatory comments like yours that are quick to cry "racism!" without a complete picture of the situation, especially when there are plenty of other factors involved.
Profiling by race, even though required by law, *is* racism.
If the intent is to send the item to Iran, then yes.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Wow. Between the Apple employees, the fanboys, the "gotta stop terrurists" bunch, and the armchair lawyers my head in spinning madly.
I sincerely doubt that an $11.00 an hour clerk at an Apple store has the knowledge and judgement to interpret and apply complex trade sanctions.
I also get the distinct impression that too many of you folks see Iranians as a some kind of homogeneous group - especially ex-pat Iranians. There are a lot of Iranians in North America who hate the current regime with a seething passion, and who would see anyone intending to return to Iran as a supporter of that regime. I'd bet the clerk falls into that group.
Finally let's get real here - There's not likely to be much in an iPad that would represent a big jump on whatever technology Iran is using already. Besides, as has been pointed out, there are likely a hundred other ways that the Iranians would get their hands on Apple products. Like, say, buy them in China?
Three Squirrels
To most Americans, the middle east is just a vaguely blur of arabic ethnicities. But I understand that to those from the region, there are many, many, many different definitions within that blue... and they get really annoyed if you get them mixed up.
Iranians are WHITE. They are ARYAN which is why Iran is called IRAN. Duh. Yes, there are whites outside of Europe. Some Indo-Europeans went into Europe, some went into India and some went into Iran. Yeah, people who study "soft sciences" are all retards except when they're not.
I tried to buy an iPod Touch there a few years ago and they claimed they didn't have any, Now this wasn't just after a release or anything like that and I wouldn't think the iPod is a huge seller anymore, I think it was pretty obvious they just didn't want to sell me one. Could well be because it was my first time in an Apple store and I think I was probably looking at the people who obviously spent their free time just hanging out there like they were morons which I have to admit I was really thinking at the time. Still cost them at least £300 as I wanted a 64gb, also just for the record I'm just a normal white guy in Northern Ireland.
If your bias is based on nationality then wouldn't it be nationalism and not racism? Just sayin.....
I bet if they came in and said "I'm from Cuba and I'm buying this for my Cuban friend back home" it would have gotten the same result. It certainly should anyway. I think the law is crazy but hell, marijuana is illegal and that's even crazier.
Blame the US for export restrictions?
Export restrictions only apply if you know what you are selling will be exported to an OFAC restricted destination or party.
Blame the customer for disclosing that they might or were intended to have the Apple product go back to Iran, thus an export violation?
What is the basis for the claim anyone mentioned in TFA said anything about export to Iran?
Point is, there is enough blame for everyone here.
I choose to blame store management and those responsible for employee training for failing to make making it clear country of origin alone is not an acceptable reason to deny a sale.
She could have purchased it somewhere else and then sent it to Iran. I don't understand why it was important for her to go back to the Apple store other than to bring it to the news station. I'm pretty sure the clerks at Walmart would likely be less concerned about trade embargoes.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The clerk didn't know she was going to give it to her cousin. From the article "Sabet told WSBTV that the iPad was intended as a gift to her cousin in Iran, but said she didn't mention that to the clerk"
What defense now?
Racism? They sell computers to Arabs everyday. Iran is a rogue state led by a megalomaniacle tyrant who backs many terrorist organizations. The US government does restrict sales to them. I'm sure people like HP find ways to sell to them through work arounds but you show me any tech company OPENLY selling to them. I don't mind you hating on Apple but use your brain a little in the process.
You just refuted an "if" statement. I don't need a defense. If evaluates to false in that case. My statement still stands.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Really? Someone comes in speaking Farsi in Shakerag, Georgia and I assure you he's not going to drive away with 3 tons of fertilizer.
[T]here cannot be anything racist about following the law regarding sanctions against Iran.
Was there anything racist about following Jim Crow laws against African-Americans?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
"Racism? They sell computers to Arabs everyday. Iran is a rogue state led by a megalomaniacle tyrant who backs many terrorist organizations."
Which is relevant how? Hell, I think you just proved my point. The girl is an Iranian, so obviously, she must be evil! It must be some big plot to secretly send an iPad back to Ahmadinejad so that he can use it to... uhh, well, something! How about the racism in hearing someone speak a language and demanding to know where they are from? Would this be alright if it was a Korean being asked what side of the line they came from? I doubt it. Would this be ok if it was Walmart? No, I suspect your tune would be totally different were THAT the case!
"I'm sure people like HP find ways to sell to them through work arounds but you show me any tech company OPENLY selling to them."
Again, how is this relevant? This is a case of an AMERICAN buying a product who may or may not have said (before or after being asked where they are from) that they might have sent it to Iran. That is totally different than a company openly selling to Iran. Are you capable of seeing that difference? Are you? I hope so. I really do.
Still not ONE example of ANY other American store refusing to sell in a similar manner has been posted to this story. Until someone can bring at least one, I'll just consider everyone defending Apple to be ignorant and passively bigoted fanboys. Sorry if you consider that not thinking; I consider it basing opinions on factual evidence or lack there of.
Great Intellect...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2935527&cid=40432217
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"We don't serve potential muslims" would do just fine. Clear-cut, acceptable and efficient.
Umm...I just refuted your entire statement in my previous comment. Just give it a rest and don't waste my time alright?
I am not convinced this is actually the law. You can parrot that it is, but it does not seem relevant at all to the embargo laws. An American buying a product in an American store has nothing to do with an embargo as far as I can tell. If it does, please show me proof of this sort of thing happening elsewhere. .
Buddy I went through export regulations and compliance training for my company even though I am in software development and never come into contact with clients or potential clients. I don't even to do direct tech support. All my contacts with clients go through tech support group. Still I had to take the training, and one important thing was that if I know the product is going to be exported to a banned country, I should stop the sale. Straw purchases for export to Iran or North Korea was specifically mentioned.
You may think the law is dumb, and decide to vote for people who promise to repeal it (good luck finding such a candidate in either Dem or Rep parties). But the fact is, it is the law as of today.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
No, you didn't. But your lack of reading comprehension is really showing. I suggest looking up the word "if", and perhaps finding some pages that explain how this curious word is used.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
PROHIBITED DESTINATIONS
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria
The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.
So the Apple Store was acting in accordance with U.S. policy. But the real issue, in my mind, is that there are western companies that sell hardware and software directly to repressive regimes that let them spy on their citizens. For instance, the Silicon Valley based company NetApp sold a storage system to Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. The system allows Syria to archive and search through emails they intercept from their citizens. Assad has been engaged in a brutal war against his own people that has resulted in the loss of 10,000 lives, including the slaughter of women of children by regime-backed paramilitary organizations. This system helps Assad continue to repress his people by spying on the dissidents. That kind of technology transfer clearly does help a repressive regime and clearly does act in a way that's contrary to American values.
Dunno. there's just something f***ed up about U.S. policy when it's illegal for a teenager to buy an iPad for her cousin in one country, but somehow a U.S. company was able to sell equipment that helps the Assad regime pull citizens off the street to be tortured and killed.
The regulations mean Apple employees can not sell products if they know it is going to be exported to an embargoed country. The export regulation compliance training repeatedly stress, "do not make the call. kick the ball upstairs. If you think it can violate the embargo, pass the buck, and let someone higher than you make the call. "
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I bet if they came in and said "I'm from Cuba and I'm buying this for my Cuban friend back home" it would have gotten the same result. It certainly should anyway.
Yes, I seriously want to know how many Cubans in Florida have been denied purchase of iProducts because they might send them to someone at home. If the answer is zero, then Apple has some explaining to do, it seems.
"Bigot."
Wait, really? Bigot for saying if you buy an Apple product you weren't thinking
Yes. Your hatred of Apple extends to anyone associated. Even simply buying a product. Clearly people buying a product costing 100s or 1000s of dollars have thought about it. You can't accept that not everyone is like you, and has different opinions. You're a bigot.
I'm from Spain. I got asked in a very patronizing tone "What country in South America are you from?" (Uh.. None?) and drilled about why we were using my wife's card to pay for an iPad if it was for me, whether it was a birthday present, etc, etc. My wife is a U.S. citizen, and we both left the store confused and angry at the treatment. Now I understand why it was done, but it doesn't make it any better. It actually just confirms the profiling, just because I have an accent he couldn't place, even if we were both caucasians with with pale skin and blue eyes.
So yeah, it is done to spanish speaking people, and it is both anger-inducing and humilliating. And he was an inmigrant too, with a really thick New Zealand accent.
She wouldn't even need to go to another store. She could have just walked over to another clerk, and not mention that she was buying it for export to Iran.
As long as the clerk doesn't know, it's not illegal for the clerk to sell to her.
(It is, of course, still illegal for her to buy it with the intention of exporting it to Iran.)
Ah, yes, the AC who is an expert on US trade law.
Is that Dick Cheney posting again...?
Perhaps you should learn to code. Try taking out an "if" statement in your program and see how it runs :D
Yes. Imagining any sort of "We don't serve ___" signs in ANY shop windows is chilling.
Bad Summary. The person buying the iPad was trying to get it as a gift for a family member living in Iran. In short, she was trying to export it to Iran and that is what the basis of a refused sale was for.
What's bullshit to me is that everyone is raising such a fuss based on ONE side of this story--the person who was supposedly aggrieved. Believe it or not, not everyone in Georgia is stupid, including employees at Apple stores. I have to point out that for all of the sound and fury going on, the employee did the right thing here. The girl does admit that their intention was for her uncle to take the iPad back to Iran with him, which is illegal. I suspect, and think I even read somewhere, that they let the employee know that the intention was to take the iPad back to Iran. If this is the case, then the employee was entirely correct in not selling the iPad to the would-be customer, because if he reasonably thought that it was going to be taken back to Iran, that would have not only been directly against Apple's policy, but it would have been illegal.
So no, this doesn't mean that everyone who speaks Korean or Spanish or whatever--even Farsi--is going to be refused service. But if you let the salesperson know that it's going to be going back to North Korea, Cuba, or Iran, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to refuse to sell you stuff. And yes, I know that she's saying now that she didn't tell the employee that it was going back to Iran. I suppose that some folks are probably willing to believe that wholesale without knowing the whole story.
If you don't like the law, then get your congresscritters to change it. If you don't like Apple's policy (which clearly states, "The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government"), then write to One Infinite Loops and ask them to change it. As it is, though, stop giving the poor employee just trying to do his job to the best of his ability a bunch of unwarranted grief.
Shit, I don't even like Apple, but trying to equating this poor schmuck who did what he was supposed to to racists bigots is sickening me. What the hell alternative do you propose? I suppose you'd prefer it if I could go into any Apple store, tell the clerk that I'd like to order 50 iPads to take to Cuba to sell on the gray market at 50% markup, they should just say, "Gee golly, okay, I'll go get them!" because to do anything else wouldn't be their business? If not, what's the goddamn difference, and how would you propose the law actually be maintained both in letter and in spirit?
Don't matter what race, you can discriminate against nationalities just as easily. We stripped the Japanese-American citizens of their properties, virtually all their rights including due process, and interned them in POW camps during WWII. Right after 9/11, the anti-Middle-Eastern hated and phobia lead to people killing Arab-Americans, but there were also fatal attacks against Mexicans, Native Americans, Indian Nationals, and pretty much anybody who might be mistaken for an Arab. There's a lot of fear, and racist phobia among Americans just boiling under the surface. A recent poll showed that in a number of places in the U.S. (particularly in the deep South and Mid-West) that there's a real and easily measurable backlash against having a black President (in fact, in the states for which this is true the 3-6% disadvantage Obama has due to ethnicity will automatically give his opponent the equivalent of a home state advantage.)
Americans are still dealing with race, creed, color, religion and preference, and though we keep making headway, there is still plenty of work to be done to remove prejudice and intolerance from our society. Today its Arabs. Tomorrow, Chinese?
"African-America" is a race. "Iran" is a country.
Original statement: "question. is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?"
My response: "Only if she tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
My response is an if statement. It has two possible valuations based on whether the if condition is met. In answering the question, I state that they are prohibtied "only if" she tells them about it. So if she tells them about it, they are prohibited. If she does not, they are not. It is a valid if statement that takes the condition about whether they know or not into consideration. The statement has absolutely no legal fallacy no matter what - it is a valid statement in both situations.
Do you fucking get it now, or are you so mentally defective that you still can't comprehend something that I could in 3rd grade when I started programming?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It is a valid statement in both situations.
Oh certainly! I never questioned your grammar skills :D If only all grammatically correct sentences made sense...One can hope I suppose.
The real reason it is a sad day is this discussion. I am appalled that slashdot can harbor this much racism and ignorance simply because Apple is involved. No one has yet provided any proof of this being legally required by anything, just empty claims that that is the case. Yet there has been a lot of censoring of people who say this is wrong and upmodding of ones making false claims in defense of Apple, and it doesn't take long to figure out who has been doing that.
Read it here: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/programs/pages/iran.aspx
You are completely of your rocker with your crazy accusations. I haven't found anything in this whole discussion that was in any way racist (except one post that I didn't quite understand that seemed to be about Iranians and homosexuality). What this discussion was about was whether a sale of an iPad was refused out of racist motives, or in order to act according to existing laws, and in the second case whether the refusal was correct or in error.
There was with the exception mentioned earlier no post that claimed it was in any way correct to refuse anyone a sale because of their nationality or origin. The opposite is of course true as well; if there is a good reason to refuse a sale then a sale should be refused, again without regard of the nationality or origin of the buyer.
The clerk actually prevented HIMSELF from violating the law, too, as he would be personally liable, knowing that she was going to export it.
Of course, he opened Apple up to a civil suit for discrimination, most likely. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
The government is the one's who imposed these rules.
The legislators made the rules.
The people elected the reps.
Apple's employees merely enforce them as required.
From the article, "The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran." That's re-exporting. Had the Apple customer knowingly sold the iPad to a person who stated they would re-export it to Iran, it could have resulted in fines for Apple and jail time for him. Good for the employee not doing something stupid.
My job forces me to understand ITAR. Due to ITAR, we have a policy that prohibits interactions with anyone who is a citizen of the group E restricted countries. We also have restrictions about the types of interactions we can make for a non group E national who is currently in a group E country. Ignoring ITAR is a good way to get fired and land in a federal pound you in the ass prison.
That's silly. How do you know any Cubans attempted to buy iPads to send home. Do you really think that Apple hates people that speak Farsi? Talk about a chip on your shoulder........
Go to Dell's website and check out just some random laptop. Put a check in that you are going to export it.
Firearms dealers cannot under penalty of law sell you a firearm if they have any reason to believe that it is not for you, or may be exported in a manner not in accordance law.
Apple's responsibility may not end where you think. On an individual level the Feds don't care (unless they are actively following a subject already), but in the case where sold a large number of units that were illegally exported, yes Apple would be investigated, and if they employees where knowing selling unit in said manner there would be legal consequences.
In this case though, the Apple employee had no idea that she was going to give anything to Iran. That came out only later. And here's another slice from a news article:
"A second Iranian American interviewed in the report also said he was barred from purchasing something at an Apple store in the Atlanta area when he was helping an Iranian student buy an iPhone. Zack Jafarzadeh said he and the friend were speaking Farsi when the sales rep denied their purchase. "We never talked about him going back to Iran or anything like that," Jafarzadeh said, according to the report."
Bky, man you are a clueless fucking idiot.
Here is a sample of Oklahoma law, first I could dig up, but every state has similar laws.
35:30-29-37.1. Ammonium
Nitrate Security
(a) Ammonium nitrate storage shall be secured to provide reasonable
protection against
vandalism, theft, or
unauthorized access.
(b) Fertilizer retailers shall obtain the followi
ng regarding any sale of ammonium nitrate:
(1) Date of sale;
(2) Quantity purchased;
(3) License number of the purc
haser's valid state or federal
driver’s license, or other
picture identification card number approved
for purchaser identi
fication by the
Board; and
(4) The purchaser's name, current
physical address, and telephone number.
23
(c)
Records created pursuant to this rule s
hall be maintained for a minimum of two years
on a form or using a format
set forth by the Board.
(d) Any retailer of ammonium nitrate may refuse to sell to any person attempting to
purchase ammonium nitrate out
of season, in unusual quant
ities, or under suspect
purchase patterns.
You should read the story.
She said flat-out "this is a gift for my cousin in Iran." The actual money for the purchase was coming from her Uncle, who is Iranian not American. She was present to translate, not buy the product.
If she'd been a little savvier she would have said "this is a gift for me," and then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Microsoft's (near) monopoly in consumer operating systems, office suites, and corporate messaging means their only competition in these areas is the previous versions of their own software. Maybe this has caused a culture of mediocrity through the entire company?
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Homo sapiens (capital for genus, lowercase for the species) is not a race, it is a species. Actually present day humans belong to the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens, the only surviving sub-species of Homo sapiens. The extinct one is Homo sapien neanderthalis, their common ancestor was Homo sapien archaic. Race is recognized subdivision of a species, equivalent to breeds in other animals. So yes, Caucasian, Negroid, Mongolian are races. Jewish is not a race.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
--Did the sale clerk confirm that the Iranian citizen lived in Iran and not in the US or some other country with no trade embargoes?
If the person said, "I'm going to buy this and send it to my Uncle in Iran", then yea that's all that needs to be said. In firearms sales if you have any reason to believe the weapon could before someone else, even as a gift, you cannot sell it. When dealing with computer exports to banned countries, the computer is treated like a weapon in the eyes of the law, and rather harsh punishments can be given.
I don't get it. Which part of the sensitive technology iPad contains you deny to Iranians in Apple Stores that they cannot get from communist China where the iPad is manufactured?
This whole "sensitive technology" banning in common consumer market... that just makes common Iranians feel bad because they are Iranians, nothing else.
Would you be able to claim victory with all that Windows-based state-sponsored spyware Stuxnet and Flame if it were not for commercial companies (Siemens) breaking your funny rules and installing export-regulated Windows directly into nuclear facilities? ( www.microsoft.com/exporting/faq.htm ) Did you notice, that nobody says a word against Siemens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) but some common no-name Iranian (slash American)... Big money different rules?
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
The law is explicit. It is illegal to sell technology to Iran. And the law is explicit that if you know the technology will be exported, you cannot sell it.
I know you're trying to draw a moral parallel. But this case is specifically against the law. Other cases you can describe may not be.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Never failing to impress me go to the US were acceptance means your white and any IQ over 80 means your a geinus.
Citation needed.
After overhearing customer Sahar Sabet speaking Farsi, an Apple salesperson, who is also of Iranian descent
It is in the first paragraph of the article linked to by the summary. The first link. Basically The saleperson understood Farsi and based on what the customer said decided not to sell her an IPad. The salesperson is not doing interviews because of corporate policy at Apple. So they can't defend themselfs on blogs. I don't know about the other incident you spoke of. Hearsay and rumor isn't the best way to judge people or companies.
1. I despite apple.
2. apologies for the horrid link but here it is
http://partnerdirect.dell.com/sites/channel/Terms%20and%20Conditions/Dell%20-%20PartnerDirect%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20EN%20EMERGING%20COUNTRY.pdf
to quote that document from Dell
Accordingly, we hereby agree: -that we will not transfer, export, or re-export, directly or
indirectly, any Product(s) acquired from Dell to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and/or Syria, or
any nationals thereof, or to any other country subject to restriction under applicable laws and
regulations, and that we are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any
such country;
('we agree' as in 'we the person buying the product').
Found via a a google search for "re exporting dell products to iran" as the first result.
2) The person doesn't just have "cultural links to said country", they're a citizen of that country and are studying in America on a visa.
Wrong. The person who was turned away is an American Citizen. You should read the TFA. If you can actually read that is.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
2) The person doesn't just have "cultural links to said country", they're a citizen of that country and are studying in America on a visa.
True
false. From TFA:
Sabet is a U.S. citizen and a student at the University of Georgia
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
despite my inability to type I do, in fact despise apple.
I see from the linked article this person attends UGA.... I would be remiss not to ask WHAT'S THE GOOD WORD?
I think we both could do with some better reading comprehension. In your case, you apparently missed this in the articles (emphasis mine):
"When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' he said, 'I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,'" Sabet said.
The person was from Iran according to their own quote in the article, so I did get that correct, though that does not, of course, preclude them from also being an American citizen, so it is possible that we're both correct about their citizenship. Even if they're not an Iranian citizen, that doesn't change #3 from what I said earlier, and that would apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship.
That said, you weren't alone in missing details, since I apparently conflated two separate reports mentioned in the articles regarding customers being turned away. In the second case, the person had an Iranian citizen with them on a student visa, which I mixed up with the first case in my previous comment. So for that, I do apologize.
Whoops - accidentally marked your post as troll (was aiming for something more positive). Posting to cancel that.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Correct. I conflated two different reports of customers being turned away. There was a separate case involving an Iranian on a student visa that was mentioned in the articles, and I apparently confused the two. That was an error on my part.
That said, the article also report:
"When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' he said, 'I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,'" Sabet said.
So it's reasonable to believe that she may also be an Iranian citizen in addition to an American since she said she's from Iran. Even if she isn't, for purposes of exports to an embargoed country, it wouldn't matter. Worst case scenario, I'm outright incorrect (which is quite likely), but it still doesn't change anything if she was planning to sending it or bringing it into Iran.
If you have a problem with this then you should go talk to the US State Department, the White House, the governments of most western countries, and the UN.
Umm ...
It's true that the US state department, the White House, govs of most western countries are all in this "don't sell nothing to Iran" pact, I do not think UN ever issue any order prohibiting selling iPAD to Iranian
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of Apple's business.
Customer: "I need a gun so my friend can finally kill that bitch ex-wife of his that's been trying to bleed him dry. He can't buy it because he's got a felony conviction or twelve for various assaults against her."
Gun store owner: "So... you aren't going to use the gun for an illegal purpose, you're just going to give it to someone who isn't allowed to have it so they can do something illegal with it?"
Customer: "Yes."
Gun store owner: "Well, I don't think I can sell it to you, because you're just going to give it to your friend, who isn't supposed to have it, so he can do something bad with it."
bhagwad: "You're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of your business." *Kermit arm flailing*
If Apple (and by extension, one of its employees), knowingly participates in the commission of a criminal act by allowing what's tantamount to a straw purchase, they can reasonably assume themselves to be in a very actionable position. Whether the employee would have any legal action taken against him or punitive action by Apple against him is purely theoretical and irrelevant. What matters is that it's reasonable for the employee and for Apple to assume that if they have knowledge that someone will violate the law with their product, they have some liability if they proceed with the sale.
We aren't talking about what someone might do with a computer or a car or whatever; we're talking about what someone said they were going to do with it. The guy in the example above doesn't have to drag his friend and the ex-wife into the gun owner's store to prove he's actually telling the truth. If that gun store owner sells the guy the gun and the ex-wife gets shot with it, he may (and should) be held liable for the sale.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Except that no one told the Apple employee that it was going overseas. That only came out later.
in GEORGIA (Deep South Georgia, not Mustachestan Georgia, right?) one well-off American makes a comment that gives the store clerk (another American, of similar ethnic origin) reason to believe that the purchase intended will lead to a crime. the store clerk then follows the Federal law (albeit, in perhaps a somewhat picayune interpretation) and denies the sale -- well within the rights of the store. And several people claim VICTIM because the first American has to go to Best-buy to buy an iPad? it happened in GEORGIA. is this really the most racist event we can find? Georgia? really?
How do you know any Cubans attempted to buy iPads to send home
Given the amount of Cubans in the US, and particularly in Florida, it would be a miracle if none of them attempted to buy iPhones/iPads.
Your "to send home" has no bearing on this - the Apple store employees who stopped the sale had no evidence of this at the time of attempted purchase, so if they presume this of a legally resident Iranian and an American citizen by Iranian heritage, by logic they should presume the same of Cuban residents an American citizens of Cuban descent who want to buy iPhones or iPads. To do otherwise would be racial profiling and prejudice.
Are you suggesting that it should be that way? I think there is a good case to be made that law enforcement should be left to the people our society employs in that capacity. I skimmed your homepage and gather that's a consistent stand for you to take.
If that's all you were trying to say, then it doesn't add much to the conversation since it has been said before and many times and in many ways. Most of the posters had more passion or more information to add to the discussion. In most of your 31 posts in fact, you had more to add.
I'd hope you've read enough of the comments here to realize there is at least a common belief that selling something comes with an obligation to refuse sales when you have knowledge the buyer intends to break the law. I'm going to assume that with 31 posts, you know that, so your stance is that the US policy is wrong or that Apple is not following it correctly.
For background, lets take a couple quotes from the featured articles:
and then this:
In a related but not featured article, we see:
Consider that the sales clerk had reason to believe from the statement of the buyer that the buyer was a citizen of Iran. The sales clerk could reasonably assume that somebody that said they were from Iran would take the purchase with them back to Iran when they returned to where they said they were from. The fact that the buyer intended to do something that was illegal with it that didn't match the incorrect assumption of the seller just clouds the issue.
I think the best approach by Apple would be to modify their policy to include a list of questions to be asked if they were refusing a sale, but I think you've taken this as a little more personal than it was intended. The clerk was following US policy based on what he understood from what the buyer told him.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Last I checked Iranian wasn't a race but a nationality. Now if they refused Iraqis as well then maybe they are prejudiced against Arabs. Still, I'm sure they're only trying to comply with the law. If you're so outraged you should vent your anger on the idiots who made the stupid law. In any case, if your only goal here is to hate on Apple, as I suspect it is, have at it. No logic required for that.
Close enough.
I consider it, and your entire post, irrational hatred. I'm a little different about these things anyway. If I go in a store and they don't want me to buy something I am more than content to go somewhere else. Elated to actually. I'm old fashioned like that. I think they should kiss my ass, not the other way around as most seem to think nowadays. Many stores act like their consenting to sell me something is a favor and I should be grateful they allow me to give them money. If you enjoy hating Apple go ahead. They deserve it anyway even if they are innocent in this case.
Like most Americans I probably have some knee jerk prejudice against Iranians. No doubt some of that is from our media.
Regardless, I've gotten to know a few Iranians through work over the years. The wamest, most intelligent people I have ever met.
Please do not confuse the Iranian government and their noise for who Iranians are.
"If you enjoy hating Apple go ahead."
I just love that demanding evidence for why this is not just a racistine policy is hating Apple irrationally. Hating Apple is what I usually do - usually for less good reason (although good enough, in my book). This is not that. The simple fact is, if this is demanded by law, it must happen elsewhere. It isn't possible that it has not occurred elsewhere. No one, not one person, has shown it to have occurred in a single store at a single point in time. Yet we have two cases of it happening at Apple stores. No one with any legal background has stated this case is indeed required by law, although quite a few who think themselves to be have spouted off to the effect.
Bottom line: this has only happened at Apple stores, this has happened twice at Apple stores, it has been caught on video, and it has happened in no other store. You might not draw any conclusions from that, but I do.
Great Intellect...
twa. i mean , you are so racist you dont deserve the last t.
Um... alright. Where did I even mention Arabs? The word "Arab" is not even present in my post. Please at least learn to read before insulting people for no good reason.
Great Intellect...
Ipad buy you!
You haven't heard of it happening elsewhere doesn't mean it hasn't. And even if it hasn't, so what? That's not evidence of corporate bias. You're reading too much into it.
It doesn't matter what the regulations are. A seller can refuse to sell anything to a buyer for any non-discriminatory reasons. I've refused to sell stuff to people because they were being jerks. I'm sure I will again.
I don't respond to AC's.
Wow, you sure post a lot in this discussion.
Also, you have mentioned several times that the would-be customer claims that the clerk didn't know but that's not proof that the clerk didn't know what was going on. Possible explanations include but aren't limited to "clerk knows farsi" and "customer is one of those people who think no one notices what they're saying if they don't say it directly at them".
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Last I checked Iranian wasn't a race but a nationality.
That might depend on where you are. The UK Home Office says
(1) Race includesâ"
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
I'd be surprised if the US doesn't have similar definitions.
I think we SHOULD send iPads to Iran.
Millions of them.
All equipped with a copy of the various Angry Birds releases and Lazy Snakes.
The nuclear scientists will waste so much damn time playing these games, it'll set back the Iranian nuke program by decades.
I think we both could do with some better reading comprehension. In your case, you apparently missed this in the articles (emphasis mine):
"When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' he said, 'I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,'" Sabet said.
The person was from Iran according to their own quote in the article, so I did get that correct, though that does not, of course, preclude them from also being an American citizen, so it is possible that we're both correct about their citizenship. Even if they're not an Iranian citizen, that doesn't change #3 from what I said earlier, and that would apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship.
That said, you weren't alone in missing details, since I apparently conflated two separate reports mentioned in the articles regarding customers being turned away. In the second case, the person had an Iranian citizen with them on a student visa, which I mixed up with the first case in my previous comment. So for that, I do apologize.
Not to worry. Perhaps I missed the part about the customer saying something about exporting the device within earshot of the sales person. If so, I apologize. Then again, the truth is that in the end, a private business can refuse to sell to anyone - for any reason. However, if it's a poor reason, bad press may result.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Correct. I conflated two different reports of customers being turned away. There was a separate case involving an Iranian on a student visa that was mentioned in the articles, and I apparently confused the two. That was an error on my part.
That said, the article also report:
"When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' he said, 'I just can't sell this to you. Our countries have bad relations,'" Sabet said.
So it's reasonable to believe that she may also be an Iranian citizen in addition to an American since she said she's from Iran. Even if she isn't, for purposes of exports to an embargoed country, it wouldn't matter. Worst case scenario, I'm outright incorrect (which is quite likely), but it still doesn't change anything if she was planning to sending it or bringing it into Iran.
Right or wrong, on second reading, your comments were understandable and stemmed from a reasonable reading of a poorly written TFA.
However, I disagree with your conclusion. I do not believe that the sales person should have taken that tack. If the salesperson was concerned about the legality of the sale, he should have verbally confirmed (in English) with at least one witness present, whether or not the customer wanted to export the device to Iran.
If she was dumb enough to say yes, then he can take appropriate action. If she said "no" and he didn't believe her, he can still contact the authorities. Last time I checked, it's not a retail store employee's role to enforce ITAR regulations.
At this point, it's just his word against hers as to what was actually said (in Farsi) in front of him.
Even though she admitted later that she wanted it for a cousin in Iran, there's no evidence that he verified that before refusing the sale.
All that said, as I mentioned previously, the Apple Store (or any other private business) can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. However, especially since two different incidents happened recently, it smacks of discrimination which is bad PR for Apple. Which is why (IMHO) the Apple apologists are getting their knickers in a twist over "following the law."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Shit sherriff, I didn't tell them to leave the lunch counter because they was black, even though that's illegal.
I told them them to leave because they'd scare the white folks off, and because I'd have to clean the seat and table. Bad for business. And our folks and their folks, have bad relations, you know?
Check my #5 from earlier. As I said, I don't necessarily support what the salesperson did either. My conclusion was that we don't have enough information to say for sure what they should have done. We can construct all sorts of "what ifs", but as we've both pointed out, we don't know what actually happened. He does speak Farsi, so it's reasonable he overheard her, but maybe he didn't. As you said, it's his word against hers.
I don't necessarily agree with your idea for what the salesperson should have done. I mean, if I was a gun store owner and overhead a potential buyer say, "This will definitely put a hole in my wife's head," but he then claim he said something different when I ask him to repeat what he said, I doubt I'd be off the hook if I sold the gun to him and he later killed his wife, since I had good reason to believe he was going to do so. However, IANAL, so for all I know I would be off the hook. Either way, since I'm guessing the salesperson was also not a lawyer, we can't fault him for being careful if he did overhear her saying it would be sent overseas.
I haven't heard anything compelling which would mandate that he not sell it to them, so I'm with you in saying that we can't definitively defend his actions as "following the law". Nonetheless, it sounds like it's Apple's policy not to knowingly sell if it's going to those countries, and we can definitely imagine some reasonable what-ifs that fit within the known facts where he would have a mandate to not sell it to them, so it's hard to take it as the wrong move, even if it does smack of discrimination, as you said.
All of this is a lot of waffling on my part, but that's in line with my conclusion. ;)
This is why we have public accomdation laws.
She was not buying something for export; no export license or paperwork was required. She was purchasing a retail product for personal use.
At that point, the moron employee should either a) do his job, ie, sell the product, or call someone with enough authority to make the call, ie, Apple Corporate. An $11.80/hr drone does not have the knowledge, judgment or authority to deny a sale. Which is why Apple Corp. is now apologizing for this unfortnate incident.
At this point, I'm of the opinion that you and I are in violent agreement. :)
The only nit I'd pick is that your gun sale analogy isn't a very good one.
Since the shrink-wrap EULA (AFAIK) states that you agree not to export the device to countries on the prohibited list, Apple isn't liable (IANAL either) if the customer does so.
Even so, comparing the purchase of an iPad which *might* at some future time be exported to a bad(TM) place, and selling a gun to someone who is threatening to kill someone with it ain't the same ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport! (with apologies to Quentin Tarantino).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
There apparently isn't a problem getting an ipad or iphone in Iran at all. http://theuniversnews.com/tehran-iran-apple-products-are-sold-despite-u-s-sanctions.html
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
So, first she acknowledges on camera that she was planning to violate US law by supplying an Iranian national with banned equipment but you think she tells the truth when she wasn't talking about this in the store, presuming that nobody else would be able to understand her since she was speaking in Farsi?
You take your evidence rather randomly don't you?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So, you have TWO different accouts of Muslim criminals refusing to speak English in public who openly acknowledge planning to violate US export restrictions but take their word for it that when they spoke in Farsi, they weren't saying X despite someone else claiming they did. Gosh, I am odd, I do not take the word of a self-confessed would be criminal at face value. You do?
Anyway, why can't these Iranians buy some Muslim build technology instead? Protest a countries laws while fleeing there, to send gifts to the country you fled against the rules of your supposed new home country.
Considering this woman has friendly relations with a country that hangs people for drinking, I cannot really feel much sympathy when she feels the repression of another country's system when she is refused an iPad. Fix your own race/religion many troubles first before you start bitching about someone else.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Again, I will ask what I asked twice in this story already and have yet to receive: show me another company doing this in a comparable way (ie, people in an American store being denied a sale because they might send the item to Iran), and I'll maybe buy it.
Show me another store where you could get any TV crew to report it if it happened.
No one is exempt from criticism. The "mind your own business" cry is only useful when someone asks you a question they don't know the answer to, not when the information (his actions, which he took for whatever reason) is already known. If the information is known, anyone is free to comment on it and criticize you. Perhaps their criticisms are misdirected, but that's something else entirely.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
He should've just sold the iPad to the kid, have the TSA take it at airport sec (unless it was an ugly kid they usually only search the hot ones) so we could bitch more at /. bout TSA instead of US laws/Apple etc...
> Iranian isn't a race
Clearly you are unaware that the word 'race' has a wider range of meanings than the almost-certainly-meaningless 200-year-old one you appear to be clinging to.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Every day, 100 foot wooden dhows travel between Iran and Dubai, UAE. Some carry horses and cars. Dubai's electronic stores are filled with Apple products. You do the math.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
>> 1) It's disheartening that someone on /. cannot distinguish between a country and a race.
> Iranians are Farsis, and yes Farsi is a race.
Doesn't matter. "No Irish" signs in windows in England and the US have been racist ever since the potato famine. Race is a far looser concept than the original historical definitions, which were bad on sloppy pseudo-science, and, unsurprisingly, racism. I would be willing to bet that the person to whom you are replying could not even satisfactorily define a "race".
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Looking down your nose and feeling superior to others is not hatred. We may have evidence of hatred of Apple, but we do not have evidence of hatred of those who buy apple.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
"Sabet says she later called Apple's corporate customer relations, where an employee reportedly apologized and told her she could buy an iPad online."
Obviously we do not know exactly what she said when she called customer relations. Did she say "he refused to sell me an iPad because I am Farsi"? In that case I would expect that they apologize, that this shouldn't have happened, and if she wants an iPad but doesn't want to go to the same store (which would be understandably), she could buy on online. If she said "I want to buy an iPad to send to my cousin in Iran and they refused to sell it", then she would have got a different answer.
They told her to go online and do it. She is still breaking the law by exporting it, but they don't know about and won't be liable.
For the millionth time you stupid fuck, it's the words she used, not the language she used. Jesus Christ, do you have any capacity for fucking thought left, or did it all left your head when you started foaming at the mouth?
Then by that reasoning, a clerk should still sell alcohol to someone even though the customer told him that he was going to go sell it to minors?
Or the current one accepted by genetic scientists..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Lets see, wanting to enforce Federal law is being a dick. ya, sure.
I think i hear your mother calling you. Come back when you are old enough to understand why we have laws like this and why its important to enforce them.
Idiot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
According to Forbes, items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
While the guy at Forbes does seem to say that, he links to the US Treasury's site which states:
EXPORTS TO IRAN - In general, unless licensed by OFAC, goods, technology, or services may not be exported, reexported, sold or supplied, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran...
In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran.
There doesn't seem to be "any goods, technology or services except those that can be purchased at retail" language there.
http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/bis_reexport_controls.pdf
Are there any special restrictions I should know about?
You may not reexport an item subject to the EAR to a party whose export privileges
have been denied by BIS. Information on parties subject to denial orders is
provided on the BIS Web site at www.bis.doc.gov.
Guidance to the Commerce Department’s Reexport Controls
5
Please note that U.S. persons may be subject to additional restrictions under the
EAR. See section 744.6 of the EAR. U.S. persons may also be subject to restrictions
under other U.S. Government regulations, such as those issued by the Office of
Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or other U.S.
Government departments or agencies.
Why should you comply with reexport license requirements?
The Department of Commerce has enforcement and protective measures available
to it to ensure that recipients of items subject to the EAR comply with the reexport
license requirements of the EAR. If the Department of Commerce determines that
you have not complied with these requirements and restrictions, it may institute
administrative enforcement proceedings, resulting in the possible imposition of civil
penalties and/or denial of your eligibility to receive U.S. exports (part 764 of the
EAR).
Where to apply for a reexport license?
If your reexport requires a license and is not eligible for a License Exception, you
may apply for a reexport license electronically through the Simplified Network
Application Process (SNAP). You may find the basic information on the SNAP
program on the BIS Web site at www.bis.doc.gov. If you have not submitted an
application electronically before, you must first complete a “PIN” request package.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
The real problem here is that the US thinks they have the right to tell another country what to do. Santions are an act of war. We have started another illegal war on another country. Cue the neo-cons...
At this point, I'm of the opinion that you and I are in violent agreement. :)
No!
>_>
Okay, maybe we are. :)
And with the gun analogy, it wasn't intended to line up perfectly. All I was pointing out was that there are situations where someone can be held liable for what they heard, so I naturally chose an example that was clear-cut and obvious. How much it applies to this situation is another question, and I think we can both agree that there's plenty of room for lawyering and shades of gray that we simply can't figure out with the information provided.
When selling a system you ask the following: 1) Intended use 2) Final destination of system
Accept for the part that the clerk didn't ask. The clerk just assumed that it was going to Iran because the girl spoke Farsi. As the article asked... should Apple also not sell to people speaking Korean and Spanish because North Korean and Cuba are export banned countries as well?
Apparently that $11.80/hr drone was aware of Apple's policy against selling products if they're destined for countries under trade sanctions, which means that they need not have known the complexities of international trade law. Apple may have caved under PR pressure, but that doesn't mean that the drone was't following instructions they had been given and of which they would be very aware, given that they themselves were of Iranian descent.
It's much more an anthropological concept than a genetic one. No geneticist worth his salt would ever claim to have a scientifically justifiable is-or-is-not-the-same-race distinguisher. Only anthropologists are that brave.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
4. This has to do with the US embargo on Iran, which includes selling goods to anyone in the US that could take them back to Iran. This is law. This is not Apple acting out of nowhere. It's in their legal terms that states they follow US embargo laws. If you don't like them, tell your congressman to change US embargo law or to lift the embargo against Iran. Good luck with that.
You obviously have no idea what the law says.
But that doesn't prevent you from making an idiot out of yourself on the Internet.
hint: read the law
NO, This is a case of a person stating "When we said 'Farsi, I'm from Iran,' " That is when the sale was refused. They said they were from an embargoed country. They did not say they were US citizens, but from Iran. Based on the data he had available the store clerk did the right thing. And it did what that law was intended to do at that time prevent the export of US goods to an embargoed country. Which coincidentally was exactly what the girls intention was to do with it. Apple has the right to refuse service if they feel the sale will break law. This person was not refused service because they felt she was Muslim, Iranian or because she was a girl. But because Apple felt she was going to break the law and they are legally allowed to refuse service for that. If you want to decry freedom you have to live with it both ways. Apple has a right to refuse service because they want too as long as it does not violate federal law.
As an actual member of a bar association, I've yet to see anyone with a clue as to the law, comment. You're obviously not an expert. Neither is the drone. It's not clear what Apple's policy is or isn't, but it's clear what a low-level corporate representative said ("you can buy it," and not under any PR pressure).
What you're all doing is blowing smoke to justify a policy that violates equal protection under the law. That's racism, pure and simple.
I think you asked more than twice. And I replied to you above, but I'll do so again here. Go to ANY US hardware (and quite a bit of software) manufacturer's web page, read the terms of sale you must click on to complete the purchase, and note the bit about not intending to export, or transfer to anyone intending to export, the device.
In this case the sale was in person, and has gotten a lot of publicity. Perhaps Apple employees are better trained than other retailers' employees. Perhaps it's rare for someone to be stupid enough to seek publicity for failing to commit a crime. Perhaps most news crews aren't dumb enough to run stories like this. Or perhaps it's just that Apple is the evil company du jour. The law, stupid as it is, is very clear regarding Apple's and Apple's employees' responsibilities.
Apple would have to know they are a US citizen to do that. Instead of the fact the girl stated directly " I'm from Iran,' which would obviously lead one to believe they are not a US citizen but from Iran. That is also discounting the possibility that the Apple employee may have overheard them talking about sending it to Iran as he was from Iranian decent and could have translated a Persian dialect.
A higher up made the call to sell to the girl, almost certainly after asking her whether she intended to send the iPad to Iran, at which point she lied and said no. The law is very clear. You can look it up.
Strictly speaking it should be happening at anyone who sells electronics.
That is what the law says. That no one else is enforcing it on video doesn't mean they don't have it in their agreement and won't refuse to sell to you.
You aren't allowed to sell to Iranian nationals or to anyone who will give it to an iranian national. If they're speaking farsi there's very good odds they're Iranian.
Also, EVERY company that does business within a country is obliged to comply with it's laws. Rules prohibit apple from selling iPads to Iranian nationals or to anyone who would transfer the product to an iranian national or re-export it to Iran, they are responsible for complying with said rules. Or else.
My point was anyone walking into a store speaking Korean you could demand they prove they are not from the peoples republic of Korea as nationals of said entity are forbidden from sales. Being a refugee from North Korea would still mean you are prohibited from buying an iPad as you are still a national of that country.
Speaking farsi by itself doesn't prevent you from buying an iPad. Being an Iranian national does.
Agreed.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I've yet to see anyone with a clue as to the law, comment. You're obviously not an expert. Neither is the drone.
I never claimed I had a clue regarding the law. I also never claimed the employee had a clue. I was about to accuse you of not reading what I wrote, but then I realized that all the stuff I would have been referring to was in response to other people, and not in this thread. >_
It's not clear what Apple's policy is or isn't
Sure it is. Here's a link to it: http://www.apple.com/legal/export.html
Here's the relevant portion for your convenience (emphasis theirs):
PROHIBITED DESTINATIONS
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria
The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.
I was suggesting he, as an Iranian, was likely aware of Apple's policy that seems to ban indirect sales to Iran. Because of that, it's quite understandable that he would take the safer route and refuse service to a customer (isn't that still a right that a store can exercise?). I'll certainly grant that doing so may not have been the best approach, but I still think it was perfectly reasonable for him to have done so.
it's clear what a low-level corporate representative said ("you can buy it," and not under any PR pressure).
I'd call this entire story PR pressure. They only approved the purchase after these articles were posted.
What you're all doing is blowing smoke to justify a policy that violates equal protection under the law. That's racism, pure and simple.
That sort of comment is exactly what I was arguing against in the first place. You're inserting claims of racism where race is not a factor at all. This is about a country. What race that country is made up of does not matter in the least for the purposes of anything I've argued, but hey, thanks for accusing me of racism.
My entire point is that, given the information we have available, I don't see how anyone can consider what he did to be unreasonable. He seems to have had reason to believe the iPad would be going to Iran, doesn't have the education of a lawyer such as yourself, was doubtless aware of Apple's policy regarding sales to Iran, and probably didn't want to get in trouble with the law or Apple. Race has nothing to do with it, and neither he nor the customer seem to have indicated that he cited it as the reason for refusing the sale.
Were there better alternatives he could've engaged in? Almost certainly. Is what he did illegal? I'll leave that to you lawyers to decide. Is what he did reasonable? I certainly believe so, and don't see how any typical person could think otherwise.
What he could have done was pick up the phone and call Apple corporate to clarify in such a situation. That's also what he *should* have done. Instead, he relied on his personal judgment of what is in the end a fairly complex legal matter (Apple's policy statement mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, I don't see much clear in it for a situation such as this). The latter is wrong, and almost guaranteed to insert prejudice.
This is not about a country. This is not about export rules. It's about an uneducated 19-year-old making a judgement call that wasn't his to make, and denying an individual their right to purchase. That's all.
(Sorry for the O.T. discussion, but what we call something is often pertinent in how we perceive things, which is one basis of discrimination.)
Interesting point. I didn't know that, but it does raise a question I've had about such things.... Why do we call countries/languages, etc, by different names than those who natively live there?
I can understand it if we can't pronounce it, but Persian vs. Farsi.?
Deutsch vs. German, or Francais v. French?
If we did it interpersonally, it would be like some introducing themselves as Frank or Lisa, and us calling them Joe and Sally. That just seems a bit strange, at least, and some might find it offensive.
By the same token, though, we no longer call the land there, "Persia", so maybe since Persia no longer exists, calling the language Persian might be considered antiquated by some? Just a thought.
If she primarily or only spoke Farsi, and little English, and made it clear that she was here on vacation and was going to go back to Iran -- then the clerk might have been doing the 'right thing'...
I.e. if the clerk was a US Citizen who was of Persian decent and spoke Farsi --- they might be extra cautious in dealing with those from Iran -- especially if they are here on a travel visa -- IF they did sell it to her, they might be accused of aiding and abetting a foreign spy.
Discrimination *may* have had nothing to do with it -- but here on /., we know how foreign speaking students have been tracked by 'Homeland Security' -- so they have to be especially cautious and be extra careful not to violate law concerning tech sales to people of their hereditary country lest the be accused of being a spy.
What he could have done was pick up the phone and call Apple corporate to clarify in such a situation. That's also what he *should* have done.
Sure. I never disagreed with that, and I already acknowledged that there were likely better options available.
The latter is wrong, and almost guaranteed to insert prejudice.
The only prejudice being inserted is after the fact. Neither he nor the customer cited race as a motivating factor. I can see how race can be read into it, and I can also see how you can argue that a policy like this may lead to racism, but I do not believe we have any basis on which to say that racism was at play here in this particular situation.
It's about an uneducated 19-year-old making a judgement call that wasn't his to make
I'd suggest that it was his call since he was the one handling the sale, but I think we can agree that it doesn't mean he should have relied solely on his own judgment.
As I said in my first first comment, I don't endorse what the employee did. I merely think it was reasonable, given the information we have available. Beyond that, I don't even know what you and I are arguing about at this point, other than that I resent that racism is being inserted into a situation where it wasn't a factor.
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Some of those texts aren't even part of the Talmud.
Dilbert RSS feed
Don't bother, all he is doing in inserting racism into this. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a racist, valid point or not, even if there is no racism present. Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.
So? You remind me of those people who think "discrimination" is like the world's worst thing, and that if they label _anything_ discrimination it must be bad.
He's a bigot. So am I. What now?
1000?
I don't have time to make a sig
Well, on this one (with you), I'll probably agree to disagree given your courtesy of thinking it through :)
We seem to agree that there could and probably should be a reference to higher authority than a 19-year-old here.
We seem to disagree on the racism point. I feel (strongly) that if 19-year-olds are left to make complex judgement calls, they'll insert their own prejudices (=racism, or whatever you want to call it) unfairly, violating equal protection. I think there's ample evidence here, that an Iranian-American received disproportional and grossly unfair treatment; and that's what we call racism (or nationalism; or unfair prejudice and violation of equal protection under the law. In this case I don't care; I'm not sure the incident itself was based on race, so much as some of the reactions I've seen on /. are racist).
Since you don't seem to primarily disagree, and see some shades of grey here where others don't seem to, and appear to have considered both sides instead of rashly dismissing everyone else's point of view, well, I don't know that we're arguing about much, then.
>Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Try wikipedia. An ad hominem fallacy is, for instance, arguing that George has always been a jerk in the past, therefore, without looking at his behavior, we know George is a jerk in this incidence. That's a fallacy.
An ad hominem argument, however, is a basic part of rhetoric; we trust Caesar, ad hominem, because he is Caesar and he is trustworthy (or we don't, etc).
My argument is based on identity, which in the case of persons, is ad hominem, 'of humans.' My assertion is that the behavior demonstrated by many commenters, who don't read the evidence and come to rash conclusions, is inherently racist etc. And my conclusion is that the only useful thing to do with such people, especially the one whose 'nick & sig are the name of a neo-Nazi group, is to treat them with the same lack of reason.
For the rationale-- you might start with reading Hannah Arendt, "On Violence."
You call people racist, as if that has any bearing on the logic of their argument. Aka: argumentum ad hominem
I'd definitely agree that some of the followup here on /. has been racist in nature. And if I gave the impression that I'm okay with someone denying service on the basis on one's country of origin or race, I do apologize for that, since that was not my intent. The only reason I think that what he did was reasonable is because of the whole part about him overhearing that the iPad would be sent to Iran.
I also agree that leaving decisions like these to front-line sales people is generally a bad idea and that it could very well lead to racism aimed at the customer. I don't think it did in this case, but it could.
Again, whether what he did violated laws is outside of what I claim to know or understand. I'll leave that to you. All I can claim is ignorance (which I share in common with the salesperson, no doubt), so while I can speak from the layman's perspective on what seems reasonable, I have no hope of correctly addressing the legalities. ;)
Nobody would have cared had someone at Walmart decided not to sell an iPad to an Iranian. Don't blame Apple for an expression of old southern bigotry.
The Walmart cashier won't give fuck who you are or what you use your Ipad for. By the way it just a fucking tablet Apple get over yourself nobody making Nuke out of an Ipad!
The answer to the question "is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?" is "Only if she [the customer] tells the person about to sell it to her that she intends to send it to her relative in Iran."
It is grammatically, ethically, legally, and logically a perfect and correct statement in every possible way.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Magically coincidental, isn't it? Sorry, but I'm just a little suspicious of the fact that every story on this mess of manufactured outrage lacks the other side of the story. I don't trust coincidences. So far as I'm concerned, she and her uncle were talking about how much shipping is to Tehran for an iPad when the Farsi-speaking employee overheard them.
If Apple (and by extension, its employees) has reason to believe the device will be sent, illegally, to a country with export restrictions levied against it, Apple (and its employees) has a legal duty to refuse the sale. In any case, I hope ICE is sitting there waiting for this dummy to show up at the UPS store with the iPad in hand and an Iranian address on the box.
Think about it: you're trying to ship a gift to a relative oversees. An employee at the store informs you (if you didn't know already) that it's illegal for you to send that product to that country without the express permission of the US Federal government. You come back with a news crew and explain to them how the mean store employee won't help you violate Federal law. When you're again explained how what you're trying to do is illegal, you then go home and call the company, still trying to accomplish what you've already been twice told is absolutely against Federal law. When you get your hands on the gift that you want to ship oversees in violation of Federal law, you call the news crew back to tell them.
This woman is a moron with no respect for the law and no common sense. Further, she's an instigator of manufactured outrage. I have zero sympathy for her. I hope she gets caught trying to ship the thing, I hope they confiscate it from her, and I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Every heard of cherry picking, you fucking racist :P ?
Remind me to change that Wikipedia article, however, if you'd read on instead of cherry-picking a sentence that *seems to you* to support your argument...
I did read the whole article. You keep falsely claiming that I am a racist, apparently associating me with that 'third party' guy, in an attempt to assassinate my character when I describe my interpretation of Apple's policy. That is a move described pretty precisely by the abusive type of argumentum ad hominem from the Wikipedia article, which is no different than what is described in many text books (regardless of you threat to edit it to spread even more of your lies). That is not 'cherry picking'. That is basic reading comprehension, which you need to utilise in these arguments. You keep calling me juvenile names ('fucking racist') as if that adds in any way to the argument, which is exactly the behaviour I was referencing when I said your main tool of argument is a basic logical fallacy. You only continue to prove my point.
Isn't that nice. She gets "an apology" from some guy on the phone. Not from the employee who refused to sell to her, or anyone involved at that store. And then she's told "Well, just buy it online, what's the big deal?"
Hate to piss on the parade here, but actually Apple can deny sales to anyone they like. They're a private company. It might be rude, but there's no reason why they can't if they don't want to. And no, they don't need a reason.
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Collective punishment. And that's exactly why such laws should be ignored. Everybody can do even just as little as looking another way; if enough people realize it is just a geopolitical dick-size comparing and that the rank-and-file people on the "enemy side" are more similar to them than the members of their own government, despite being demonized by said government, the world will become a notch better. Even just as little as a plausibly deniable "not paying attention" is often enough.
Maybe it's the experience of being behind the Iron Curtain (and the subsequent change of geopolitical alliances and the friend-foe labels) that leads me to this opinion, but I strongly disagree that sanctions should hurt students and farmers. I don't care the least about government will, on either side, I just support the free and open market, and free access to consumer technology for everybody, even if it includes technology smuggling and violating of laws. Especially if said technology is common off-the-shelf stuff.
Some philosophers consider obeying a bad law to be unethical. This is one of the more clear-cut cases of such.
Any business in the United States has the right to refuse sale/service to anyone as long as such refusal is not based on color, creed, sex, religion, etc. Again, when the customer returned with a film crew, the sales person, manager, representative had the right to refusal again based on disrupting the business.