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 :/
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.
Good luck proving the Iranian sales clerk was rasist to the Iranian customer.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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
"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?
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?
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
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.
"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...
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
that if the Iranians get their hands on an iPad, it's curtains for Western Civilisation.
The stupid part of all this is that the conditions in Iran would be improved by more people having Internet communications devices. But apparently this embargo stops that.
Well done, DC.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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'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.
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?
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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. ;)
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.
> 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.
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.