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.
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.
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.
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.
" Sabet is a U.S. citizen and a student at the University of Georgia but the iPad was to be a gift for a cousin living in Iran."
Sounds less like angst, and more like the Apple employee was doing what they should have done. Apple would be liable if they knowingly sold a iPad to someone about to break the export restrictions.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Good luck proving the Iranian sales clerk was rasist to the Iranian customer.
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
You don't remember the encryption export restrictions of the early through late '90s then, back when you were lucky to get 128 bit encryption inside the US (after a shitton of disclaimers) and 56 bit encryption outside (Gee, same as DVDs... wonder why that is.)
Point is the trade restrictions cover a number of 'hostile' governments and export from the US is banned (this list previously included China, but not Taiwan, during the aforementioned era).
While I would've bagged him if it was just an Iranian-American teen buying it for herself, as soon as she mentioned buying it for a cousin in Iran I have to agree with what the guy did: This would in fact be against said export restrictions, and while technically you could claim 'well it was inside the US and it'll be her problem if she gets caught exporting it', he did provide due diligence, and the reporters making this out as a big deal really don't understand what they're talking about.
I really hope some feds nail her for this when she manages to purchase one and is trying to put it in the mail to send to her cousin.
Apple is following the law. Other companies like HP are trying to bend it by setting up shell fronts abroad to violate the sanctions law. Apple should be lauded for not trying to be a law unto itself. Of course, the wolves in CAIR are going to be baying for their blood.
I won't pretend that this law is perfect. There are many supporters of Iran, who are not Iranian, don't speak Farsi and don't have Iranian last names. Like people from Hizbullah, and Arab Shia from countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrein and Saudi Arabia. And there are also many Iranians living in the US who are Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians who do speak Farsi and have Iranian names. But have no loyalties to Iran, and are not likely to send or take high tech toys to Iran. So the law, and the way it's enforced, ought to be changed. However, until it isn't, Apple should be lauded for following it.
1. The US citizen attempting to buy the export controlled product said "I'm from Iran". It is perfectly reasonable to assume someone who speaks Farsi and says their "from Iran" is in fact Iranian, especially when mistakenly assuming the other way could get you in a lot of legal trouble. The article makes no mention of the customer specially saying "I'm an American" or "I'm a US citizen". Even "I'm originally from Iran" would have been clarifying.
2.
Jafarzadeh said he was helping a friend buy an iPhone. That friend was from Iran, living and studying in the Atlanta area on a visa.
"We never talked about him going back to Iran or anything like that. He was just speaking full-fledged Farsi and the representative came back and denied our sale," Jafarzadeh said.
It doesn't matter whether the friend was going back to Iran. Since the friend is Iranian (A US citizen wouldn't be "in the Atlanta area on a visa"), giving or selling the friend export-controlled technology would be a problem.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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.
"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?
I work for Apple Retail, and yes - we do get training (during 'core training') about US export restrictions and that we can't knowingly sell to someone breaking the export restrictions. The list of countries is given and discussed - but it's extremely rare that a situation involving it arises.
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?
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.