She wasn't alone. And yes - I believe the words of two people over one. AND it's not the only case. Here you go: Apparently this is not an isolated case. Zach Jafarzadeh of Virginia told WSB-TV he experienced similar treatment when he was trying to help a friend from Iran buy an iPhone.
And here's more: "http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/customer-apple-store-denied-me-ipad-speaking-farsi/nPY4p/"
"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.
The employee had no idea she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "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."
Except that the employee had no idea she was going to give it to anyone in Iran:"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."
That's her choice. No one has any business "protecting her for her own good." She may be linked to Iran, but the philosophy of the US is freedom. People are free to screw with their lives if they want.
The store employee didn't know she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "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."
No judge has ever passed law school that would make that determination. If I run up to a cop and say "I killed someone", I won't be convicted merely because of that. They need a body, motive...you know, EVIDENCE?
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"
It's not enough to "hear" it. They need proof. Documentation. Passports. Air tickets as evidence. You think that kind of "proof" would hold up in a court of law?
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?
Suppose a person instructed an Apple store assistant that he is buying an iPad in order to do something illegal. Does an Apple employee have the right to prevent the purchase merely because someone said something? Sorry - but if the employee wanted to be sure, he should have asked for the passport, identity proof, air tickets etc to make sure.
Even then that might not be enough.
Just like purchasing a gun isn't a crime. The crime takes place when the actually shooting happens. Similarly, the crime (if any) would have taken place WHEN the iPad WAS ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED. Not when it was bought.
Merely speaking a language doesn't mean you're going to travel to a particular place or even that you live there. What kind of respect does Apple deserve here?
Unfortunately this might be true. Religious people tend to have more babies, so it's not surprising that there may be a religious gene that gets preferable treatment. I've also noticed that the more uneducated, religious, bigoted or prejudiced people are, the more children they have.
Can you imagine where we would be now if companies like the RIAA, AT&T, Time Warner and other big media/telecom firms had fully realized what the Internet would turn out to be like 20 years ago? I shudder to imagine what they would have made it instead of what it is now. I'm so grateful for their lack of imagination.
The Arab nations managed to get together and pass a UN resolution prohibiting "blasphemy". Till the rest of the world become more mature and civilized, I don't want them touching the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
Read the comments. The employee had no idea she was going to give it to anyone in Iran. That little tidbit only came out later.
Perhaps you should learn to code. Try taking out an "if" statement in your program and see how it runs :D
She wasn't alone. And yes - I believe the words of two people over one. AND it's not the only case. Here you go: Apparently this is not an isolated case. Zach Jafarzadeh of Virginia told WSB-TV he experienced similar treatment when he was trying to help a friend from Iran buy an iPhone.
And here's more: "http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/customer-apple-store-denied-me-ipad-speaking-farsi/nPY4p/"
"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.
That's his story. Hers is different. Why does he get the benefit of the doubt?
The employee had no idea she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "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."
Except that the employee had no idea she was going to give it to anyone in Iran:"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."
Umm...I just refuted your entire statement in my previous comment. Just give it a rest and don't waste my time alright?
That's her choice. No one has any business "protecting her for her own good." She may be linked to Iran, but the philosophy of the US is freedom. People are free to screw with their lives if they want.
Her culpability is irrelevant. The clerk acted on insufficient data. What data was he acting on then? Obvious answer: Racism.
The store employee didn't know she was going to give it to anyone in Iran: "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."
So no excuse on that front.
And what is your statement exactly?
Actually the salesperson didn't know that the iPad was to be a gift to anyone in Iran
"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"
There's really no excusing the employee's behavior here.
No judge has ever passed law school that would make that determination. If I run up to a cop and say "I killed someone", I won't be convicted merely because of that. They need a body, motive...you know, EVIDENCE?
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?
It's not enough to "hear" it. They need proof. Documentation. Passports. Air tickets as evidence. You think that kind of "proof" would hold up in a court of law?
They're selling to a US citizen. What happens after that is none of Apple's business.
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?
Suppose a person instructed an Apple store assistant that he is buying an iPad in order to do something illegal. Does an Apple employee have the right to prevent the purchase merely because someone said something? Sorry - but if the employee wanted to be sure, he should have asked for the passport, identity proof, air tickets etc to make sure.
Even then that might not be enough.
Just like purchasing a gun isn't a crime. The crime takes place when the actually shooting happens. Similarly, the crime (if any) would have taken place WHEN the iPad WAS ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED. Not when it was bought.
You can't just go around making assumptions.
Merely speaking a language doesn't mean you're going to travel to a particular place or even that you live there. What kind of respect does Apple deserve here?
As far as I'm concerned, the world ends when I die :)
Unfortunately this might be true. Religious people tend to have more babies, so it's not surprising that there may be a religious gene that gets preferable treatment. I've also noticed that the more uneducated, religious, bigoted or prejudiced people are, the more children they have.
It's a depressing state of affairs if you ask me.
Can you imagine where we would be now if companies like the RIAA, AT&T, Time Warner and other big media/telecom firms had fully realized what the Internet would turn out to be like 20 years ago? I shudder to imagine what they would have made it instead of what it is now. I'm so grateful for their lack of imagination.
The Arab nations managed to get together and pass a UN resolution prohibiting "blasphemy". Till the rest of the world become more mature and civilized, I don't want them touching the Internet.