Georgia Apple Store Refuses To Sell iPad To Iranian-American Teen 1116
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."
Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, so it should be illegal for Iranians to buy iPads.
No. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. It is a trade restriction based on the fact that Iran is allegedly developing nuclear weapons, and has also funded certain groups labeled as terrorist organizations. Technology found in products like iPads could be used for military or terrorist purposes, and that is the reason for these trade restrictions. This is not a surprising story: as someone who has worked in technology sales before, I know there are very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) involving sales of technology (even personal computers) to countries on these trade restriction lists. The store employee had no choice: he was obeying the law.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
He broke no law. He was an American citizen, and trade with American citizens is not banned.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Funny)
Actually trade with an American citizen is banned if you know, or have reason to know, that the item is being purchased for export.
That means that Apple refuses to sell to soldiers and their families, right?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no. When a solider goes out of country they are not becoming a citizen of whatever country they are going to. That said, the soldiers are expected not to sell their computer hardware to jurisdictions that are not allowed to have it.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to assume you got that idea from John Wayne movies and Sgt. Rock comic books, and not my home town after the bars close.
Idiot.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
I thought they would just complete the sale, install Stuxnet, re-wrap the unit, and wish them a nice day...
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
I thought they would just complete the sale, install Stuxnet, re-wrap the unit, and wish them a nice day...
Nice try, but it's a well known fact that the Stuxnet iPad app is still stuck in the app review process. Soon it will have to be recalled so it can be made compatible with iOS 6 and then resubmitted. I'm sure if they had made it a paid app rather than a free app the review process would have gone smoother. /sarcasm
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
> if you know, or have reason to know, that the item is being purchased for export.
And he knew it for sure. She was speaking Farsi! And that is a clear sign that she supports terrorists and intends to hand iPad to bomb-makers in Iran. And if not then she is for sure going to develop a nuclear weapon with it.
Everybody knows that language, colour of the skin, passport your own, ... constitute the guilt. No doubt. Once it was state policy to don't serve non-white people... in my country we used to have state policy to don't serve Jews... now you have a policy to don't serve Iranians in Apple stores... and as always all is backed up by law and very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) and political theories. Works - proved by history, congratulations for using time-proven practices.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
Realistically: the guy refusing the sale is Iranian-American. So his actions were probably not based on racist beliefs.The customer speaks Farsi, and he does too - so he was able to overhear what she was telling her uncle. From the second article: [the] employee [...] refused to sell an iPad to her and her uncle after overhearing them speaking Farsi. The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran.
So she wanted to export it to Iran and Apple doesn't want to export to Iran. The employee knew what she wanted to do.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the basis for the law is sound, it's still stupid ( and I'm not picking on Apple).
These devices are widely available all over the world and I don't think proof of citizenship has ever been required to purchase one.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology found in products like iPads could be used for military or terrorist purposes
"Could" is not probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Seawater can be used for military or terrorist purposes too, and so can air.
And you don't need a computer to build an atom bomb - at least three countries did it with nothing more advanced than a slide rule.
As for an iPad, you have to be a die-hard fanboy not to realize that it's way less powerful than a PC costing the same.
But most of all, Apple is here going beyond their mandate. They should not sell to Iran, but they have no business deciding that a US citizen with Iranian ancestry should not buy an iDevice. No matter whether they think it's later going to be sent to Iran. If they have suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, they should contact the authorities. They are not deputized nor judges.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
"Could" is not probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Seawater can be used for military or terrorist purposes too, and so can air.
And you don't need a computer to build an atom bomb - at least three countries did it with nothing more advanced than a slide rule.
You've got the wrong end of this. The clerk has no burden of proof at all here.
But none of that matters legally! It's quite similar to selling alcholol to a minor. It's totally on the clerk not to sell any drink on the forbidden list no matter how silly the list is and it's entirely the clerk's fault if for any reason they fail to spot that the buyer is a minor. If the clerk has even the slightest suspicion the buyer is under 21, he's going to insist on proof that the buyer is legal and refuse sale without it. That's how the law works!
Seling items on the prohibited-for-export is the same deal. If the clerk has even the slightest suspicion the buyer might be making a "straw purchase" for an Iranian destination, he's completely doing the right thing by refusing the sale - the punishments are far worse in that case than selling alcohol to a minor!
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Such restrictions are utterly stupid...
For one thing many countries have at one point or another funded groups which were considered terrorists...
Also the US developed nuclear weapons too, it's a double standard to punish iran for trying to do so. The US is also the only country to have actually USED nuclear weapons.
And these restrictions only hurt the less affluent/powerful civilians of such countries. The powerful in Iran will simply continue buying whatever technology they want either from the black market, or from countries that don't have any such restrictions.
Meanwhile they hurt legitimate businesses in countries which do enforce the restrictions, as they lose potential business to black market businesses and less restrictive countries.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
God, you are a piece of shit.
For those of you that are not aware, this "Third Position" that is in the above commenter's sig is a white supremacist group. They are little nazis who don't even have the courage to put on the jack boots and spiffy uniforms. They try to dress themselves up in political independent rhetoric, but if you scratch the surface, you find your basic nasty racist nativism, with an extra helping of blood libel. Hell, you don't even have to scratch the surface to find the neo-nazism, you just have to barely smudge it. Maybe look at the articles one or two links deep to find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion stuff. The "make sure our daughters stay pure so we protect our racial integrity" stuff. So don't be fooled: The Third Position is a racist, nativist, white supremacist organization. Uglier than most because they try to pretend they're something else. There's nothing "libertarian" or "patriotic" or "reasonable" about them. Their business is hate and brother, business is a-boomin'.
Me, personally, I subscribe to the notion of that great stoic philosopher Aldo "The Apache" Raine who said, "Nah, see, we don't like that. We like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot 'em just like that." I too like to be able to see my Nazi's coming, so I've made it my own little special project to make sure this "Third Position" gets a little something they can't take off. It's my job to make sure that this Third Reich piece of shit cannot post a single comment, and I don't care if it's about compiling a Linux driver, without being clearly identified for what he is. As long as he's on Slashdot, I'm going to make sure he wears a nice big red swastika on his forehead. Because I hate nazis and I hate racists, even this kind of non-threatening Prussian Blue kind of nazi and racist.
And to be honest, I hope someday this particular ugly little shit gets to meet the Bear Jew face to face and is given a little lesson in the game of baseball. Because that's the American Way.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you haven't heard of the Streisand Effect, Adolph.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. My respect for Apple just went up.
Yes, I hate to say it, but from the facts given, the Apple employee was obeying the law.
"The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran."
It was illegal for her to buy it in order to send it to Iran. You can argue about what he heard and what he knew about versus what he deduced from possibly incomplete evidence, but the end result, refusing to sell her an iPad she was intending to re-export to Iran, was following the law.
If you don't like it, don't blame Apple, go petition the US government who made the law.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, buying it is always fine. Sending it to Iran is the illegal part. And since Apple isn't in charge of overseeing customs, the issue is if they have any sort of authority over what you are or aren't allowed to buy. They don't.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
By my reading of the law, it is illegal to sell something to someone who you know intends to export it to Iran, so no, buying it is not always fine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Respect for obeying the law, which is apparently a novelty these days. Also, it wasn't merely for speaking a foreign language, the clerk overheard her saying it was for an uncle who was an Iranian resident.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
If the clerk heard that the costumer is intending to send the ipad to Iran, wouldn't that make the clerk an accomplice? Obviously the clerk can't produce any proof, since the crime hasn't been committed yet.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure how it works with other products, but licensed firearm dealers have strict rules on straw purchases [wikipedia.org]. With the lack of clarity and sometimes insanity of American law, if I heard the client say they were going to buy a product to be used in an illegal manner, I would NOT sell them the product. There can be a legal liability if you knowingly sell a product in that manner.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how that works in the US, but in EU you do not have a constitutional right to consume. The owner of a shop has the right of not serving you, at his discretion. (there is obviously some limit such as discrimination or other stuff) I hope that in the US, you are not required by law to sell the proverbial cord that will be used to hang you : at worst the seller could be into trouble, at best he will think he aided somebody break the law.
That said this story look more like the usual reality-tv drama. The girl could have been real bitchy the first time (she brought a tv crew for god sake, she is fishing for a scandal, not for a resolution), the seller on the other hand could have been an arse caught in a bad day.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear you've not even a passing association with the logistics industry. The shipper/buyer says "this is going to prohibited country x" and that's the end of the story. The item doesn't move.
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. Don't bitch at someone who has to abide by the rules.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
No. They don't need proof.
Overhearing them saying it is enough to stop the sale. The Apple employ was in the right. Once s/he hears it is intended to be exported to a prohibited destination, that employee needs to stop and make certain it's OK before proceeding.
This is something that companies have been having to watch for for years. A company I used to be part owner of had issues with this in the early 1980's when we were looking at exporting Z80 based devices to Asian countries.
In it's day, the Z80 could not be exported to certain counties.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
"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."
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Here's how it works: A store _must_ of course refuse to sell goods if selling them would be illegal. A store _can_ refuse to sell goods if there is a good reason. And believing that selling _might_ be illegal is a good reason not to sell an item. Evidence that needs to hold up in court would be needed if a police officer accused the customer of actually committing a crime. That hasn't happened here. All that the store needs is a good reason. In this case, the store had to decide between upsetting a customer and losing a sale, or potentially being involved in a serious crime with potentially very, very serious consequences.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge wasn't expected to make that determination, an employee was. If a doctor overheard a patient planning to resell a psychoactive prescription, do you think he needs documentation to refuse the prescription? If a gun shop employee overhears a customer planning to commit a crime, does he need documentation to refuse the sale? Would a judge find either the doctor or the gun shop owner guilty of a crime? I think not.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
You must not be familiar with the recent expansion of the drug war to crack down on doctors who deal with prescription pain medication. Here's the start of a very nice series by Radley Balko at the Huffington Post:
"Law enforcement agencies send undercover agents and informants into doctors' offices to lure suspected physicians into writing bad prescriptions. Doctors have then been conditioned to be suspicious of patients, to see them as potential addicts or drug dealers... The high-profile prosecution of Virginia pain specialist William Hurwitz is a good example. Federal investigators found that of Hurwitz's hundreds of patients, 15 had resold the the drugs he prescribed to them. There was no evidence that Hurwitz was complicit in or knew about the sales. At worst, he was duped by a small percentage of his patients. But instead of working with Hurwitz to catch the dealers posing as patients, investigators cut bargains with the dealers to implicate Hurwitz. Hurwitz was eventually convicted on 15 counts of distributing narcotics. In 2007, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema sentenced Hurwitz to 57 months in prison, far less than what prosecutors were asking. Brinkema acknowledged that Hurwitz was a well-intentioned doctor who had made some mistakes, not the drug pusher prosecutors portrayed him to be."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/prescription-painkillers_b_1240722.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Except you are wrong and the whole point was the clerk who was Iranian as well heard her say in Iranian while in the store she intended to send it to Iran, not to mention she admitted on the news she intended to break US law.
And of course, she is telling the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike the CIA, apple shops seem to have no problems getting employees who speak Farsi.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
In Farsi she said "Its a gift for my grandmother in Iran" or some such.. and the employee understood what she said as he understood the language.
So, She was NOT denied the sale because of her origins, but because she said in Farsi she was going to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
If you walk into best buy and say "I'm gonna rip these people off with this bogus return" in Farsi, and the guy behind the counter hears that, you'll bet he will deny the return! That's basically what happened here...
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
> to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
According to Forbes [forbes.com], items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
Not so sure... (Score:4, Informative)
> to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
According to Forbes [forbes.com], 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 [treasury.gov] 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.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
"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"
Wait a second - she told WSBTV that she intented to commit a criminal offense that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail? Shouldn't she be thanking the store clerk who prevented her from doing so?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
...but the philosophy of the US is freedom. People are free to screw with their lives if they want.
Since fucking when?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
No, exporting is.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
So she admitted on television that she intended to violate US export laws? There's no problem here, she's already confessed to a felony. Why are we hating on this poor clerk?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh bullcrap. The clerk heard the lady say that she was going to send it to Iran to her grandmother, which is illegal. The clerk didn't want to be an accomplice.
If I was selling tire irons and some guy said "I'm going to use this to beat my neighbor to death", I wouldn't sell him the tire iron.
This one is a no-brainer.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
"Iranian" is not a race. Further - fuck all current and future claims of racism - I've simply heard so damn many bullshit accusations of "racism" by people who clearly don't know what real racism looks like that no further fucks will ever be given by me on the topic.
If the clerk thought it would be a laugh to deny every third purchaser on a Wednesday, the clerk has that right. There's no bar to clear here, no burden of proof at all. Store's simply don't have to sell to you- we haven't quite destroyed all notions of property in America yet, thankfully. The clerk perhaps speculated that the tablet would be sent to Iran, and unwilling to take even a very small risk of commiting a felony, chose safety. Not the heroic choice, perhaps, but perfecly fine.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Informative)
And as a fellow Indian, let me correct you a bit....
Everyone's a racist. It's just human nature, not some deep rooted evil as it is made out to be by politically correct people.
Is that what you tell yourself to sleep at night?
Bigotry is a choice. We are not born racist, but many people are conditioned to be so from birth.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what happened. The clerk also knew the language and (i'm guessing since she admits it in the article) overheard her saying she was going to ship it to her cousin in Iran. It's against the US law to do that. It's also why sourceforge has this stupid thing about banning all projects from Iran until they're unticked to confirm they don't contain any encryption.
This isn't even the first time something stupid like this has happened. SSL for example had the same problems back in the day.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
The discrimination victim in this story is a citizen of the United States.
Why should foreign laws affect how US citizens are treated within US borders?
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
She said she was buying it to send it as a gift to someone in Iran...
It is against the law (and apple corporate policy) to do so....
Seems like a non-story... She was a US citizen trying to break US law.. and she informed someone of this intent, and was denied the sale...
If she wants to break the law she should probably just lie about what she's going to do with it... Would be against the law but this story is not really news-worthy
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Because we've made the Iranians the "Evil Brown People Du Jour" and therefore if you speak or even understand Farsi, own a Persian rug, or say "IRAN the half marathon in under and hour..." everyone and his third cousin is supposed to shun you as a potential terrorist... Booga, booga!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the strict limitations of selling technology goods to foreign nationals on the "No Sale" list. This is no excuse for picking people out of a crowd and treating them like criminals, simply because they know a "forbidden" language. I just read a story by a well known journalist who just finished traveling throughout the middle east, and his take on Iran was fascinating. The people there hate their government and the young people are on the verge of major social unrest. They have radios, and satellite TV, and video games. The kids play friggin video games where they get to be American soldiers attacking their own army. Tell me that isn't a sign that Iran isn't going to transform sooner or later. The Ayatollah Khomeini set the age of marriage for girls at 8 years old... you heard me right, four plus friggin four, two less then ten! The logic was that only by marrying a girl off before puberty could you be certain to prevent her from having sex before marriage. Of course this also meant the girl would never get any kind of education, and that she would certainly know her place as a SLAVE to her husband before she reached the age of 10 and for the rest of her life. You think the educated and professional women of Iran who lead self determined lives during the Shah, took that declaration with a grin? They are tired of partying like its 1399. We don't have to worry about Iran, Iran will fix itself, the religious zealotry of the last 30 years has proven to be devastating to the people of Iran, and the only thing that would cause it to persist is if we stuck our big fat noses into their business and caused the general population to line up behind their mullahs. Right now everyone in Iran under 30 wants to be an American. In 10 years, Iran could be our biggest ally in the MiddleEast, seeing as Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are in the midst of serious religious ugliness and antiAmerican sentiment in those countries is running high.
Give the girl her iPad for the love-o-Jebus, if she orders a top of the line Cray, okay, then by all means surveil her ass. Please believe me when I say, nobody is cobbling atomic bombs (or even IEDs) together out of iPads... and if they want that kind of technology, you think the Chinese and Russians wouldn't sell it to them in half a femtosecond? Its all political posturing and international diplomatic hoohah, and the rest of the world knows it.
If you're going to be a hard-ass about selling the girl an iPad, tell her why and explain to her to "Please have your Father come in with proof of your citizenship." Explain, "Its because we're trying to prevent another 9/11 and even though its a pain in the ass for everyone including the nice clerk who really wants to sell you an iPad, we all make small sacrifice during times of war for National Security." Polite, compassionate and with a solution that let's everyone know where they stand.
Instead we get a tempest in a teapot and journalists who'll blow it up into a civil rights fiasco. Jeez I hate slow news days.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to be a hard-ass about selling the girl an iPad, tell her why and explain to her to "Please have your Father come in with proof of your citizenship." Explain, "Its because we're trying to prevent another 9/11 and even though its a pain in the ass for everyone including the nice clerk who really wants to sell you an iPad, we all make small sacrifice during times of war for National Security." Polite, compassionate and with a solution that let's everyone know where they stand.
That's polite compassion? It sounds like the sort of patronizing, propagandist bullshit I'd expect from a DHS official.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4)
The discrimination victim in this story is a citizen of the United States.
US trade laws explicitly prohibit selling electronic or cryptographic technology that will make its way to Iran. It also blocks Cuba, Syria and Sudan for these kinds of technology sales (and until quite recently, blocked North Korea, too). There's a reason that Dell and HP have in their scripting, if you buy it over the phone or as a clickthrough on the website, a statement that you will not knowingly trade the equipment you're buying with an embargoed country... they're on the hook for megabucks in fines and penalties if they get caught selling to an embargoed country.
Apparently she said that she was buying it for her uncle in Iran. US Citizen or no, she was still buying a restricted piece of technology with the intent to ship it to an embargoed country.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:5, Informative)
The employee heard her say she was buying it for her Uncle in Iran ...and refused the sale. It wasn't just that she was speaking Farsi.
ONE SIDE (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:ONE SIDE (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no obligation, legal or otherwise, for Apple to publicly comment on this. Frankly, if people were writing grossly biased news stories trying to make me out to be a bigot and a racist, I probably wouldn't either. So the end result is that we have one very vocal side telling her story and another side that's silent. In these cases, I usually ask myself, "What makes more sense?"
In this particular case, it doesn't make sense to me that an Apple store employee would simply assume based on no evidence whatsoever that an American-born person of Iranian descent is going to take an iPad back to Iran. In spite of popular opinion that everyone in Georgia is a racist, this incident took place in the upper-middle class suburb of Alpharetta, on the outskirts of the more liberal and educated Atlanta. The guy had to have some reason other than "her skin is brown and she speaks a funny language" to deny her the sale of the iPad. We have semi-large Muslim communities around here, it's not like such people are weirdly out of place.
I'm sorry, but until I hear more, I'm going with the theory that makes the most sense--that the employee was told that the iPad was headed to Iran and, per company policy, refused the sale. I've heard one side of the story, it doesn't pass muster with my "does this make sense?" sense, so I reject it.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Funny)
Then the iPad comes with Hangman HD pre-installed.
Re:Poetic Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple users are gay faggots basically, didn't you get the memo? Where have you been?
TSA as role model? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 :/
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just have in the purchase agreement a clause stating that the product is not allowed to be exported to those countries. Wouldn't that disclaim responsibility (in situations that are ambiguous) for Apple without having to ask their ethnicity?
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? You want evidence of other electronics stores obeying the law just like Apple, otherwise hatred of Apple is justified?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, you can claim anyone who says something bad about Apple (even when they
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:4, Informative)
Raytheon got hit by this law selling radar systems through Canada. Apple is absolutely liable. It is a law.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually the customers don't admit to the person they are buying from "I am going to break the law"... not to mention most $8/hr employees don't speak too many languages or otherwise care about US law or company policies.
Apple has an unusual employment base (fanatics), that read all the policies and rules to avoid losing their dream jobs... He happened to note that apple policy and enforced it when the customer informed them they were going to break the law....
Also, most people, if they were confronted like this, would realize admitting they wanted to break US export laws was a bad idea and wouldn't grab a camera crew to come and record them attempting to purchase an item that is going to be exported illegally... and would instead just keep quiet and go down the street to another store..........
She, obviously, wants attention and wants to make sure DHS and whomever handled export laws to KNOW she is trying to export illegal electronics....
But yeah, most people are smart enough to not put up a fight when they are told they are going to break the law when doing so.. and as i said.. quietly go somewhere else.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, it's happened at at least 2 stores. And it is following the law. EIther they are are getting trained, or Apple happens to have some very well informed sales clerks.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are way late, cowardly americans sacrificed their much vaunted freedom and liberty years ago!
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does an Apple employee have the right to prevent the purchase merely because someone said something?
In the US it is. Selling a gun, knowing that it would be uses to kill someone, is a classic example of this. You become an accessory to the crime.
Re:TSA as role model? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does an Apple employee have the right to prevent the purchase merely because someone said something?
Actually; yes. An employee who knows, or should know, that a sale is illegal, can refuse a sale.
Re: (Score:3)
I studied international business, the professor (who only teaches part time, works full time for the ITC) he told us some interesting stories.
A local businessman who sold farm supplies called the ITC, because there was someone from Iran who wanted to buy a million dollar combine. He called the ITC to make sure he could sell this. They told him no, then the he called again, asking if it would be ok if someone else bought it and shipped it to Iran, the ITC said he still couldn't sell it because he knows tha
Re: (Score:3)
"world"
unfortunately yes, the politicians here in Germany are using the same spins and "rationales"
Confusion reigns supreme (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. If the Apple store had any information that the teen intended to send the product to Iran they would indeed be held responsible under ITAR restrictions. In BATF terms it's a straw buy.
Re:Confusion reigns supreme (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Confusion reigns supreme (Score:5, Informative)
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.
And that is exactly the opposite of what the store employee claims. He claims that he understands Farsi and the woman said, in Farsi, that she would send the iPad to a relative in Iran. And at that point selling the iPad to her would indeed be breaking the law - helping someone to export goods from the USA to the Iran carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail.
Re:Confusion reigns supreme (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about Farsi (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
is this iranian apple employee banned from buying? (Score:3, Interesting)
question. is this iranian apple employee also prevented and prohibited from purchasing apple products?
Re:is this iranian apple employee banned from buyi (Score:5, Informative)
Wait wait wait (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Obviously (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Sensationalism and ignorance regarding the embargo (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF is this shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
the apple store employee was iranian american (Score:3, Insightful)
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
"Supreme leader!" (Score:5, Funny)
Spinning. Spinning. Spinning (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
China-made iPad is banned from export? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] ) but some common no-name Iranian (slash American)... Big money different rules?
Iranians != The Iranian Government (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Self Racism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Self Racism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incoming... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Incoming... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A sad day (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:A sad day (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:because we all know (Score:5, Insightful)
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.