I used to agree with this line of reasoning, but then I saw that the same process was used to block war crimes investigators from using Microsoft's software.
Does that affect the reasoning? Even though I think it is profoundly wrong, I am not going to risk 20 years in prison for something realistically nobody is going to care about.
Obviously untrue. Iran has 90 million citizens, and multitudes of that number do care out of principle. I am not trying to change your mind, but hope you would be more precise in your language next time to describe why you don’t care.
Sounds more like "nobody I care about is going to care about", which seems rather reasonable and eminently human. But maybe a useful increase in precision.
Who said I don't care? I care a lot, I just don't care more than I care about staying out of federal prison. It would be one thing if you'd be carrying the torch and the public would be behind you if only you'd be so courageous. But that is a naive fantasy: I know, and you know, that you'd be hounded as a "terrorist", they would throw the book at you and throw away the key. Approximately 0.01% of your fellow citizens would even understand the issue, let alone be on your side.
Petition for change, sure. Complain in public. Protest. But don't martyr yourself for nothing.
Historically, the rounding-up were not meant to straight-up murder people, but to get rid of undesirables..
Now, if we read the original parent post wrote:
> [..] the stakes go up: $1M USD fine and up to 20 years in federal prison. [..] you, the manager or executive in charge, and anyone else who is in the know on the transaction is now facing 20 years in federal pounding-in-the-ass prison if they don't immediately cease all communication and break off contact
That sounds a lot closer to "rounding-up" than "a strong attempt to prevent technology transfers supporting unwanted regimes."
Now for the kicker. Taking into context the US developments of the past 9 months, the people affected by such legal threats are a lot closer to the indiscriminate "rounding people up" part than to the "balanced and reasonable legal consequences" part.
Just a small thing to ponder about before blurting out things such as
> I am not going to risk 20 years in prison for something realistically nobody is going to care about
Yesterday, one might not have cared about communists being rounded up, today it might be "illegal" migrants being ICEed up, who knows what it will be tomorrow.
If you hear about someone getting actually punished for this then I would probably agree with you. But I (and I think everyone else in the thread) was talking about whether people in the US should risk that punishment in order to support our Iranian friends. OP would not do so and neither would I, because the risk is too great. But I've said repeatedly, I oppose the law, you can't then spin around and act like I'm advocating for rounding people up just because I don't think it's worth my while to break it.
If you want to break that law, go ahead, I will support you all the way, and you will end up in jail anyway.
Of course it did, it's been extensively covered in European newspapers and the article you linked doesn't even refute it happening. Microsoft is just twisting the truth to make themselves look less bad. Don't be so gullible.
