[ms7m]

> US law does not apply to foreign nationals residing in a foreign country.

I don't think parent meant it in the context of US Law, but more as a general statement, is it a reasonable precaution by MS to ban X solely on the actions of their government?

[jacob019]

Although the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental principle of US law and an essential part of our ideology, it is not a universal moral truth. In my opinion, it is justifiable and suitable to prohibit X from having access to sensitive infrastructure based solely on the actions of their government, especially when X is subject to the decisions of that government.

[jstarfish]

> is it a reasonable precaution by MS to ban X solely on the actions of their government?

One could argue it's discriminatory; they banned him because he's Russian.

...which is the problem with this rhetoric.

Russia and China are known to entice or coerce otherwise-innocuous civilians into acts of espionage. Their foreign policies explicitly exploit our presumptions of innocence, inclusivity and trust. Pre-emptive banning to avoid another SolarWinds is more than reasonable precaution; it's something that should have been done years ago.

But in the meantime, by our own policies we're obligated to allow foxes into the henhouse. We're shamed for discriminating against foxes if we turn them away, and shamed again for asking questions about how the Great Chicken Massacre of 2023 was allowed to happen. Chaos engineering at its finest.

[jacob019]

Entertaining analogy! I agree with your point, but we are not obligated by policy to allow foxes into the henhouse, rather we are obligated by our social norms.