|
|
|
|
|
|
by some_random
701 days ago
|
|
|
US gov tells companies that xyz groups are under sanctions (which is good, actually) and that they must put effort into preventing them from using their products (also good, actually). The problem is that they are punished for true negatives (in the press and potentially by the gov) but not for false positives (except for articles like this). The end result is overzealous bullshit that ends up hurting innocent people. For another example, the US gov told Paypal that they need to prevent transactions related to a weapon smuggling shell company "Tarigrade Limited" (which as I've said before, is good actually) but they implemented it to just block transactions and freeze accounts if "Tarigrade" is in the notes. Similarly, I know of a small store that sells patches that got their account frozen for some time because they released a patch with a firearm in it and had the gall to put the name of the firearm in the name of the product. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wg3w/paypal-tardigrade-err... |
|
|
But you also imply that the gov't should punish BOTH types of errors, but I'm not sure that's fair. By extension it implies that the company should have a perfect system, with no errors of either type. That's not realistic, and a company should be punished for meeting an impossible goal.
Better is for the government to just be explicit about it: we're requiring companies to employ broad sanctions, and even if some innocents get swept up, we think it's worth it to stop the bad guys. Or the verse, if that's the gov't decision.