OP here. I would partly agree. But at the time I posted the link, I only had examples from Iranian people that are living in other countries using Slack and getting banned. Now that I have heard more stories about people from Syria and even one US person, I wouldn't post it again with that description.

I'll leave it to the mods to change the description accordingly, if they feel inclined to do so.

UPDATE: The mods have changed the description to "Is Slack shutting down accounts of those ethnically associated with Iran?"

I meant no criticism. I'm just trying to understand what they're doing. And damn, just the realization that they have access logs going back years is mind-boggling. If they didn't have the logs, they'd arguably be better off.

It's possible that they don't store access logs, but just keep the login history with time and location.

It's a lot less data and it's very useful to help with some customer issues, or legal matters like this.

Ethnicity != citizenship != national origin. The updated title is still screaming drama needlessly.

Truly, the drama level isn't overly high.

But the focus ought to be on banning based on access logs from years ago. With potentially unreliable geolocation. And IPv4 addresses that may have been announced from many different autonomous systems, over the years.

A lot of racism and ethnic profiling is exactly like this -- actions that are individually justifiable, but somehow end up focusing on a particular race or ethnicity despite everyone "not meaning it that way".

Focusing on intent can help us feel better about ourselves when we unintentionally contribute to these problems, but if we actually want to fix them, we can't focus only on the intentional racism or intentional ethnic profiling. We have to understand and find ways to avoid the unintentional stuff too.

Slack doesn't even know their users race, ethnicity, or country AFAIK, thus they can't discriminate on that basis. I think this is just a badly handled case of abiding by the US embargo law. They seem to be disabling people who created their accounts from embargoed countries, probably checking by IP, which is inexact and bound to yield false positives

That's a bit scary. As a developer, I often test websites performances / features using a VPN. Since Slack is the platform developers use to communicate, it often stays open as I test "from other countries". My Slack IP log likely has accesses from all over the world.

I'd say be careful with that! At a minimum, put the VPN in a separate VM, so nothing to Slack could get routed through it.

Agreed. I avoid using public sites like Facebook and Google+ while on it because of possible geolocation issues.

Slack was the exception because it's the tool people use when developing, so I somewhat blindly expected them to be alright with it. Especially since there are public answers to VPN issues on Twitter (https://twitter.com/slackhq/status/510137942296518657?lang=e...).

Yeah, they're clearly not checking the ethnicities of everyone using their service, but this still seems rather harsh, and with no appeals process too?

This is the danger when our lives become increasingly dependent on digital middlemen who are not regulated as utilities, where legislation has not caught up, who can proudly declare themselves "just a private company you have no say" and use nebulous ToS violations to shut people down.

When people violate actual law, we know which specific sentence in the written law was violated. We have a chance to defend ourselves. We have (supposedly) impartial judges and juries to help determine the truth.

Tech companies are building parallel institutions for judgment and execution, but building it for themselves and they have no plans to let their users have any say or transparency. It's a digital version of "rule of men" rather than "rule of law" -- "you're condemned because I, the King, say so."

This will continue until external powers (regulation) force the quasi-digital-fiefdoms to open up. Hemming and hawing about "gee, this is kinda harsh" won't have an effect on them.

The lack of an appeals process seems like the norm, sadly enough. Maybe, if there's enough of a backlash, they'll restore accounts for people who don't currently access from sanctioned countries.

That's a plausible inference, but the effect to anyone not equipped to make such an inference is that it's ethnic profiling. A geeky inference isn't a good excuse. An ethical lapse is what it looks like. Nobody has a duty to make excuses on Slack's behalf when Slack could just explain themselves in public and to the people affected.

The title made sense in the context of Iranians being banned. But once we know that it's a far broader issue, it's misleading and inflammatory.