Is the implication here that the should walk away from being robbed of 170 quid? They're fighting for dignified treatment.
I know this is an example of another problem, but in the US it's easy to see someone actually being killed over attempting to rob someone of $200.
People have strong reactions to unjust treatment, especially when they believe they are dealing with a fair system. (I feel it's different when you know you just have to pay the bribe.)
Monzo couldn't reverse the transfer as the money wasn't in their hands. Wise Transfer customer support is just garbage. I spent 5 hours on a phone until > their side < ended my call during UK working hours. I called again and again, they never answered. I sent them emails, but each email I was getting was from another person who, like I said in another comment, didn't read previous email from Wise, so each time I had to explain the context and the whole situation. When I sent my response in a morning, they responded the next day afternoon.
> What was the amount of money here?
About £170 for the conference ticket.
>But yes anyone who has worked with the list of sanctioned persons circulated by the US government understands what a joke this is.
I already paid for hotel and plane tickets without issues. Best to my knowledge I'm not involved in any terrorist organisation, unless you account working for EU banking infrastructure company as such.
You don't stand up to a bully just for their initial transgression. You stand up to a bully because if you don't they'll come at you again, even harder, and the world will see that you're soft, that you're a mark.
Gimme your lunch money, kid.
that's an order I would break; to do that goes against the principles of the internet.
I suppose I'm not getting hired any time soon
(Of course, sometimes it takes breaking the law to change the law. Revolutions, for example, have never been lawful. Governments may even praise a revolution - especially the ones that brought them to power, - yet they would always make sure that any future revolution is illegal.)
Germany reunified. Korea might have as well had it not been for North Korea's invasion of South Korea, and China's support of North Korea as a buffer zone.
And why no blame for Japan?
And what "internet principles" are you writing about? Everyone can access everything? This hasn't ever been the case. There have always been access controls.
What's wrong with that?
There are many ways. The most common are: If the users tell you they're from North Korea, you can tell that they're from North Korea. Also, if they connect from a North Korean IP, you can tell that they're from North Korea.
> And what sensitive information could they access? It’s defacto public.
The request likely had nothing to do with "sensitive information", but instead, sanctions.
International sanctions laws are pure and utter madness, with extremely high stakes if the government changes its course on selective enforcement, so everyone is "playing it safe" rather than "doing what makes sense and question outright bullshit".
[1] https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/17/j/a-closer-look...
Usually, that's court cases and resulting case law, as well as executive fines... which means there is an insane amount of risk attached to everything related to sanctions, and additionally enforcement may vary between different governments.
Either way, your company is required to follow the law regardless of your opinion on it.
Hey man there's no need to remind me that I'm old.
But yes anyone who has worked with the list of sanctioned persons circulated by the US government understands what a joke this is. Last time I looked Saddam Hussein was still on it, despite being dead for most of my life at this point. I've also been informed by at least one C-level exec that it was vitally important that we prohibit North Korean internet users from using our website.