Home » Blog » Global Voices » LinkedIn briefly blocks Syria, more confusion over trade/commerce regulations

LinkedIn briefly blocks Syria, more confusion over trade/commerce regulations

If you’re old enough to remember downloading most of your software from FTP and gopher sites, you probably remember clicking on agreements where you promised not to export software to a wide range of nations the US maintained trade sanctions against. For much of the 1990s, strong encryption – including the sort of encryption used to securely send a credit card to Amazon – was considered a munition under US laws and subject to complex export regulations. The absurdity of this wasn’t lost on the geek community – it was very fashionable (if you were a Perl hacker) to pass through airports wearing a shirt with a implementation of RSA in Perl printed on the front. (I somewhere have a ratty black t-shirt with the warning “dangerous – munitions grade-encryption inside”, a shirt that I can no longer wear in good conscience, as I suspect I can no longer implement RSA or a similarly complex algorithm from memory.)

On January 14, 2000, the US government made changes to policies on encryption that made exporting software significantly less onerous, and many of these warnings disappear. But the rules are still pretty confusing, and it’s not hard to understand how some webfolks find themselves confused about who they can and cannot provide services to.

On Saturday, Global Voices Advocacy reported that LinkedIn, a popular business social networking site, was blocking access to Syrian users. Users thought that the site might be blocked by the government, but by using tools like Tor to circumvent firewalls, they discovered that the site was blocking access to all users who’d identified Syria as their location. After a brief, but ferocious Twitter and blog campaign, a LinkedIn staffer announced on Twitter that the block had been a human error and had been fixed. The official statement from LinkedIn, as reported on Global Voices Advocacy, read as follows:

Some changes made to our site recently resulted in Syrian users being unable to access LinkedIn. In looking into this matter, it has come to our attention that human error led to over compliance with respect to export controls. This issue is being addressed tonight and service to our Syrian users should be restored shortly.

I’m interested in this story because it has some resonance with a situation I reported on two months back, when web hosting company Bluehost decided to suspend accounts of Zimbabwean users. Evgeny Morozov reported on a similar decision to suspend Belarussian users, and friends in the Global Voices community report that Iranian and Syrian accounts were asked to leave by Bluehost as well. Outcry about Bluehost’s decision led the company to reconsider their policy, and some Zimbabwean bloggers decided to stay with Bluehost, while others concluded that the experience had eroded their confidence in Bluehost and went to other providers.

In my first post on the Bluehost situation, I accused them of being lazy, rather than of being anti-free speech. I speculated that they’d been warned they were hosting accounts in a country where US Treasury sanctions apply and they didn’t take the extra step of checking to see if the individuals in question were sanctioned. (They weren’t – the sanctions on Zimbabwe are highly targetted and certainly don’t apply to human rights organizations.)

As I’m watching other companies stumble over questions of who they should and shouldn’t work with, I’m feeling slightly more sympathy for Bluehost – it is genuinely difficult to figure out which Treasury and Commerce Department regulations apply to the use or hosting of websites. Furthermore, for companies offering hosting at fairly low prices, or services for free like LinkedIn, it’s easy to understand why a firm might choose to cut off customers rather than investigate a matter in more detail.

I’m hoping to get some clarity from colleagues at Berkman and elsewhere about exactly what restrictions and regulations Web2.0 companies and web hosting companies should be considering in providing services to users in Syria and other sanctioned countries. In the meantime, if anyone has insight on whether these two incidents are unrelated, or if there’s some sort of trend pressuring web companies to reconsider what countries they provide services to, I’d be grateful for your insights.

10 thoughts on “LinkedIn briefly blocks Syria, more confusion over trade/commerce regulations”

  1. I have that same shirt. In 1996 on a trip to London, I met a guy who saw me wearing it and told me that he’d had one, had worn it on his flight from Germany, and the airport people in London (IIRC) confiscated it.

  2. “Outcry about Bluehost’s decision led the company to reconsider their policy” – are you sure about this one? As far as I know, they only offered to reinstate one or two of Kubatana’s accounts – and that was not because of the outcry but because of repeated calls from the US government agencies. As far as I know they still haven’t changed it with regards to Belarus, for example. Their TOS is still the same. I think this was one of the cases where they couldn’t care less about the outcry…

  3. I agree, Evgeny – there’s no evidence that Bluehost has made a major policy change, Evgeny, but they were apologetic to Kubatana and some of the other Zimbabweans. In that sense, I thought it was a succesful campaign in that outside pressure led to a policy change. But if there was no change on the Belarus, Iran and Syrian fronts, then you’re right, and it probably had more to do with US Embassy/Harare pressure than with media or blogger pressure.

  4. Stephanie Willerton

    There was a similar controversy this week in Facebook’s new ToS many took to mean FB would be filtering embargoed countries. Groups of Iranians and others instantly sprang up to protest. FB stated that as long as users do not use FB for commercial purposes, they will not be blocked. Will be interested to hear more from your Berkman colleagues on their interpretation …


  5. I certainly appreciated Facebook’s clarification, but wish it were reflected directly in the ToS. And I continue to be worried about what pressures Facebook or others might be facing that’s causing them to focus efforts imposing or enforcing these terms…

  6. I agree with Ethan on the opacity of the Treasury Dept. restrictions. I was looking at them in 2003/2004 in relation to Iraq for a project that the Center for International Conflict Resolution was doing. Two aspects were fairly striking. First, despite the fact that Iraq was no longer run by Saddam, there were still some restrictions in place. Second, because a lot of what was in the legislation concerned intellectual as well as physical property, it was not at all clear as to what was permissable to transfer.

  7. Pingback: Global Voices Online » Syria: Netizens Discuss SourceForge Ban

  8. Pingback: Syria: Netizens Discuss SourceForge Ban | India News Blog, Latest News From India, Latest Blogs From India

  9. Pingback: Committee to Protect Bloggers » SourceForge Bans Syrian Users, Netizens Discuss Ban

Comments are closed.