> "Discrimination. Racially profiled. He didn't have any business asking me what country I was from"
Actually, if it would be illegal to sell the technology to an Iranian, and you're speaking the official language of Iran, then it would make a lot of sense for them to ask you if you're an Iranian citizen. Clearly the manager misunderstood and misapplied the policy, but this is not "racial profiling". It's linguistic profiling, and it's the only reasonable way to enforce the export law.
> It's linguistic profiling, and it's the only reasonable way to enforce the export law.
BS. I'd say it's more reasonable to check a billing address. Speaking the language of a country that we have export restrictions on is not a reasonable filter.
The responsibility is to not sell merchandise in Iran, not to refuse sale of merchandise in America based on nationality. Apple isn't playing the role of an exporter here.
That's not relevant. Th U.S. export restriction does not apply to language, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. It applies to _sending_ export restricted items to (in this case) Iran.
Any sale at a brick-and-mortar store in the U.S. does not constitute export. Apple, and the store are safe from legal liability.
edit - hmm, as pointed out elsewhere, there does seem to be some cases where selling to an individual is still restricted.
Sounds like everyone who has ever sold a computer needs a new way of moving their wares if this is really a concern. ;) That or, every sales rep needs to be trained to recognize Farsi and distinguish the Iranian dialects from the other places we don't have trade restrictions on.
A guide to the distinguishing characteristics of the Spanish spoken in Cuba should also be de rigueur for sales staff as well, lest an iPad slip into the hands of the Castros. I suppose that might be problematic in parts of Miami, but I guess you have to be willing to throw these kinds of freedoms under the bus to ensure that Cuban agents have absolutely no way to get their hands on our precious technology.
Yeah, wouldn't want the commies getting an edge over us in electronics production, no siree. Hey, it's a lucky thing that Apple's American, otherwise the Chinese might be able to get their hands on this kind of advanced doohickey, and then where would we be?.
That's sort of stretching the bounds of the word "reasonable" :)
The law here seems to be over-broad. Retailers should be able to sell to anyone in their stores and not be held responsible for what someone may or may not do with it once it leaves their store.
Alternatively, I guess they could do ID and background checks, handgun-shopping style.
What they do with it once it leaves is not the concern. The mere sale of export-controlled material to a foreign person is prohibited. It doesn't matter what they would do with it, because it's the transfer of technology to them that is prohibited.
You should think of this law in the same way as the fact that you can't offer someone a job without verifying their legal work status. It's not "profiling", because it is your responsibility to ascertain that you are not breaking the law. You should positively verify this with everyone.
The problem is that the law is being applied to completely mainstream consumer items, not ballistic missile technology or something.
> The mere sale of export-controlled material to a foreign person is prohibited.
Let me get this straight.. you're saying if an Iranian, a Cuban, or a Libyan person walks into Walmart and buys a $300 Windows PC with Bitlocker on it, that Walmart has committed a Federal crime?
I can build a crude missile guidance system using PS3s. I'm not sure about iPads, but I'd wager one is looking at a similar situation. Still think this is ridiculous, however - a check of residency should have been between observing someone speaking Farsi and denying the sale.
You could do better than a "crude" guidance system with a lot of computers less sophisticated than a PS3. I'd imagine netbooks and barebones Atom PCs are way more practical in terms of running code and more than powerful enough to do the job. But either way, Iran doesn't need to buy technology from the US, considering they can just buy anything they want from China.
As a european company want to launch our satellite on a Chinese rocket. It will leave here sealed in an environmental shroud and go up on their rocket without ever leaving our sight. But because it contains made in USA components = denied export of restricted technology.
Ok so we will design and build the satellite in China allowing them full access to all the technology and giving them a leg up in the production of this kind of payload = no problem.
And Chinasat 6B is now happily broadcasting crap to the people of china
<strike>Selling to any customer at a store in Alpharetta, Georgia, USA is NOT "exporting to Iran", which is the actual prohibition, nor is it a reasonable interpretation of that.</strike>
edit: Guess I'm wrong, see post mentioning § 734.2(2)(ii) below.
yes if you speak Farsi and you are from Iran it is safe to say that you are an Iranian. I must also add that this girl probably speaks better English than Farsi. However to conclude that this person is buying this item to go to Iran is not a good assumption. that is like saying every Spanish speaking person that is from Cuba is going to go to Cuba in the next year or two.
It's linguistic profiling, and it's the only reasonable way to enforce the export law.
Only if you are being a completely stupid and bigoted bastard. Otherwise the only sane way to enforce an export law if you are a company, is to not deliver items to that country.
Everything outside that is up to governmental customs and border control and no court would enforce not selling IPads to Americans who are born in Iran and speak Farsi. Otherwise it is nothing less than apartheid.
The policy quoted states:
the exportation, sale or supply from the U.S. to Iran of any Apple goods is strictly prohibited without authorization by the U.S. government.
It does not say you are not allowed to sell them to people who speak Farsi, even if they were born in Iran. It just says that Apple is not allowed to send them out of the country. You could possibly also claim that you are not allowed to sell directly to current Iranian citizens, as they could be said to represent Iran, although this would still be reasonably open to question, especially if they have a green card, which are available to current Iranian citizens.
Selling something to someone in a shop who can speak in a language other than english and who was born somewhere else doesn't qualify as suspicion of violating an export restriction, unless you have such appallingly lousy pattern recognition that you really shouldn't be working in a shop in the first place, or in extreme cases, even be allowed out without supervision just in case you get run over while talking to a tree because you thought it was the local dentist as the leaves were the same shade of green as his favourite hat.
[edit] also, ipads, while shiny, are not of the same export class as 'nucular wessels'. I think this might be that pattern recognition problem we've been talking about. Have you been remembering to take your pills at the right time?
Um from the article The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran
In other words they were actually going to break export restrictions. Perhaps they accidentally mentioned this to the Apple associate, but not to the reporter? Because "I'm getting this for my cousin in Iran" may sound innocent but would actually force the associate to not sell the item.
She said she was buying it for her Iranian friend - that's enough to reasonably suspect.
ps. The state dept doesn't do reasonable - check the small print you need to agree to before downloading something as potentially lethal as a Dell mouse driver.
She said she was buying it for her Iranian friend - that's
enough to reasonably suspect.
No, that's reason to inform them that they are not allowed to do that. Tell them they would be breaking the law if they did that and could go to jail. If they insist on buying the item, it is out of your hands. If they still explicitly acknowledge they are intent on breaking the law, you may be required to inform the feds, but that's it.
I would reasonably suspect that the person might need a phone while they are studying here. Your view of the law seems to be that it is something dictated over you, rather than something we all make up, mostly in court.
Racial profiling is wrong even if it is effective. That is the opinion of many who are opposed to it. Just because something is effective doesn’t mean it should be done (e.g. killing every criminal is extremely effective in pushing the relapse rate all the way down).
That’s what those who respond with “But it’s effective!” to racial profiling just do not get.
To clarify: racial profiling means using someone's race in place of legitimate evidence. In the case of this export rule, though, speaking the official language of an embargoed country sure sounds like legitimate reason to take further action.
Most Farsi speakers are from Iran. Most people from Iran speak Farsi. It's completely legitimate to assume that someone speaking Farsi is at least from Iran, and may reasonably be a visiting Iranian national.
The mistake in this situation was that the manager applied the rule to anybody from Iran, and ignored the person's US residence and citizenship.
It is at least very similar. Also, from the point of view of those who are opposed to it, racial profiling would still be wrong if it were effective (i.e. if race could actually provide evidence).
There's a number of reasons why racial profiling is considered wrong. Two of the biggest ones are that a) race is something that cannot be controlled, it is not a choice, and discrimination based on innate characteristics is wrong; and b) it's not effective.
However, language is a choice. Language is something that can be controlled. If you're being discriminated against because your language is a very strong indicator that you are a foreign national from an embargoed country, then it's really hard to say that linguistic profiling is wrong, because the two biggest objections to racial profiling don't apply.
Language is very much not a choice. I would love to be able to speak English without making it obvious that English is not my native language – but I can’t. It’s very, very hard to be able to do that. People will always know that I didn’t grow up with English. People will always suspect that I wasn’t born in any English-speaking country.
Other characteristics that serve for racial profiling might be harder to change (some might not be changeable at all) but they are still in principle the same. (Someone wearing clothing that is more typical elsewhere could much easier change his or her clothing than I can get rid of my accent. That doesn’t, however, exclude the possibility of racial profiling based on clothing.)
Nobody's talking about discrimination based on whether it sounds like you're a native speaker. The important factor was the specific language you're speaking, not the fluency in it. If you speak English poorly, well, millions of other people in this country do too, so who cares. But if you're speaking Farsi, then it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that you're an Iranian citizen.
I think this is a new apple policy. I called 1-800-MY-APPLE from Argentina and mentioned that I might want to buy an iPad and have it shipped somewhere in the US (but that I happened to live down in BA). The guy said he couldn't sell it to me and that I should hang up and call back and not mention where I live. This happened last week.
Who on earth decided that when a foreign citizen is on US soil, selling to them consitutes "exporting"? What if he's a refugee or has dual citizenships?
To me, this mostly sounds like Apple taking US laws too literal/general.
> To me, this mostly sounds like Apple taking US laws too literal/general.
Unfortunately not. The relevant definition of "export" is the one at Export Administration Regulations § 734.2(b)(2)(ii):
(2) Export of technology or software. ...:
(i) Any release of technology or software subject to the EAR in a foreign
country; or
(ii) Any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign
national. Such release is deemed to be an export to the home country or
countries of the foreign national. This deemed export rule does not apply to
persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and
does not apply to persons who are protected individuals under the Immigration
and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)). Note that the release of any
item to any party with knowledge a violation is about to occur is prohibited
by §736.2(b)(10) of the EAR. [0]
Apple's interpretation is the one almost all export-control lawyers will give their clients and is the one the Bureau of Industry and Security will give you if you ask for clarification.
EDIT: By the way, the reason Apple won't/can't sell iPads to foreigners in the US but can sell them the same product abroad likely comes down to paperwork. I am not Apple's lawyer, but I imagine Apple exports iPads under a provision of the export-control regulations that allows export of (a great many) controlled products without needing to obtain a license so long as the use of the regulatory licensing exception is properly noted on the export documentation. But Apple's retail stores presumably are not equipped to fill out and submit those documents, so they simply won't/can't sell to foreigners.
From your excerpt: "This deemed export rule does not apply to persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and does not apply to persons who are protected individuals under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3))."
They should have just asked for proof of permanent residence or citizenship and informed the customer that this is US export law.
Smartest legislation ever... (NOT) Any sane person will tell you that there's no way to police or check it. If I buy an iPad (as a Dutch citizen in the US or in the Netherlands) and happen to sell my iPad to a North Korean or Iranian, what's the US government going to do?
Having just had to go through ITAR training for my new job, it is my impression that a) it is your responsibility to make sure you comply with the law, which means knowing what is export-controlled and who you are dealing with, and b) export control violations are punishable by at least a decade in federal prison, if you should be so unlucky.
This strikes me as interesting because I believe the article mentioned that the state department rep didn't even know that apple was doing this.
It seems a bit above and beyond to teach all of your sales personnel to distinguish Farsi from every other Middle-Eastern sounding language out there. Call me ignorant but I couldn't distinguish Farsi from Arabic even if it was written out in front of me...
"Similarly, sharing documents containing technical data with non-U.S. persons, either overseas or in the states, without export authorization would be an ITAR violation. “There are very few people who understand that an illegal export can be as simple as discussing design and technical information over lunch, if the person you are dining with is a non-U.S. person,”
Senior representatives from the european and US partnering aerospace companies sit in a big boardroom with their respective legal team and discuss what they can and cannot discuss.
Actually they generally get no further than discussing if they can discuss what they can or can't discuss.
Meanwhile the American and British engineers go for a quiet coffee on their own (preferably off site) and sort out any technical questions between them without anything being written down.
The French engineers from the european company have to sit in the corner and sulk.
German/Dutch engineers sit there looking extremely confused as to why all this is necessary.
This makes a lot of sense to me. If the responsibility doesn't fall on a business to not sell the technology does it fall on customs agents then to prevent the guests from leaving the country with the items? Would the guests be happier being able to purchase the tech to only be prevented from leaving the country with it? I seriously doubt it.
[edit] IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling, its unpleasant, but what aspect of the relationship between the US and Iran isn't?
>IMHO this has nothing to do with racial profiling
I've never been asked to produce proof of US citizenship or immigration status when I bought an iPad, let alone refused service. Do you honestly think that being a white male who speaks fluent English had nothing to do with that?
When I was working at Dell, we were told that if we shipped/sold or willing sold to someone who we suspected would sell to someone in to one of the embargoed countries, we could be personally charged and imprisoned with no amnesty.
As someone who just retained legal help in this area, export control is not as simple as many of you make it out to be. An export happens when material ends up in the hands of a foreign national, whether it's inside the border or not. Businesses have an obligation to "know their customer" and look out for "red flags". I'm not an expert in this area. It's just as I have had to delve into it, it's nowhere near trivial or as easy to deal with as you might think. Oh and the fines for being wrong (even if you self report) can be very very hefty.
The "fines for being wrong" can also include lawsuits when you inappropriately reject a customer because what your salesperson thought was Farsi turns out to be some Indian dialect because he's simply bad at recognizing languages and was recently reprimanded for his failure to recognize Farsi, so now he's more likely to commit a false positive due to paranoia. Good luck with that lawsuit.
What is the point of this? The person can just call back or send someone else to buy the phone. Or refuse to answer where they are from.
If you really want to enforce something like this, REQUIRE a valid passport. If they produce an Iranian one, then don't sell it. That would be better than penalizing people for speaking a language. Especially since they can call back.
I guess Apple is covering its ass, but the law sounds like it wouldn't be possible to perfectly enforce. Maybe it is just there to crack down on what would otherwise be Iranian citizens being won over by shiny goodness "evil" American corporations :)
Apple products arrive in Iran.
Iranians start using shiny iPhones and iPads. The app store has plenty of family friendly goodies.
Before they know it, they are playing angry birds and they love american stuff.
Then, someone releases a "how to build green energy" app in Iran.
Iran develops green sources of energy and abandons nuclear energy program. Affirms nuclear non proliferation treaty.
US rejoices.
Yes. It seems this falls under "deemed export" concept, where controlled technology is "deemed" to be exported just by a foreign national having contact with it.
"Once such information is released to a foreign national, it is deemed to have been exported to that person’s country of nationality. Under both the EAR and the ITAR, the deemed export rule applies to technology (and, in some cases, software) transfers to a foreign national, if the technology (or software) to which the foreign national is exposed relates to the development, production, disposal, or use of items controlled under either the EAR or the ITAR. "
Now, whether this applies to ipads and iphones, I have no idea.
If that does apply to electronics like the iPad/iPhone, it is pretty retarded. It requires a significant degree of knowledge of citizenship law on the part of the sales personnel. Also, it is pretty hard to verify citizenship without getting into same breach of privacy that the Arizona law (SB1070) fell into. Lastly, how are you as a merchant supposed to enforce such controls in an electronic transaction?
I think that what the US government would say is that if you choose to sell export-controlled technologies, then it is your responsibility to follow the law. If you can't verify that you are following the law in an electronic transaction, then you either have to take the risk of getting convicted or not sell online.
The bizarre part here is that an ipad falls under export-controlled equipment.
The only way I can mentally justify something like an ipad falling under the law would be if the point was to keep the Iranian government from legally buying 10000 of them to make some kind of supercomputer. Which seems pretty unlikely as I type it out.
But under than scenario, a few escaping here and there is tolerable, but it would be worth preventing massive numbers of them being sold to a foreign nation.
Of course, since the devices are manufactured in China, there are a few questions being begged.
> The only way I can mentally justify something like an ipad falling under the law would be if the point was to keep the Iranian government from legally buying 10000 of them to make some kind of supercomputer. Which seems pretty unlikely as I type it out.
I think the way these laws are designed, they cover a swathe of computing devices that could potentially be used to aid the military. IIRC around 10 years back, when India and Pakistan decided to test nukes, the apple G5 was one of the things that got banned from export to those countries.
> But under than scenario, a few escaping here and there is tolerable, but it would be worth preventing massive numbers of them being sold to a foreign nation.
The key of course is how lenient DHS or whoever would be in this situation. If the act of coming into contact with an iPad/Any such device is an export control violation, how on earth does one hire Iranian citizens in tech (I know a large number of Iranian citizens come here to the US to study and work) for say iPad app development. Also, what happens in the situation that I want to sell my used iPad on eBay/CL?
"how on earth does one hire Iranian citizens"
You can't hire anyone from an embargoed country without obtaining a deemed export from the government which is a very lengthy and complicated process. I'm from an embargoed country and I recently lost job offer in a big semiconductor company because of the deemed export requirement. To avoid any export control liability, some tech companies prescreen applicants before extending interview invitations. If you google, there are a couple of articles where lawyers advise companies to prescreen based on country of origin, arguing that it doesn't violate anti-discrimination laws.
Most of the debate going on in comments here is about selling to a hypothetical Iranian visiting the US.
But that's not what actually happened here -- the customer is a US citizen. I am pretty confident that it is Apple policy to sell equipment to US citizens in US stores regardless of their ancestry.
Just an idiot that's part of a large corporation wrongly trying to enforce a policy that doesn't apply (and is probably not his to enforce). It is clearly not Apple's true policy, as the woman in question was eventually able to purchase her iPad online.
Regardless of the calculus behind the employee's decision, I can't help but wonder if this story would be on the frontpage if it was anyone but Apple.
It's similar to how Apple takes most of the flack for human rights violations at Foxconn when many other companies (including Acer, Intel, HP, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, etc) have their products manufactured by Foxconn as well.
The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria
The exportation, reexportation, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a U.S. person wherever located, of any Apple goods, software, technology (including technical data), or services to any of these countries is strictly prohibited without prior authorization by the U.S. Government. This prohibition also applies to any Apple owned subsidiary or any subsidiary employee worldwide.
So that's why they always completely ignore my bug reports :)
These crypto export laws (while better than they were in the 90s) are silly given that crypto approved for top secret material (AES with large keys) is pervasively available on the internet.
The idea that Iran is a real threat to the United States and its allies is an Oceania-esque farce. Our country is in an economic war with China, being fought via proxy economic and media battles with Iran and its allies. This law is disgraceful.
What apple did wrong is that thy judged a person’s Intentions and residency by a spoken language.
Iranian people are proud people just like Irish, Italians, and Cuban’s. I have many friends that were born in U.S but if you ask them what language you are speaking they will tell you “oh it’s Spanish, I am Cuban” because they are proud of their nationality.
Same thing with the girl, the man asked what language she was speaking and she said Farsi (but most people do not know what language Farsi is) so she added I am from Iran. This girl could have even been born in the U.S.
The Correct way to approach this would have ben to ask more questions. Like how long have you lived in the U.S.? are you Planning on going back anytime in the future?
As a matter of fact they should ask everyone this question. Are they planning to Travel to any of the restricted countries in the near future? Because anyone can be shipping this highly sensitive material overseas to anyone of the restricted countries.
"What apple did wrong is that thy judged a person’s Intentions and residency by a spoken language." That sure is how the article makes it seem. And that sure would be wrong of Apple.
Yet the customer was planning to send the iPad to Iran and I wonder if that intention didn't some how come out in conversation such that the Apple employee knew of that intention? It would be interesting to have more details and it's difficult to tell when we have only the customer's recollection of events. It will be interesting to hear Apple's response.
Export laws seem like security theater - it doesn't actually help, and only catches honest people.
If you're from a country that is embargoed, and you need computing power for some nefarious reason, I'm certain you'll find a way. Going to your local apple store dressed in your native clothing while speaking your native language isn't in your game plan.
My wife and I were accosted and robbed at knife point in Italy because, as the mugger put it, we were American and deserved it. The cops thought it was funny. A friend of mine was arrested in Egypt back in 2009. He spent a year in prison simply because he was overheard casually mentioned to his associate that he was a Christian. I have a coworker who told me about how his laptop was confiscated on his way through the LAX airport because he used PGP encryption for his hard drive and was a foreign national working for an overseas UAV manufacturer. The list goes on and on.
I suspect that just because there is a minority present doesn't mean that it is always tolerated; especially if an American is involved overseas. I believe tolerance changes with the winds (or whims) of time as it were.
My friend's conviction was down the lines of evangelizing and disturbing the peace. He was in Egypt for combination work and vacation and while preparing to leave was overheard commenting to someone he had meet on being a Christian and was reported to security. He got detained, questioned, beat up a little, and tossed in jail. He was later tried, found guilty and left in prison. The US government couldn't, or wouldn't, get him out. Sad story really.
Why is this even bad? Current US - Iran relations are very bad, and are blowing up thanks to media. It's no surprise that this man doesn't want to risk losing his job.
If it is really to enforce export laws, why dont they check that at the airport when people are actually leaving the US ? This store should apologize and teach its employees to behave better.
I get it, but it's still a stupid law that punishes the average iranian citizen that has nothing to do with the iranian government. I recently lost a job offer in a semiconductor company because of the deemed export law. And by "a foreign person" they actually mean chinese, iranian, syrians and cubans. Most technologies aren't restricted to most of the world including Saudia Arabia and Pakistan the origins of almost all terrorists.
Then using this logic, why only ban iPad purchase. Why not laptops, PDA etc. Point is that it is stupid to do what this particular apple store did. They assumed that just because the person spoke foreign, they are foreigners and not US citizens.
I was twice "randomly selected" (read: I was nearby when they were finished with whoever they were inspecting) by TSA officials before check-in, who went systematically through my to-be-checked luggage looking for things unspecified. I have also several times received rather serious-looking notes in my checked luggage stating that they had gone through my luggage behind the scenes without my consent. They also demand to see at the very least an x-ray of any carry-on luggage that I take -- including special processing for shoes, anything in my pockets, and the laptop in my bag. The last time I went to the states they took a naked photograph of me with a machine that had "X-ray vision" (though I don't know whether it was Safe Microwave or Cancer-causing X-ray style). Nominally nobody actually saw the photograph, and it identified that my ponytail (I had one at the time) was a Serious Risk worthy of further investigation.
Generally speaking one tries to be several hours early to their flight.
You're being quite dramatic with your description of the security process.
-I've been randomly selected too and questioned. They do this in most countries. It happened for me in Germany as well.
-The notes are a good thing. I'd rather the TSA or whomever tell me when they search my luggage.
-X-raying is probably the most efficient way to search through all luggage going on a flight. It's also been around for a loooong time, way before TSA.
-Shoes is a direct result of the shoebomber incident. I think it's a little silly though.
-You have to empty your pockets/take off belt to go through the metal detector and not set it off.
-The full body scanners are opt out. I have always opted out. Recently that means you get a pat down. Fine with me, given the two choices.
-You sure it was your ponytail?
-Several hours is overkill. 2 at most for international, 1.25 domestic just in case.
Domestic flights in the US are much better, yes. The other thing that's better is getting out of the US. I'm actually often heavily questioned on my way into the US. (And never on my way out.) That happens twice: once at the airport, once at customs. The airport one is much more cursory and they appear to be looking for whether you sweat. The customs one appears to be about telling a coherent story about who you are and where you've been. I actually don't mind this so much, although the customs queues are pretty horribly dull and long.
I'm not so much objecting to the notes. Rather, I'm saying, "not only did manual inspections of bags happen, they still happen -- just no longer in front of your face." Metal detectors are pretty nice, and probably worth their security, if they were the only factor -- but if they're going to pat you down / naked-photograph you anyway, the metal detector just seems redundant.
Nobody told me that I could opt out of the body scanners, and I was certainly being pushed through them. I am 80% sure that it was my ponytail: I saw the Risky Business circle drawn on a schematic of my torso about my shoulders I felt someone grope between them, and I heard them say, "oh, it's just your ponytail." The other 20% is just because I have no idea what the hell triggered their algorithm or how their algorithm worked or what its false-positive rate.
US CBP routinely inspects people leaving the USA by car (entering Canada). Many items that are unregulated in the US itself (e.g. firearms accessories) are illegal to export under ITAR.
How do they do that? I've driven from the US to Canada dozens of times, and at every port I've been to the road goes directly past US customs up to Canadian customs. US customs has no opportunity to stop me coming into Canada, unless there are CBT officers in the Canadian customs booth?
You may not interact with them usually but that doesn't mean they can't stop you. They do it before you pass them. I've had it happen in both the US and Canada.
Yes they can stop you - but to say it's routine sounds wrong - I will admit I haven't driven across the border in a long time, but when you head to the US, you don't normally deal with canadian border authorities, and vice-versa - you juts deal with the authorities of the country you are entering, not the one you are leaving.
Being denied a sale in a single store is nothing compared to how iranians would treat an american trying to live on thier soil. Have you seen the videos of thousands of iranians screeming in unison, stringing up fake american dummies, beating them with sticks, stoneing them, setting them on fire and burning the american flag in the streets? For the most part we live with you in peace over here,we wouldn't string you up or cut your head off with a knife or burn you alive but you are appaulled that someone doesn't trust you here?
What should the people of Iranian origin do to make it easy for Apple Nazis? Put a star of David or a crescent on their clothes before they enter the store?
It's racist to jump to the conclusion that someone speaking the language of Iran might be Iranian? I'd say that's a reasonable (if incorrect) assumption to make.
It wasn't even incorrect: her own words were "I'm from Iran." It's obvious that the Apple employee made the perfectly reasonable interpretation that this described her citizenship.
Nothing is untrue about it. Obviously, there was a miscommunication, and the woman decided to go scream "Racism!" to the presses instead of clearing it up.
Edit:
Oh, I see, you thought I was asserting that she was of Iranian citizenship. I understood the parent of my original post to be referring to her being of Iranian race, because she appears to be trying to make it out as a race issue, when in truth it is a citizenship issue.
> "Discrimination. Racially profiled. He didn't have any business asking me what country I was from," Sabet said.
Sounds like she's trying to make it about racism to me. The only other interpretation I can come up with is that she's complaining about people of Iranian race speaking Iranian language being "racially profiled" to be Iranians, which is pretty absurd as complaints go.
The only person in the wrong here is the customer service representative who's violating US sanctions against Iran by selling an iPad to an Iranian citizen.
There's no mention of her telling the clerk that she was a U.S. citizen. She told him "I'm from Iran". What's he supposed to do in that case? Can't blame him for not taking the risk. That's a serious federal law (and it's not unheard of for the feds to run sting operations, when it comes down to that).
The other guy was definitely trying to buy the device for an Iranian citizen.
The Federal Law says nothing about selling to a person who has no intention of bringing the item back to Iran, but simply has either a Farsi accent or was born in Iran. There was no mention of an Apple policy that requires its employees to ask "What is your citizenship?", but instead automatically assume nationality based on the comment "I'm from Iran." If the onus is on the consumer to clearly state his citizenship, then shouldn't there be a sign that lists the legal conditions of purchase?
I am most bothered by the fact that the Apple rep recognized Farsi and inquired further. So is it pure coincidence that the Apple rep knows Farsi or is every Apple retailer trained to recognize Farsi? And even if the Apple rep recognizes Farsi and inquires further, what if the consumer lies and says "no, I'm speaking Hindi", then what? Polygraph test? Bring in an interpreter? Call security to escort them out?
However, it seems pretty clear that the Apple employee interpreted Sabet's words "I'm from Iran" as meaning "I am an Iranian citizen." This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and there's no indication that Sabet made any effort to communicate her citizenship.
Not long ago, the same store suffered a break-in attempt. Some guys in another state wanted bail money for their buddy, so they drove several hours to this store, waited 'til after hours, smashed a mall window, crawled in, and tried without luck to break into the Apple store. Turns out the stores, despite having lots of glass, are built like bank vaults.
Actually, if it would be illegal to sell the technology to an Iranian, and you're speaking the official language of Iran, then it would make a lot of sense for them to ask you if you're an Iranian citizen. Clearly the manager misunderstood and misapplied the policy, but this is not "racial profiling". It's linguistic profiling, and it's the only reasonable way to enforce the export law.