Elon Musk is in “Bonkersland”?

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, May 25, 2018.

  1. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Everyone is subject to ITAR just like any other export control. It's generally more relevant to defense contractors and technology companies for whom the risks are higher for them as non compliance destroys their business model. The part that you seem to be missing is that it can be completely OK for a US citizen to see something; however, that US citizen cannot share that information with foreign entities. If a company reviews an article and redacts potential ITAR issues and the journalist publishes it anyways, the journalist is at at fault and, under ITAR, can be held personally liable (fines and/or jailtime). If the originating company was deemed to have insufficient safeguards in place they could also be punished (fines, loss of contracts, and/or jailtime). It's no different than when a cleared journalists publishes unauthorized classified information.
  2. TennTradition

    TennTradition Super Moderator

    Yeah export controls operate very differently than classifications in that way. It’s not a problem for a US citizen to get most of the information. But they do need to be told by whoever controls it that it is subject to export control. Then it’s on them not to distribute or disseminate to foreign entities.
  3. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    So it's definitely CYA, but covering asses on both sides.
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    That is not at all what is being said, nor asked.

    This is the scenario. You run a business doing defense contract work. You invite in a journalist and they publish something read by those in Britain, that is subject to ITAR. Who is in trouble?

    I didn’t say the company had a review process. I didn’t say the journalist was told not to publish something and they did anyway. I did not say the article was reviewed.

    I said something got published; who is in trouble?
  5. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Which means exactly this:

    The company could have forgotten to say something was controlled, and thus the entire review process is to protect the company and not the journalist

    The journalist is not obligated to protect something it doesn’t know it has to; but it must protect that which it knows it had to protect.

    And it will very quickly flesh out who screwed up what.
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Playing big brother is not an endearing quality. It is CYA for exactly one party.
  7. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    I'll concede this is to his benefit. I'll also argue CYA in this instance is good business. Humans are highly fallible so it is particularly understandable to have extra layers of review when government work is critical to your business.

    My issue is with some of these journalists ganging up to frame him as someone unable to handle criticism and actively trying to control the narrative. I'm not sure anyone enjoys legitimate criticism, but it's not the legit stuff he's railing against. He has faults and regularly owns up to his mistakes, but the other side receives criticism and responds with 'you don't understand how journalism works' without the slightest consideration they might bear a modicum of fault.
  8. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    So am I supposed to hate Elon now or what?
  9. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Oh so we're no longer talking about a real situation and are in hypothetical land. The answer is still the journalist. Me showing a journalist something that is covered under ITAR and isn't classified is in no way, shape, or form illegal. The journalist violating export control laws knowingly or not is illegal. I don't know how to make it any simpler. I'm subject to export control laws, you're subject to export control laws, my 1 year old child is subject to export control laws.
  10. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    I can own a radiography machine. I can give you a radiography machine. You can't give your radiography machine to your Iranian buddy. Export control. If you accidentally ship your Iranian buddy a radiography machine, you go to prison. Export control.
  11. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Absolutely not. He's the bestest of all humans.
  12. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    Slightly more evil than bin laden, but not quite trump.
  13. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Float, here's a real world example that addresses the point I think you're trying to make (everyday people who don't know how to spell ITAR can't possibly be subject to it).

    Cody Wilson was the guy that released the blueprints to create a 3D printed single shot firearm. Everyone hated him because he did this not long after Sandy Hook. The files were uploaded to a file share that was accessible by anyone in the world. The State Department ordered the immediate removal of those files as a violation of ITAR. Mr. Wilson took the files down and sued on the basis of his First Amendment rights being violated. He didn't win (I assume he's still appealing the ruling but couldn't find anything more recent than 2016). I'm sure this guy had never heard of ITAR before he uploaded the blueprints. He's not a defense contractor, he's really more of a hobbyist that has started a company 3D printing gun parts.
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I’m not in hypothetical land, you are. You seem to imply that you as the body, so long as you maintain your contacts to be non-foreign, have done all you need to do, and any violation is on someone else.

    I’d bet there isn’t a single charge that has stuck where an uninformed individual unknowingly violated.

    And I’d bet there are tons of examples where business was lost due to companies not explicitly protecting against violation.

    Do you think differently? Because if not, you’re in hypothetical land with all this “journalist and toddlers are responsible” nonsense.

    So you must think differently. Do you have examples?
  15. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    So no charges stuck?
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It’s probably a great business practice. It’s probably standard. I’d do it, because not doing it is hugely risky.

    But then would I get sanctimonious on Twitter?

    That’s the issue. Not the practice.
  17. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The guy made radio on the Internet, I mean payments on the internet.

    He’s a visionary!
  18. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Was a bad look.
  19. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    He does need to be better with his language and tone on Twitter. I'm not sure he fully understands potential impacts of what he says (although his humor is often wildly misapplied/misunderstood). Especially considering his role as multi-company CEO.

    And as bad of look this may have been, it pales in comparison to behavior of the media/'journalists' attacking him (including what he was responding to in this instance). They proved his point over and over again the past several days, including attempts to frame him as anti-semitic and anti-female (journalist). It was pathetic behavior and a great example of why he was riled in the first place. Still, he needs to focus more on his companies and shareholders.
  20. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    What’s the point in being a billionaire if you can’t tell a few people to [uck fay] off.

Share This Page