Visa and MasterCard, for a start: if a bank issues any kind of commonly accepted debit card to someone who is sanctioned then what is at stake is that bank's ability to continue issuing those cards. Realistically, the bank would be destroyed by being excluded from payment networks and card issuance. So only very little banks that don't interact with anything American (you might manage this with a credit union in the UK, potentially) would be your best bet.
That sort of sanctioning is world-wide, isn't it? Not specifically targeting EU banks, but rather she's blacklisted from any bank in the world who follows those blacklisting lists, at least from what I understand it.
Parent's comment gave me the impression that this was something exclusive to EU (and Swiss) banks in particular, since they were mentioned by name.
I'm not sure, skimmed the article and came across this:
> She cannot open a bank account anywhere in the world or have a credit card, because she has been placed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of the U.S. Treasury Department, which targets money laundering and terrorism.
Are you saying this isn't true then? She's not actually on OFAC, but instead just targeted via Visa/MC?
The OFAC apply to US companies only and forbid VISA/MasterCard to manage her transactions (and a LOT of others companies ... like a lot, not just Visa and MasterCard).
Legally Europeans bank shouldn't apply US sanctions, maybe they do, but legally, they should not (CJUE thing, I'm not an expert). I don't think it ever happen, because ... money launder generally doesn't complains about US sanction, it's wasn't a problem.
When it comes to this kind of thing, an injury to one is an injury to all and we need to not tolerate it. At minimum, we need regulations guaranteeing that Visa and MasterCard, as well as participating banks, aren't allowed to debank anyone without judicial oversight. Make the same true of apps: call it a Banking Access Tribunal.
It doesn't. I don't know if she's an antisemite, but unless the bank dumps her for being one and an Italian judge agrees that they're allowed to for that reason, this is a clear result of foreign political influence.
Calling the UN special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories a "vile antisemite" sounds a lot like trolling, though.
First of all you need to provide some proof because being against a genocide is not antisemitic. Hating Israel is not antisemitic even if Bibi wants you to believe that.
Second of all, what happened to free speech? In fact I can list several actual antisemites currently operating freely in the US political discourse who are gathering larger and larger audiences. Why aren't they being sanctioned?
It's fair to assign the blame for actions of the executive branch of the US government to Trump while he holds the office of president. The policy of sanctioning people for being too critical of Israel required his assent whether or not he made the call to apply it in this case or delegated that to a subordinate.
Especially problematic is that her actions would be unambiguously protected speech under US law if she did them in the USA.
Condemning the 7/Oct attacks as an unacceptable act of terrorism is "being a mouthpiece of Hamas"!!! Fucking _disgusting_, and many stronger words I'm trying my best to contain.
We're reaching levels of wretchedness that I've never thought possible. Truly no shame anymore.
This is her statement essentially saying Israel bombed a hospital that we now know as close to a fact as we can, that they did not and that in fact it was a palestinian rocket that fell on the hospital.
But lets say we can't know that for a fact.
She was still parroting Hamas's line without any ability to validate the statement.
This statement amongst many demonstrates that UN "Experts" have zero credibility in the statements they make.
If the best case you can make for your position is a retracted statement from over two years ago, consider that perhaps your position is not as strong as you think.
Anyway
> On Friday 13 October, Israel ordered hospitals and the population of northern Gaza to evacuate to southern Gaza. Because of insufficient beds in the southern Gaza Strip and no means of transporting patients, such as newborns in incubators or patients on ventilators, the evacuation orders were widely regarded as impossible to comply with.
> The Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem stated the hospital had received at least three evacuation warnings from the Israeli military on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.
After repeated warnings of imminent Israeli shelling, the immediate explanation for an explosion killing half a thousand people if obviously Israeli shelling. After a more thorough investigation, new facts come to light.
But regardless, all of this is moot! In what conceivable way are extra-judicial reprisals for opinions or public speeches an acceptable state of affairs in a democracy? This is what is being discussed, not the particulars of Albanese's reports.
I'm responding to "being a mouthpiece of Hamas" that you reject. This is one case out of many where she parroted their line completely without any critical thinking. Hence, why I think its a fair statement.
With all that said, I doubt (be happy to be proven wrong) you complained at all when europe and the US "extra-judicially" sanctioned Israelis (I personally don't care that they got sanctioned). Heck, I'd hazard to say that you would welcome "extra-judicial" sanctions on many Israelis. You believe its a "genocide", so if the only available tool to stop the "genocide" is extra-judicial sanctions, would you really say "no, we can't do that!". I don't believe you would.
Or what about all the russian oligarchs that have been sanctioned. did that bother you to say anything? Again, doesn't bother me that they got sanctioned, but if you want to die on the "extra-judicial" hill, I believe you are going to get buried by all the bodies of all the sanctions you ignored that you tacitly supported.
as an aside your "obvious" explanation, was obviously not true in retrospect, so why was it so obvious that one had to make a statement that one in retrospect obviously did not have the information to make. to me its just as obvious that she doesn't care about the truth.
yes, it's bad to bomb hospitals, but before you go all gotcha, war is bad in general, that doesn't mean war is always wrong or evil and what occurs in war is always evil or wrong. If the enemy is using a hospital as cover to fire at you, it's bad that one has to perform attacks that put it at risk, but its not evil.
We know for as close to a fact that we can get that gazan hospitals were used as cover. (bbc, nytimes et al reported from under hospitals in places that Hamas used for shelter and stored weapons and equipment)
But what is especially evil, is accusing people wrongly when you knowingly accuse them when you know you have no ability to validate your accusation. Which is clearly the case with the accusations launched against Israel in regards to the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.
But to many people it doesn't matter, to paraphrase the word they made about on the Colbert Report, it's all about "truthiness", one doesn't really care if this thing is true or not, the fact that it feels true and fits with one's general perception of what's true or not and good or not, is all that matters.
I even might go a step further, those who accuse someone knowingly that they don't know the truth, bare moral culpability for bad thing the person they accuse does is the future.
It's human nature for someone accused of bad things falsely to simply not care in the future. "I tried my best to do right, but they falsely accused me, I am simply not going to put as much effort into doing right in the future, as it doesn't matter".
Personally, I disagree with that sentiment, and is very much part of my internal criticism at somethings that have occurred, but I also think its a very human reaction and therefore while it doesn't excuse those who do wrong because they simply don't care anymore and doesn't reduce their blame, it also places moral culpability on those who made the knowingly false accusations. Much like if I would falsely tell someone that "So and So killed your kid" knowing that it would make them go crazy and take revenge.
Life is complicated, and human reactions to the complications of life are complicated. But when an outsider inserts themselves into a complicated situation and presents lies about it in the name of "doing good", they might very much be evil.
Or to put it a bit differently, if one believes that that Bush Administration members were evil for spreading lies that led to the Iraq Invasion, why is Francesa Albanese and her cohort fundamentally different. Why are their lies better and more justified?
So Trump can support war criminals like Netanyahu, but when someone says Israel shouldn't colonize Palestine and practice appartheid, she becomes a mouthpiece of Hamas? Get your facts together.
You're the one advocating to help people whom not even their neighbours who share the same religion want nothing to do with it so I think you're the one who's joking
Just looking at the punctuation here makes it easy to guess you're fuming. No rational arguments, twisting the narration, moving goalposts and then frustrated because it doesn't work here, on HN.
You might want to find another outlet for that, why kick up the blood pressure this much?
Irrelevant. I'd prefer laws and the courts to decide punishment for transgressions, rather than the arbitrary whims of a quasi-fascist. I'm old fashioned, I know.
Ditch apps on your phone and pick banking that gives good, robust online banking. I was cut off by Starling for something similar and had to choose between a factory reset of my phone and my bank. I explained that my phone had free software on it, some of which I'd written, and it made no difference.
Apps are a tool of control and surveillance and it is time we stopped tying ourselves to them. Dumb phones or degoogled operating systems (like e/OS/) are probably the answer here.
I had rooted the phone and it gave me 90 days to reset with no extension at the end. I moved to the co-op bank, which is sufficiently old school that proper web based online banking is very important to them. Their products are a bit less advanced but I don't miss starling.
Ah. I've never come across this in the US - every bank I've seen also has a website. The only thing the apps do that the website won't is mobile check deposit typically.
They did indeed. I had to call customer services to get the account closed. The app being the only way to interact with the account, I was left without funds for days.
Not exactly a judge or jury. IIRC a common law assault can go on with only the subjective experience of threat. Hard to prove, but the bar is not objective. See:
True, although even those crimes (take common law assault) will still be heard in front of a magistrate - there's a process, there are processes for appealing, and it's not just some random police officer with the ability to jail you without process.
I agree that the UK has far too many laws that are more subjective than they ideally should be, but they do at least attach some level of observable and knowable process.
That would require the police to believe that an offence is likely to have been committed. While I am more than ready to criticise the police for many, many things, I'm not sure they're likely to just take that at face value... (As you've specified first contact, etc., that seems likely - of course there could be situations where such a communication would be an offence, such as in the context of a restraining/exclusion order, etc., but not in this case).
In the scenario which you've outlined, where you say "hello" to me, having never spoken to me before? No, I don't think that's an offence, but more to the point, whether I did or not, the police are unlikely to. We don't operate in a system where the police simply take the word of anyone who reports a feeling, the police have a duty to assess whether a crime has likely occurred.
Quite possibly. If they care a great deal about not contributing to training LLMs then they should still be aware of the fair use issue, because if the courts rule that it is fair use then there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. Any code that they publish, under any license whatsoever, would then be fair game for training and almost certainly would be used.
There isn't an explicitly anti-AI element for this yet but I'd wager they're working on it. If not, see their contribute page where they explicitly say this:
> Our incubator program also supports the development of other ethical source licenses that prioritize specific areas of justice and equity in open source.
Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.
I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead.
This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.
I've linked elsewhere to the Hippocratic License, which freely refers to itself as open source while specifically being built around refusing licensing based on ethical considerations. OSI don't own the term open source, and the simple and plain meaning of the term is clear to see. Otherwise, we wouldn't consider GPL software to be open source, because it attaches conditions on usage. That even applies to non-copyleft licenses like MIT which demand author attribution. The term open source is best read literally unless someone says "I want an OSI approved license".
The GPL places no restrictions on how you can run the software. All meaningful licenses place restrictions — or, conversely, limit the permissions they grant — on how the code can be used, distributed, integrated with other projects, etc.
But I disagree that the meaning of Open Source is malleable. As others here said, if we want to make a new definition, we should make a new term. In my opinion, in this case, we have. It’s Source Available, which is basically “look, but don’t touch”. And as with other brightly colored things in nature, it’s generally best to avoid it.
The OSD came out within months of the phrase "open source" first being used, and the phrase was coined as part of the same process of discussion that produced the OSD. It's not a natural phrase and does not have an obvious "simple and plain meaning". It's a term of art.
reply