Comments on: On the Internet You Can Be From Anywhere You Want

By: Edward Hasbrouck

Edward Hasbrouck — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:47:06 +0000

Earlier this year, Charles Schwab Bank froze my account (refused to honor checks, and refused to accept deposits, both paper and electronic) after I tried to check my balance on their Web site from a Syrian IP address.

It was some time before I found out what had happened. (Schwab claims they mailed a snail-mail notice to my home address in the USA, even though I hadn’t bene home in months and receive my statements electronically.) Only after I had left Syria (which Schwab “verfied’ by calling me at a Turkish land-line telephone number, which of course could have been forwarded to anywhere) was I able to get the acocunt unfrozen. I still haven’t been able to get them to notify credit bureaus that my transactions were blocked in error.

Any advice on what laws they might have violated by doing this, or what recourse I might have. (Complaint to the Comptroller of the Currency, perhaps?)

I had notifed Schwab in advance of my intent to travel to Syria. I had read their customer disclosures, whihc make no mention of any sanctions by Schwab except those *required* by OFAC regulations, whihc this clearly wasn’t. I had gone to considerable lengths to avoid having any financial dealings with the government of Syria or government-owned entities (or any other “specially designated nationals” in Syria). And I had been able to withdraw funds from an ATM in Syria (of a private, non-Syrian — I was later told they route transactions via a private line to Lebanon, although my Schwab Bank statement correctly showed the address of the ATM in Syria) without incident.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:23:03 +0000

OFAC’s notion that information that qualifies under the Berman Amendment as amended by the Free Trade in Ideas Act must already be in existence is contrary to the explicit language of the conference report that accompanied the Free Trade in Ideas Act which explicitly rebuked OFAC’s narrow interpretation of the Berman Amendment.

OFAC is a rogue operation, disinterested in following the law. Given some case law that recognized that state government agencies could be considered to be racketeer controlled enterprises, there is at least a cognizable argument that OFAC is a RICO enterprise and that its operators are subject to RICO liability.

By: SW

SW — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:26:39 +0000

Intrestingly, MediaShift’s article says the following,

“After getting error messages while trying to download Google Talk, Gmail Notifier, and Chrome, Allaou wrote that he “figured out 100% that Google censored Syria from taking advantage of their programs.”

Allaou, please see URL and scroll to country list for supported telecom providers in: Syria, Sudan, and Cuba for “Calendar”.

http://www.google.com/support/calendar/bin/answer.py?answer=37226&topic=15302#S

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:57:21 +0000

If the “service” is the provision of information then its exempted under the Berman Amendment. The glitch here is the provision of information in an interactive fashion. OFAC thinks, arguably incorrectly, that interactive provision of information isn’t covered by the Berman Amendment and thus is a prohibited provision of service.

By: jd

jd — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:46:13 +0000

What about the prohibition on providing “services” to Iran? Allowing an Iranian to access Google Earth, Gmail, Yahoo, any other web service, etc. may be interpreted as providing “services” to Iran which is prohibited under the Iranian Transactions Regulations. Any thoughts?

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:40:50 +0000

Mike, I knew you would jump in with that! I agree with you that OFAC’s narrow interpretation of the Berman Amendment is on shaky ground, but it is what it is and some companies may prefer to abide by OFAC’s interpretation rather than fight it.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:05:28 +0000

Why should they block access? Information, not just informational materials, are excluded from OFAC and BIS authority unless controlled under Section 5 or 6 of the long expired Export Administration Act.