A License to Chat

The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) should clarify its position regarding the legality of Microsoft's offering its instant messenger service within Iran. As a result of ambiguities within OFAC's guidelines on Iran sanctions, Microsoft Corporation voluntarily withdrew its Windows Live Messenger program from Iran in late 2008. Preventing such a potentially valuable resource from being downloaded does not inhibit the Iranian government from accomplishing any of its goals, but it does impede the ability of ordinary Iranians to communicate. One solution is simple and effective: OFAC's director should issue a general license to Microsoft to allow Windows Live Messenger to be made immediately available to the Iranian people.

According to OFAC's guidelines on sanctions for Iran, "the receipt or transmission of postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other personal communications, which does not involve the transfer of anything of value, between the United States and Iran is authorized." In addition, "informational materials" such as films, tapes, compact discs, and news wire feeds are also allowed. From these and other similar items on OFAC's list, it is reasonable to assume that online messenger services should be allowed, since they clearly fall under the "personal communications" and "informational materials" rubrics.

Microsoft explains, however, that though the "personal communications" aspect of Windows Live Messenger is authorized, the downloadable software required for operating the service is not. Windows Live Messenger falls between two seemingly contradictory policies: on the one hand, Messenger is used for personal communication, and is therefore allowed. On the other hand, using Messenger requires that the program's relevant "valuable" software be downloaded. Microsoft is nervous about the potential legal liability for carrying out activities in Iran, and has therefore decided to err on the side of caution, and understandably so.

Windows Live Messenger is of negligible value to those groups -- the Iranian government and military -- which are the targets of U.S. sanctions. Allowing Windows Live Messenger to be available in Iran would not benefit the government. Even if Iranian authorities access the programming code that runs Windows Live Messenger, it will not provide the government with any sensitive, or even particularly useful, technology. Messenger's true value lies in its ability to facilitate the Iranian peoples' communication with each other and the outside world--something they desperately need.

Social networking services greatly enhanced the organizing and communications abilities of the Iranian opposition movements both during and after June's disputed election. The U.S. government has acknowledged the utility of social networking sites for the Iranian democracy movement. The State Department asked Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown due to its prominent use in the post-election protests. The U.S. government viewed Twitter as facilitating personal communication and informational material.

What is more, there is no more basic founding principle of the United States than the notion that individual freedoms must be promoted and protected. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both present the construction of a free society as the most important foundational principle of the United States. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin once said, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country." A belief that people, regardless of nationality, should be allowed to organize, speak and generally conduct their lives as they see fit is at the center of American domestic and foreign policy. Consequently, it is only consistent with American values and ideals to promote these same freedoms to people around the globe who need them most.

By hewing to the letter, rather than the spirit of US sanctions, OFAC is unintentionally aiding President Ahmadinejad, Supreme Leader Khamenei and the IRGC in their efforts to limit the ability of the Iranian people to organize demonstrations and communicate with the rest of the global community. Limiting the ability of citizens to communicate is one of most effective tools that totalitarian governments have for controlling the flow of information and preventing opposition movements from gaining supporters.

President Obama, referring to the Iranian election in June, said "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." It is time for the U.S. government to stand with the Iranian people not only through rhetoric but also action. An important symbol of U.S. support would be to state unequivocally that anything that helps the Iranian people speak out against repression has the support of the US Government.

Comments

[BiBiJan]

I wonder what online chat service the 80% or so supporters of Iran's current system of government use.

According to University of Maryland's WorldPublicOpinion.org survey in Aug 2009:

"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=

[wereeverywhere]

You can tell how popular the theocracy is by how they brutalize and censor their own people. One small part of the clampdown is shutting down various computer networks to stifle free speech- that you'd dare try to paper over IRI's patent abuse with that flimsy poll is disgusting and absurd given that this thread is about the cyber attacks of IRI on its citizenry.

The worldpublic opinion poll was a telephone survey conducted during a political clampdown- where even former vice-presidents were dragged to Evin. 1,003 people (!) were asked sensitive political questions-

http://kamangir.net/2009/09/20/world-pubic-opinion-poll-ahmadinejad-is-legitimate/

* A total of 1,003 interviews were completed; the interview refusal rate was 52 percent.
* …one in four respondents refused to answer the question about who they voted for in the presidential election…
* …Asked how they would vote if the election were held again, half say they would vote for Ahmadinejad….

[BiBiJan]

Telephone surveys are perfectly valid if numbers are randomly generated, and over 90% of Iranian households have a phone.

1003 sample size is par for the course. Those numbers establish a statistical significance that stand on their own.

When 40% do NOT "approve of the system by which a body of religious scholars has the capacity to overturn laws they deem contrary to the Koran" , of which 25% express opposition, and 40% are not " comfortable with the extent of [supreme leader's] power", most people would accept the sample's other responses not to be a result of dread and fear which you constantly impugn the character of Iranians with.

[wereeverywhere]

Why do shills for IRI expect us to be as gullible as they are? Another source critiquing the same poll: http://www.thenewestdeal.org/2009/09/poll-finds-81-of-iranians-view.html

So when a former Vice-President (and cleric) is paraded onto live television and forced to "confess" to his cooperation with "western agents," is it really so hard to imagine that the average Iranian would lie to a pollster out of fear and intimidation? Surely that is exactly what the regime's crackdown was meant to do: terrify and intimidate people. People are undeniably scared. Scared to trust their neighbors, scared to trust each other, and yes, probably scared to trust an unfamiliar, strange voice who calls from abroad to ask if they believe in the legitimacy of a coup government. If there was ever an example of a Western, myopic, and ivory towers detachment from reality, this would be it.

In a related story, 73% of statistics are made up.

[BiBiJan]

There can be no equivocation when it comes to condemning the Iranian government's handling of the post election riots. Whether it is in Seattle, London, Paris, LA, or Tehran, excessive use of force is a crime that should be investigated.

Show trials, and the specter of patriots forced into ridiculous confessions only goes to show abuse of power, insecurity and immaturity. Also, it is counterproductive. The Iranians I know, not only would not be intimidated, they would regard it as a call to further action.

However, this is not the whole picture. There is an unrelenting focus in MSM about everything that is wrong, while all else is ignored (this where I fail to see what value you add to existing 100% negative portrayal of Iran in MSM). Not a single flight into and out of Iran was canceled during the protests. Many hundreds of thousands of protesters were unmolested. This is not a picture of a country locked down by fear and dread of unspeakable brutality. This is a picture of a people sickened by episodical acts of barbarity, who will ultimately succeed in their demands for better government behavior.

Poll after poll shows a majority support for the system of government. All polls should be taken with a grain of salt, but they should not be completely ignored as they seem to be in the MSM, hence why I occasionally bring it up.

[Ferrarilegal]

Microsoft, even aside from the downloadable software aspect, risks far too much in making the messenger available to Iran under the sanctions program. For example, as you will notice in the Iranian Transactions Regulations (ITR) there are provisions prohibiting material assistance to would be violators of the ITR. As such, Microsoft by providing the platform through which individuals could exchange technical data, facilitate purchases, etc., exposes themselves to civil and criminal liability for violation of the material assistance provisions. Although, I have not seen any such specific cases, in theory it would be possible, and therefore if I were Microsoft's counsel I would advise them to not risk it.

This was the topic of an article that I was quoted in back in June right. Here is the link to that article: http://www.itworld.com/internet/69145/should-facebook-twitter-follow-im-providers-and-block-access-us-enemies

Now, did OFAC miss a golden opportunity by not issuing a General License in June of this year? Very likely so, however, its debatable how quickly the Iranian regime would have shut access to the messenger service, much in the way it did with facebook and twitter.

Great post and its good to see people thinking about these issues and their impact more seriously. I write on OFAC administered sanctions on my blog over at www.sanctionlaw.com.