Hey siscia,

MSFTie chiming in here. I'm probably the wrong person to speak to the "cloud backround check itself" but I can tell you that on multiple azure teams I've worked for, I've had the opportunity to work alongside Iranian, Nigerian, Australian, <take your pick of esoteric location>, citizens/peers. As such I'd be somewhat surprised if that was a hard prohibition.

Reading the official documentation here [0] I'm inclined to be confident in my assessment, the citizenship requirement seems limited to those working on USGovt clouds (there are similar fascinating rules for e.g. German cloud to conform with their regulations)

As always I'd encourage you to talk to a hiring manager to sanity check this statement, but I would simultaneously encourage you to not let US citizenship stop you from applying. MS (and I'd make a similar statement for other bigcos too, to be fair) always needs good people.

[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/enterprise/office...

They're conveying more information then the lack of a requirement for US citizenship. Iran is under embargo from the US government. Nigerians suffer a lot of discrimination in tech. These two examples were useful to me to illustrate that the job is actually not restricted by nationality, more then simply stating "not restrictive" would.

Can’t even be not-racist correctly these days. Is there any hope of this “find a reason to be offended” culture dying out or are we stuck with it forever?

"Be offended on behalf of someone" can die alongside as well. Point well made.

Maybe a small exception can be made when that other has little to no voice due to circumstances but it does not apply in this context. I've seen people from all nationalities express opinions on HN without worry.

In situations where one has little voice. Having someone more powerful speak for them usual results in them still having no voice but the person speaking for them can use this to further their voice.

We must allow others to use their own voice. Teach them.

In the past many of sins have resulted in assuming someone else's pain. The rich do gooder's action doesn't always help and frequency hurts.

I will give you an example. A shoe factory in India employing children and offering a dollar a day pay. Twitter campaign mounts company closes plant. Twitter folks rejoice and feel they have done good. But back in India everyone loses their job, the kids working were supporting sick parents who cannot work and get sicker. Children are forced into the sex trade. People on twitter are still rejoycing because no one followed up on the people they were speaking up for. In fact they were not speaking up for these workers they were speaking against the shoe company. After they caused the shoe company pain they didn't care about the rest.

The question becomes are you speaking for the voiceless or yourself? If the voiceless wanted to reduce immigration because they want to increase the chance of getting a good paying position would you share those voices if they didn't match your views/voice? Or would you try to mute that voice but increase the volume on some other aspect you believed in?

Speaking for someone else is probably a bad idea.

I believe there can still be examples where an opposite (as in one with positive impact) case can be made. Regardless, you have a point, thus I stress, exceptions are exceptions.

Offended as a Service is inevitable.

Name what offends you and have a company write Markov bot letters on your behalf as you are busy modern human being and time is important.

If people are trying to treat one another well, asking if anyone should be offended makes sense. The problem is the self-righteous criticism and censorship, not finding reasons to be offended. It's about attitude and action, not thought policing.

Funny; reading your comment vs the one you're replying to it seems like you're much more offended.

I am irritated, maybe even a little bit angry. Sad, disappointed, slightly defeated. Pensive. Introspective.

Offended, not at all.

Fair enough. Do you think the same could be said of the person you replied to and you assumed was offended?

Maybe splitting hairs, but "esoteric" isn't exactly the same thing as "exotic", and it can be taken as a placeholder for other countries not mentioned, rather than describing the ones who were. If, let's say, Eritrea or Lesotho were called "esoteric" is that offensive? The word "exotic" has a lot of connotations to me that could suggest stereotypes, whereas esoteric seems to me more just describing ignorance.

Nope.

Parent said esoteric, not exotic. Seems perfectly fine in this context. Unless you feel every country shares an equal mindshare across the world.

For what it's worth, "esoteric", meaning "understood only by a small number of people", doesn't really make sense in this context.

Sure it does. If you picked any random 1000 people, most would know more about Russia, Norway, or Finland than they would about Djibouti, Luxembourg, or Cypress. Wouldn't you agree?

Literally the only thing I know about Djibouti (without cheating now and looking at Wikipedia) is that the capital city is also named Djibouti.

Maybe the disagreement is between "known" and "understood" maybe?

This is also the most pedantic internet argument I've had in my life.

What's wrong with being exotic? If you spent your entire like on some small atoll in the Marshall Islands, somewhere like Shanghai or New York might very well be exotic.

I must have missed the Twitter outrage memo on exoticism. Besides, "esoteric" and "exotic" are different words.

Oh, come on. Your last sentence is correct, but "exotic" certainly has connotations that people have issues with before Twitter was invented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_fetishism

Merely saying something is exotic (if someone had) isn't equivalent to all the stuff on those pages, but it has those associations.

It depends. If it’s for govcloud related work(this isn’t only DoD), then you need to be a US Person which includes residents and citizens. You also need to be located in US territory. This is due the government requirements, not a Microsoft thing.

I work on azure compute on a core infrastructure team. I can say for certain that yes a cloud background check is required once you start on the team and this does not require citizenship. I know co-workers on many types of visas. This is a compliance measure. Azure is very into compliance.

For some of the other US gov stuff, Secret or Top Secret clearance is required. This does require citizenship and a lengthy clearance process. You will know if you’re doing this though as clearance is difficult to get so I’ve seen them hire a lot of people who already have clearance. These projects are for the most part separate from regular azure although they use the same technologies. Outside of PM these roles are mostly live site roles where access to control plane machines may be required to ensure proper operation of the platform.

No, not exactly. Unclassified US government work can require citizenship also.

A single statement from your linked site would have avoided this discussion entirely:

>A Microsoft Cloud Background Check is required for candidates hired as employees providing Office 365-related services in the United States.

Thats not worded confusingly in anyway, and its the first statement on the page.

My understanding is that Azure is attempting to compete with AWS in gaining business from US governmental agencies. This means emphasis on Gov Cloud, FedRAMP, and other constraints which would probably preclude foreign nations from working on those projects.

Usually US Citizen only gigs will involve government contracts, it's not the overall company policy, unless they're specifically focused on military contracts, just the requirements of the client. It makes sense. Microsoft has people all over though.

Edit:

By the way technically companies can hire non-citizens for contract work, but you have to prove that you couldn't fill the seat, which I don't know how likely that will be.

I’d imagine that with the DoD cloud contract they’ve got, only Americans that pass a background check would be allowed to work.

I hope this isn't a poor man's control for ITAR purposes.

>>>But the ITAR generally allows U.S. Persons to have access to ITAR controlled data, and defines a (natural) "U.S. Person" as "a lawful permanent resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)" or "a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3)." See 22 C.F.R. 120.15. Thus the ITAR does not restrict access to U.S. citizens only, but also generally allows access by non-U.S. citizens who fall within the following classes, among others:

Nationals of the U.S. (i.e., those born in the "outlaying" possessions of the U.S. meeting specified requirements, or individuals born of a parent who meet specified requirements); Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., "green card" holders); Certain refugees; and Certain asylum seekers.

> I noticed that all the position requires the "Microsoft Cloud Background Check"

Nope, you don't need to be a citizen for this.

>however it seems like it requires to be an US citizen.

Where did you read that? That is only true for Gov cloud related teams. But that requirement is mentioned in the job decription, imo.

When your company is big enough to do both private and government contract work, it will be inevitable to choose a compromise at some point. These things are like PoC software. You find the optimal solution by trial and error.

IMHO, I feel it would make perfect sense if they hire Americans to do the Government Cloud work, other areas , it should NOT be the case

If such a prohibition exists, then I assume it pertains to US government cloud solutions as others have also stated.

It's for govcloud stuff right?

I know someone who has passed that MS check and is not a US citizen.

> it seems like it requires to be an US citizen.

Where are you getting this information from ? The BG check is required as you will be exposed to US citizen's information/data and so a background check is required.

I'm not sure where you have seen the requirement that you must be a US citizen...