最新报道：According to Coinnet, Brian Armstrong's recent announcement that Coinbase will begin requiring in-person employee onboarding and restricting certain positions to US citizens has raised questions about whether the company's new policies violate US anti-discrimination laws. In an interview with BeInCrypto, a Coinbase spokesperson clarified that the company is not adopting a blanket "US citizens only" policy. The changes are intended to combat North Korean hackers and will only affect positions with access to sensitive systems. North Korean Infiltration Threat Coinbase is preparing to adopt radical new security policies in response to the escalating threat from North Korean hackers. CEO Brian Armstrong announced last week that the company will reorient its operations to be more US-centric and restrict certain positions to US citizens only. The new policy mandates that all new employees participate in in-person onboarding. Additionally, employees working on sensitive systems must now be US citizens and undergo fingerprinting. The issues facing Coinbase are no small matter. As a leading centralized exchange, it has been a target of North Korean hackers. These state-sponsored threat actors have evolved their methods from traditional cyberattacks to a more insidious tactic: infiltration. This new approach involves North Korean operatives applying for remote Web3 and IT positions at cryptocurrency companies. They use deceptive identities and sophisticated social engineering to gain a foothold inside, enabling them to carry out large-scale thefts and funnel funds back to the regime. While the situation is serious, the announcement immediately sparked controversy and a core legal question: Do these policies, particularly the citizenship requirement, violate U.S. federal anti-discrimination laws? Can Coinbase defend its measures under existing law? At first glance, Coinbase's new policy appears to be in direct conflict with U.S. federal law. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally prohibits employers from discriminating based on a person's citizenship or immigration status. Given that the system is designed to ensure fair treatment of U.S. citizens, permanent residents, asylees, and refugees, a blanket "U.S. citizens only" rule for all jobs is likely unlawful. However, the INA does recognize several key exceptions. For example, federal law can allow employers to deny opportunities to individuals who do not meet specific national security requirements. This rule typically applies to positions that require a formal security clearance or access to classified information. Export control laws also prevent sensitive technology from falling into the wrong hands. The strictest of these is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which govern military and defense-related items. The broader Export Administration Regulations (EAR) cover "dual-use" items with both commercial and military applications. These laws do not mandate citizenship-based hiring. However, they can make it easier for companies to hire US citizens and avoid the complex process of obtaining special government permission to share technology with non-US persons. Finally, under federal contracts, companies may be required by law to hire only US citizens for certain positions. The core legal dilemma for Coinbase remains whether it can successfully argue that its security-driven measures fall within one of these permitted exceptions, or whether its approach sets a dangerous precedent for the tech industry. Targeted Policies, Not Blanket Bans Coinbase's initial announcement sparked speculation that the company was adopting a company-wide "US Citizens Only" hiring policy, which would be in direct violation of federal law. However, a spokesperson corrected this statement in an email exchange between BeInCrypto and Coinbase. This distinction suggests that the company is not relying on a specific federal statute to justify its policy. In fact, a spokesperson clarified that Coinbase's new security measures are not related to exploiting any legal exceptions provided by US federal law. Regarding mandatory in-person onboarding, Coinbase clarified that these events will be held at regional centers for non-US employees. While Coinbase's policy clearly avoids the most obvious legal pitfalls, it does enter a new, untested gray area. Beyond Recruitment: Protecting the Workforce Coinbase's position is based on the argument that the threat from North Korean actors is so severe that it warrants a measure that would otherwise be considered overly intrusive. It is essentially gambling that a court will find its security rationale compelling enough to outweigh the discrimination allegations. In defending its position, Coinbase situates its new measures within the context of a broader industry-wide shift. In line with this broader trend toward stricter identity verification, the company has also implemented a multi-layered security approach to address internal vulnerabilities. By indicating that its policy applies to both new and existing employees, Coinbase positions its measures as a comprehensive, rather than discriminatory, response to a threat that federal law may not have fully anticipated. Coinbase as a Test Case for the Cryptocurrency Industry The debate over Coinbase's policy represents a larger dilemma facing the industry as a whole. As state-sponsored actors and malicious groups grow increasingly sophisticated, companies are forced to implement security measures that blur the line between traditional hiring practices and national security. Given its widespread influence, Coinbase's response to these threats could set a precedent. The question is no longer whether companies can hire non-citizens. It also involves navigating the legal and ethical dilemmas of protecting themselves and their customers from these increasingly sophisticated attacks. While Coinbase has defended its actions, it remains unclear whether its model will set a new industry standard or become the first test case in a new era of legal battles.