Nokia Siemens Sued For Providing Monitoring Equipment To Iran 275
Just over a year ago, we found out that Nokia Siemens provided internet monitoring equipment to Iran. Now, reader Tootech sends in news that the company is being sued by an Iranian journalist who was captured with the help of that equipment. From El Reg:
"Isa Saharkhiz went into hiding following Iran's 2009 presidential elections, after publishing an article branding the Grand Ayatollah as a hypocrite who was primarily responsible for vote tallies widely regarded as being fraudulent. According to a complaint filed in federal court in Virginia, officials with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Iran tracked him down with the help of cellphone-monitoring devices and other eavesdropping gear provided by Nokia Siemens. 'Defendants knowingly and willingly delivered very capable and sophisticated equipment for unlawful intercepting, monitoring, and filtering of electronic communications ("Intelligence Solutions") to Iranian officials,' the complaint alleged. ... According to the document, Saharkhiz has been severely tortured since his arrest. He was held in solitary confinement for more than 80 days, and his ribs were broken in a struggle during his arrest. The complaint said it may be amended to add as many as 1,500 other political prisoners who are being held under similar circumstances. Additional defendants may also be added."
Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
'Defendants knowingly and willingly delivered very capable and sophisticated equipment for unlawful intercepting, monitoring, and filtering of electronic communications ("Intelligence Solutions") to Iranian officials,' the complaint alleged.
Not to diminish in any way what this journalist has been through...unlawful where exactly? Iran or the US?
Sounds a bit like suing Heckler and Koch because they sold a gun to the government that provided it to the cop that used it to shoot you when the situation didn't warrant it.
good for the goose (Score:3, Insightful)
Until our governments and police forces stop using this invasive technology we can't expect others to do so.
Forum shopping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because they can (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the United States can "embargo" a Swedish company from selling things to another country. I am also not sure it's against the law in Iran for the government to intercept any kind of communication. Don't they pretty much have totalitarian rule over there? I thought the government could pretty much do whatever it wanted?
I don't really understand this case. US Law does not apply in Iran, nor does it apply in Sweden (unless you're an American citizen, in which case you can be charged with breaking US law in another country).
I think we need more details.
Re:Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so confused.
Relax, cool down. Nokia-Siemens sold them because every government asks them to [bbc.co.uk]; and providing what your customers want is good for business:
"Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
Please remind me... (Score:1, Insightful)
How many people are in US jails right now?
What country in the world has the biggest surveillance program know to man?
What country has been found spying on its own people?
In percents, what country has the largest amount of people in jail?
In what country has torture been declared perfectly legal?
What countries has been involved in torture in conjunction with electronic surveillance?
What country has sentenced people to death based on evesdropping?
Also ask yourself these questions:
Are americans much more probable to commit crimes than any other people, in the whole world?
Is it possible some people currently in US jails are innocent?
Is it totally impossible a part of these are in essence political prisoners?
They all do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the US has managed to do it to a Finnish company [www2.hs.fi], so there.
Re:Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but the quoted text states that it was the electronic monitoring that was unlawful, not the act of exporting the equipment needed to do so.
Nevertheless, since Iran bashing seems to be the latest trend I'd like to suggest a deal. The US bitches at Iran at for electronic surveillance, and the EU does it for the torture, and we both conveniently ignore our own little forays into these fields.
Re:What is the difference? (Score:1, Insightful)
Legal wranglings (Score:4, Insightful)
"Lawful Intercept" is required (Score:5, Insightful)
You are totally right: The LI (Lawful Intercept) interface is a required part of all relevant telecomms standards, i.e. you cannot manufacture/sell a GSM/3G/LTE setup which doesn't have that LI interface.
Terje
(Currently working on the architecture of a large national cell phone network.)
Re:Law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can I count on equal support if I stone your girlfriend/wife/daughter(s) to death ? (slowly of course)
Hey at worst I'd be as bad as the current Iranians you're defending. I just wonder how far this defense of the indefensible goes. I wonder, if I were to kill you, and claim I'm doing it for my beliefs whether or not you'll push your own arbitrary moral values on me or not.
This post is an attempt at using sarcasm to call you out on your support for, e.g. stoning gays, religious genocide, oppressive state religions and the like. And let's not pretend that it's anything else that you're supporting.
Re:Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
US telcomms, whose NSA collaboration almost certainly exposed at least a few people to extralegal detention and torture, were specifically granted immunity for any collaboration that might have occurred.
While I don't doubt that we'd like another chance to stick it to Iran, and emphasize their repressive-theocratic-hellhole characteristics, I can't imagine the US being too enthusiastic about a precedent that makes corporate collaboration with a surveillance state legally problematic....
Re:Please remind me... (Score:4, Insightful)
All completely irrelevant since in the US some americans call their president "a muslim that's going to destroy america" and they're never arrested which is going much further then this journalist did.
In fact you are just being a hypocrite, if you had posted this from Iran about Iran then you'd be screwed over like the journalist so I don't see how you can draw any comparison between the two.
All your post really attempts to do is distract people from actual censorship issues and the slashdot mods have bought into it hook, line and sinker.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me as flamebait if you like but ... (Score:1, Insightful)
AT&T (American company) provide monitoring equipment to the American government - get all manner of legal protection.
Nokia (not American company) provide less sophisticated tech to Iranian government - get charged.
Ummm... discrimination on the basis of nationality... isn't there a work for that... ummm... racism?
Re:Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please remind me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please remind me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweden vs the Republic of the Congo. I think you can say one is better.
Denmark vs Burma. Discuss.
Re:Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
The quoted text says it was the supply of the monitoring equipment. The actual monitoring took place in Iran and is presumably legal according to the laws of Iran.
Only the supply of the equipment used to perform the monitoring can be unlawful outside Iran.
Re:Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting ethical issue. Does everything you've ever done preclude you from every having a moral position in the future? If I robbed a bank in my youth, does that mean I can never say that robbing a bank is a bad thing?
I'm not inclined to attribute morality to corporate entities or nations, but I'm not sure I accept the argument "You did X, so you can never again hold position Y". Better to accept that nations, like corporations, are designed to do whatever they think is in their best interest at the time. It's what they do. Short of much greater global governance, it's going to stay that way.
Re:Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not even that. Our great grandparents made a bonehead mistake 60 years ago by overthrowing Iran.
The US has some shitty policy and has for a long time, but we are not as much of theocratic, totalitarian, oppressive, surveilance state as Iran is.
We need to do way better than we are, but on no measure can I say that Iran has any moral superiority.
Re:"Lawful Intercept" is required (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but you can't say it with any kind of moral authority if you keep robbing banks over and over again. Iran isn't the only example.
Re:Because they can (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your third option was not an option, and it wasn't even considered.
The sheer brutality of the Japanese overlords in Asia dictated that they be brought to their knees. Had the allies not done it at the time, it is quite likely that China and/or Korea would have done so soon after. Not to mention all the other offended parties throughout the Pacific and Asian theaters of war.
Japan had some karma coming to them, one way or the other, from one set of powers or another. America was on the scene, with the power and the tools to get the job done, so we went ahead and did it.
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korea has a Dear Leader loved by nearly the entire populace; many outsiders feel this must be due to brainwashing.
US has a president hated by roughly half of our populace (and hated nearly rabidly by a smaller subset), and believed to be loved by roughly the other half. (Ignoring those who say "Meh, NotBush" and neither love nor hate him.)
Given that in the US you can express disapproval of the president and his policies without getting "reeducated" or shot, I think it's clear that one country is better than the other. =D
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the people in one country are literally starving while it builds up militarily. They are not allowed to come and go as they please. They are not allowed to access the internet.
Is it really that hard, Wyatt? Or is this more anti-US government tea party silliness?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our system usually manages to right itself even if often slowly and sometimes at great cost. Iran's? No empirical evidence of that same tendency so far.