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.
Re:Law? (Score:5, Informative)
unlawful where exactly? Iran or the US?
I agree that this a question of where it is unlawful and may be a case of forum shopping, however certain countries have sanctions on what can be exported to other countries, a classic example being the USA restricting what can be exported to Cuba. A breach of this can be an offence if the country from where the equipment was sourced has such sanctions in place, or the corporate headquarters is in such a country.
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: (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 rel
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Troll)
Very easy discussion. Both countries had quite a bit of viking presence. Vikings were people who taught their kids how to be inherently cruel by forcing them to rip wigs off live birds at the age of three.
You can imagine how they treated their victims as adults. Actually scratch that, most modern people lack imagination to be able to. Being a viking thrall was probably one of the worst fates one could have across all times.
So yes, grand parent is completely correct in spite of that retarded flamebait mod. W
Re: (Score:2)
Very easy discussion. Both countries had quite a bit of viking presence. Vikings were people who taught their kids how to be inherently cruel by forcing them to rip wigs off live birds at the age of three.
I assume that the OP was talking about modern Sweden vs. the Republic of Congo (which would make sense, because, IIRC, neither country existed in Viking times).
Re: (Score:2)
> Denmark vs Burma.
Knowing several Danes, I would have to say Burma ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Simples.
Re: (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
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
One country can not be "better" than another.
That's some serious cultural relativism you've got going there. Would any sane person (which would exclude Kim Jong-Il) choose to live in North Korea, rather than moving with their family to pretty much any Western democracy?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Those are excellent examples you list there, of course. The continual placement of US-injected dictators all around the world is sure an issue, especially where US troops are stationed to protect their puppets. I assume you mean governments throughout the Balkans, eastern Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc, since those are the places where the US military continues to prevent
A formal apology to the Iranians would be nice... (Score:2)
...for starters, from POTUS and the Congress for what the US did to Iranians in 1953. Anything less is just posturing. In a perfect world, they could also press charges against the US officers and corporations that against the US laws of the time knowingly supported the crimes of the Sha regime. I pretty much doubt that the US Constitution and laws have or have had provisions for the authorization of the torture and murder of innocent people at will.
The current half assed job at "justice" that the US does s
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: (Score:2)
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.
Really? The US isn't a theocratic, totalitarian, oppressive, surveillance state much worse than Iran? You could have fooled me. We have millions in the US prison system most of whom are there for non-violent drug crimes. We have police at nearly every street corner who harass you for not conforming to social norms. We have a vocal religious group that controls at least part of our government at all times forcing inane laws like blue laws on everyone else. You may find moral superiority over the types
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1: Again, it was our grandparents and great grandparents generation that did that.
2: Dropping nukes on Japan was the more moral option for ending that war. Our other option was to firebomb every city and mount an invasion that would have killed tens of millions of Japanese instead of tens of thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
2: Dropping nukes on Japan was the more moral option for ending that war. Our other option was to firebomb every city and mount an invasion that would have killed tens of millions of Japanese instead of tens of thousands.
Imagine if we chose option 3:
3: Don't invade mainland Japan. Establish dominance around the area, but don't forget that in the end, it was an island.
Is it an attractive option? Perhaps not from the perspective of American retribution. We might not be in such a beneficial situation today
Re: (Score:2)
Erecting a permanent military occupation of the sea surrounding Japan:
A: does not end the war.
B: is technically impossible.
C: does not allow Japan to reform, rebuild and become one of the better nations on earth. Look at what happened when this same said tactic was used against North Korea. Its military dictatorship turned upon and subjugated its own people to slavery and starvation.
Re: (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 powe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Actually, the quoted text states that it was the delivery of the equipment that was unlawful:
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.
It's the Iranians that are accused of the "unlawful intercepting, monitoring, and filtering of electronic communications".
Re: (Score:2)
'...unlawful where exactly? Iran or the US?
They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.
That leaves Iran out......
Re: (Score:2)
They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.
Except all (read the introduction) [cia.gov] the UN sanctions against Iran are related with its nuclear program [dfat.gov.au]. That's a bit of a distance from interception/monitoring technology
(besides I really wouldn't expect Nokia or Siemens to conduct unlawful businesses, at least not unlawful under the Germany, Finland or Iran legislation)
"The Law" ? Post photos of trashed Nokias. (Score:2)
Re:Law? (Score:5, Informative)
In the country where Siemens is doing business.
I know that confuses things, but that's how it works. You want to do business here? Well, you've got to obey our laws. And our laws mean for Iran not have this technology. If you're going to be in the business of arming both sides in a global conflict, you've got to be prepared for some blowback.
Siemens has been doing this kind of stuff for a long while. They don't care who gets the tech as long as the money's green. That doesn't make them different from any other military contractor, except if you're going to make money providing strategic technologies to any and all comers, you've got to be ready to piss off their enemies.
I'm kind of happy when these transnationals learn that there might still be a few limits left. Not many mind you, but some.
Re: (Score:2)
In the country where Siemens is doing business.
I know that confuses things, but that's how it works. You want to do business here? Well, you've got to obey our laws. And our laws mean for Iran not have this technology.
That's logical enough, but it only works if the law actually states that it's illegal to withhold that specific technology from Iran. Is it?
Re:Law? -- US 15 CFR VII (Score:2)
Most people do not know it, but the United States has traditionally exerted strong controls over what may leave the country. Starting with prohibiting exports of long pine logs useable for masts and spars for the superweapons of 1790.
The laws are very complex, you can get a start here. [doc.gov]
US law is exactly as many complain: very intrusive, overreaching and extraterritorial. It can be a violation to allow people (even US citizens) born in different places to even _see_ certain technologies [deemed export].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My understanding, at least with US law (and this is grossly simplified) is that you merely have to prove that another person/entity damaged you without your consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Siemens has a long history of dealing with the worst of the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
mandatary you say?
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't.
Among other things, Iran has sovereign immunity.
Nokia may, however, be liable under other laws here in the US for aiding and abetting a terrorist regime. I'm pretty sure that Iran is on some sort of federal blacklist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forum shopping? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forum shopping? (Score:5, Informative)
. A few countries establish their own rights to hear international claims, known as universal jurisdiction [wikipedia.org] - thats claimed by the UK, France, Canada, and Australia for instance. I'm sure there's some nuance in the difference between Universal Jurisdiction and that created under the Alien Tort Statute that I don't know, but at it's essentially the same thing. The cases heard tend to relate to human rights issues. The Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain [wikipedia.org] reiterated their commitment to a test that considers international norms that are "specific, universal, and obligatory" but that's lead to it's own bundle of questions. [fjc.gov]
Short answer, yup they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Team America was a warning, not a manual!
Virginia (Score:2)
Siemens has offices in Virginia, at least in Newport News, maybe other places. Not sure what they do there, I just figured they were contracting at places like the Northrop-Grumman shipyard, Jefferson Lab, and NASA-Langley that we have around. Regardless of the merits of claims of "lawfulness," I suspect that as Siemens has a presence here that they might be liable for violating sanctions the US has in place against Iran. Expect them to lose some contracts here, if nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Cue the simple minded Congressman to hold up all sorts of legislation until Siemens is specifically legally shielded.
Re: (Score:2)
Rob Whittman, the Rep from 1st District has a couple of advanced degrees related to environmental science (but he's a Republican... what's up with that?), not like the bitch he replaced (also an R) who was a college drop out with a real estate license who could barely string two sentences together. I've met him numerous times. I'd hardly say he's simple-minded. We actually got rid of the worst, most stupid Reps in the last election here (no more Thelma Drake from 2nd District!!)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you can be an environmentalist and not be a Democrat at the same time.
In PR terms, Nokia is already losing. (Score:2)
Swedish company? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like it was all over the news and caused an outrage among citizens and foreigners alike.
Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
The case boils down to suing any available target, and the Iranian government isn't available.
The Iranian resistance movement is going to suffer either way, but unlike the more courageous Jihadists, they are playing at change instead of killing their opponents.
The bar has been set by the devout Muslims who run the show. The less devout sort who want a piece of the pie will need to kill for it.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm
I believe it is possible to be bound by US law, even though both the buyer and the seller are outside of the USA. The US maintains a list of countries that certain technology areas cannot be exported to. I believe the definition of exported is based on where the technology was first developed / patented.and not manufactured / assembled. Given the sheer amount of cross licensed technologies in the communications industry, it is entirely possible that the Nokia-Siemens monitoring equipment contains tec
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."
Re:Because they can (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
An American embargo doesn't matter either, because nothing was sold by an American company
I work for a European company and we would definitely get into a lot of trouble with the US DOD if we violated US export restrictions. We have to stay in business, which means dealing with the US.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I assume by "openly states its goal to wipe another country" you mean, wipe another country off the map, namely Israel. Learn to read. Once that step is complete, progress to step 2, reading the actual speech people like you love to misquote. Never said it, never said anything close to it.
You think Iran is "bad" for tapping all phone communications? Get on your us landline or cell and start making credible threats against your government, government buildings, or the president himself. Make sure this i
Re:Because they can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said on October 26 at that World Without Zionism conference.
He said, "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world, and God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionists."
Who are these "sane" people who want a democracy overthrown by a theocracy? Dude, you need to get out more and experience a diversity of opinion instead of the old echo chamber.
Not to be an apologist to that kind of regime, but (Score:3, Interesting)
"sophisticated equipment for unlawful intercepting, monitoring, and filtering of electronic communications "
Unlawful export, I would understand. That would probably violate some or other US law, if there were components, exported from the US used in those products.
But unlawful monitoring? What would the logic behind this be?
Re: (Score:2)
Unlawful export, I would understand. That would probably violate some or other US law, if there were components, exported from the US used in those products. But unlawful monitoring? What would the logic behind this be?
Well it makes no sense, but then again laws against devices to circumvent DCMA / copy protection devices make no sense either. It would be nice to think it works both ways, but I suspect that will not be the case...
Re: (Score:2)
The same logic that allowed the allies to try and execute Nazi officers after WWII under ex post facto "war crimes" rules which hadn't existed in the first place, when they were following orders from superiors in keeping with official government policy (thus, the holocaust was "lawful" in Germany and occupied territories)? Not to Godwin the thread or anything, but the situation is one of guaranteeing a morally correct outcome even if technically what your doing is violating the spirit and letter of your le
Re: (Score:2)
There is no parallel here. The Nuremberg trials had a legal foothold in the international and military laws of the time (beginning with the Hague conventions). Besides, they were conducted by an international tribunal, against the military leaders of Germany.
Even the so called "Subsequent" Nuremberg trials (during which the US prosecuted various companies and individuals who allegedly assisted the Nazi regime) were conducted under the powers of the US occupational authority, and, if memory serves, were limi
They all do it! (Score:5, 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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conformists are the new Dissidents (Score:2, Interesting)
Totalitarian regimes are, by and large, quite benign. They only start getting heavy handed if you attack or subvert the power structures. In some countries it may well be the least worst option. While there was a compelling case for attacking Iran, making the same mistake over Iraq by sabre rattling, spreading hysterical libertarian arguments in the so-called "free press" in the West, and fermenting trouble on the ground can be counter productive.
A large part of Iraq's problems are recovering from historica
"severely tortured"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like having to watch the same 4 Hanna Montana episodes for 48 hours straight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I sympathize but I think he'll lose. (Score:2)
Just because wire-tapping functionality is built-in, doesn't mean you should use it to enforce a totalitarian regime. I think Nokia could easily argue that this was not the original intent and purpose of the equipment.
Just because a length of rope can be used for strangling someone, that doesn't mean that the rope manuf
Re: (Score:2)
ON the other hand, if someone (someone all over the news and wanted for attempted hanging) walks into your rope store and says they need help selecting rope and tying nooses because he is having trouble hanging people to death, and you knowingly provide that rope and knotting skill, then you have also committed a crime of conspiracy to murder. aiding and abetting and possibly a few other crimes as well.
Legal wranglings (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legal wranglings (Score:5, Funny)
I sometimes wonder if the lawyers on both sides of a legal conflict have secret meetings about how to get as much money as possible out of their clients.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best part about that; It's not against the law. Damn, I should have been a lawyer..
Illegal Where? (Score:2)
Was it illegal in Iran for their government to purchase the gear? Surely Nokia - Seimens has international divisions. Are they bound by US law when all of the elements of a transaction are conducted outside the US?
I'm not suggesting that it was not an evil deed to sell this gear to the government of Iran but whether it was actually illegal is entirely another question. And just why did they file suit in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later, the Iranian government too will learn how to use phrases like "war is peace!", "for freedom!", etc.
I think they already know that game
"The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship," said Ahmadinejad at the inauguration ceremony
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/22/world/main6794753.shtml
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible. The US police force is seriously under-funded and may be less of a disincentive to criminals than in other countries. So people living in america may be less likely to decide not to do a crime they really, really want to do.
It's perfectly possible. A better question would be, "How could we possibly make it impossible?" I'm pretty sure that i
Re:Please remind me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, wouldn't calling Ahmedinijhad a Muslim who's going to destroy Iran just be stating basic facts? ;-)
as a counterpoint (Score:2)
i think plenty of countries with lower prison rates than the usa look at some of the out of control crime on their streets and in back rooms, and do not exalt in how superior their society is, but wish they could build some more jails and clean up their society too
the usa has plenty of problems. and jailing someone for smoking a marijuana joint is clearly wrong and stupid. but if you have a well-functioning criminal justice system, you're going to catch more criminals. it's that simple
i mean real, genuine t
hilarious troll is hilarious (Score:2)
however, i would rather live in a country concerned with the rights of women as EQUALS, rather than a society that treats its women like cattle
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
just when you thought you heard it all (Score:2)
we live in a world, including the usa, where women are paid less, treated like cattle, have acid thrown on their face because they don't submit to some asshole, are prostituted out or married off in their early teens, or otherwise dominated and abused. this is incredibly fucking obvious
but you present us the opposite. that women somehow rule
ok! pffffft
all your words mean to me is you have some sort of gigantic personal issue
did a high school girlfriend drop you like a hot potato? is the alimony too high in
Re: (Score:2)
OK. Now ask yourself this question: what does any of that have to do with a Finnish company selling wiretap-capable equipment to Iran?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... discrimination on the basis of nationality... isn't there a work for that... ummm... racism?
Not in the english language, that word would be nationalism. But hey feel free to conflate race with national origin. Oh and the mods who had modded you insightful, put down the pipe.