Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail 247
blindbat writes While back home in the U.S., a man working in the United Arab Emirates posted negative comments about the company he worked for. Upon returning to the country to resign, he was arrested and now faces up to a year in prison under their strict "cyber slander" laws designed to protect reputation.
basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an old-school feudal state mixing in a little bit of a hot modern idea, corporate oligarchy. The businessmen and sheikhs (many of whom are related) run the place, and jailing foreign workers if they get inconvenient is one of their main tools to retain control. Usually you don't hear about it because most of the workers aren't from the USA.
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Interesting)
UAE? Isn't that where they take your passport while you work there?
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that's common across the region; Saudi Arabia does it too. Seems a bit unnecessarily old-fashioned, since with computerized passport control these days you could keep someone from traveling by just flagging them in the computer, no need to actually confiscate the passport. But maybe keeping the physical passport is a better intimidation tool?
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood the whole 'take your passport' thing. I was under impression that if I show up at the US embassy, say that I am a US citizen, that my passport was forcefully taken from me, and I want to go home, they'll go through some checks and give me the documents I need to go back. No?
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Interesting)
And then you try leaving the country with a passport with no visa or entry stamp. Be prepared for a few hours of questioning.
Yes, I had that happen to me. I'm from an EU country that allows its citizens to have two passports. I traveled to Algeria for a week to help a customer install some telecommunications equipment, and had a visa. On arrival, the local manager took my passport (literally just took it out of my backpack while I was not paying attention), and told me I was needed for two weeks instead of one. I told him to fuck himself and booked a flight back home the next day. Upon exiting I had to explain why my passport didn't have an entry stamp or visa, and I simply told them that I had lost the passport but that my country allowed for two so I could freely travel. Took me half an hour to clear customs.
The manager was fired and my passport was Fedex'd back.
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, cool story. Still, the cynic in me wonders if that manager was fired because he didn't manage to take both of your passports :P
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a bit unnecessarily old-fashioned, since with computerized passport control these days
You're assuming that escape from UAE will be on a flight through a border control.
If you escape without passing through border control, having a passport will make it a damn sight easier to get INTO another country. The lack of an exit stamp from your last country might be a hassle at entry somewhere else, but a lot less of a hassle than not having a passport at all.
Slavery (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you might be thinking of Qatar where it's been in the news more recently regarding domestic slaves er I mean workers. Employers confiscate the passports, overwork, beat, and or assault the workers, don't pay them, and when they become a issue turn them over to the government to deport. If they try to leave on their own, guess what...they don't have any paperwork so they are just as screwed as if they remained.
http://www.theguardian.com/glo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Heres an article from 2009 which talks about similar things happening in Dubai.
http://www.independent.co.uk/v... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Kuwait also. Had to go there once upon a time (ten or eleven years back), they took my passport on arrival, and gave it back when they were ready to let me leave.
Needless to say, I haven't been back, and have no intentions of ever going back.
Re:basically how the UAE works (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Two things (Score:5, Interesting)
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
And separation of corporations from the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two things (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?
It's a tricky system to get right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.
This is straightforward, simple concept.
Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.
Re: Two things (Score:2)
When I use a Cisco voip phone from Japan through a VPN tunnel through California to phone Rusia, the ip will tell you are in California.
Interesting....
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.
The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice straw man, though.
Re: (Score:2)
But it IS illegal to destroy evidence. The second you do that, it becomes a crime. So if your burn a glove that was connected to a crime, that action becomes illegal. Totally legal actions, when taken in furtherance of a crime become illegal. And the use of a VPN you describe would be a crime.
No offense, but
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is concerns the poster's location. So if you post something in country X then you have to abide by country X's laws. It doesn't matter if you post through 20 proxies or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you know when the person is in some country or not. That's one of the reasons we have borders and databases. And if the guy is illegaly in some country, that is completely different kind of problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The existence of illegal actions do not prove that those actions are legal, whether they are done by a citizen or by a country.
Re: (Score:2)
once you no longer want to provide me with bed, food, room, TV, and other amenities that I wouldn't get in Russia :)
You mean amenities like Bubba who wants you to toss his salad?
Re: (Score:2)
That's already an issue, which is why clear jurisdiction is important. If I (Britain) write something in a Facebook (American) private message about liking the Dali Lama to another individual (German), but that message was forwarded to someone Chinese without me knowing and the content breached Chinese law (made up example), I then travel to HK for a holiday 5 years
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's one simple brute-force solution: create a world government. If one government runs everything, they get automatic jurisdiction over everything, and have one universal set of laws to apply everywhere.
Which, when you think about it, kinda makes sense. It's weird that laws change based on which arbitrary piece of dirt you happen to be standing on.
Re: (Score:3)
Darth Vader, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
US citizen with government intel that's illegal to spill, travels to russia where there's technically no specific law that says 'no talking about private US government stuff' (just guessing..)
instead of simply spilling the beans to the russians on the down low, they get on a computer and post it all over publically accessable internet forums which state the user's identity.
guy comes back to USA expecting not to be jailed. derp. by USA standards, this guy is an idiot for expecting that, right?
so why is thi
Re: (Score:2)
whether he violated the law, which is not in dispute.
Innocent until proven guilty. If he did what everybody believes he did, that's against the law. But legally we presume him innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect there's something in the employment contract for companies in the UAE that you agree not to say bad things about them. There certainly is in the law of the country. So how is someone like Snowden spilling the beans in Russia different from this guy shooting his mouth off in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the US does exactly the same thing when people passing through the country did things legally in their home country that the US doesn't like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When you do something like, say, post on Facebook, when does that post stop being "active"? At what point are you no longer making the statement therein, even though it is still publicly "out there?" Remember, the written word is different than the spoken word: it exists long after the action of putting pen to paper.
Say I am in a country that has no law against threatening to kill someone, anyone. I say aloud, "I am going to kill gurps_npc." Okay, great, that country doesn't care, no harm done.
Now say I pos
Re: (Score:2)
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
You realise that that would kill basically any third party country or courts such as the International Court of Justice trying people for genocide, drug cartels etc, right?
Re: (Score:3)
International Law does NOT apply to countries that have not accepted that treaty - including but not limited to China and India.
In addition, the treaty has exceptions that let
Re: (Score:2)
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
It should work that way, but then they'd have no grounds on which to charge/bring Kim Dotcom to the USA to face charges. And the USA doesn't like to lose face, so I'm guessing that guy will spend a year in jail in the UAE.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.
2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.
#2 is a really poorly thought out idea, in all manner of ways.
When you're in NYS you have to abide by NYS AND US laws. When you're in the US there's no way to force you to abide by US AND international law, which for the most part has no teeth.
Some eastern european country could declare cybercrime completely legal, and now those criminals are not criminals in that country. Not that we have any power to enforce it now.
Re: (Score:2)
International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.
International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not me
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.
And if the nation has no laws against those crimes? Because the people in charge of the laws are the people who committed the action? And yes, that does happen. Frequently. I'm not even going to give examples, because if you can't think of them, you really need to open a history text sometime.
No offense, but the idea that a country can't prosecute someone for anything they did outside the country is just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
But the internet came along, and ignoran
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the law exists or doesn't at an international level doesn't matter. In your discussion of state laws applying to an international framework, you are making a false equivalence.
In the case of war crimes and trade law, some effort is put forth by various governments and international courts. Enforcement is available. So to say suddenly that countries can or should do whatever they want within their own legal frameworks is frankly stupid. Lots of countries have much less stable governments than the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you have heard of it.
Which is exactly what is happening right now with ISIL. When countries get out of hand, we have two choices - diplomatic punishment or
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; and when they do it would quickly lead to some very painful international sanctions, followed by the outlawing it again. Additionally, if your cybercrime includes doing something illegal by US law on a server based in the US you can bet the US has jurisdiction. You're inventing an unlikely scenario, and it doesn't in anyway impact on his point.
Re: (Score:2)
So..... If you are in country A fire a rifle across a border and kill someone in country B then according to your approach country B should not be able to try you for murder (either by extradition or in absentia)?
I agree that this case seems extreme - though I'm not sure of the wisdom of the person's actions - but to extrapolate from a specific case to a universal principle s
Re: (Score:2)
>
When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys.
However, you are required to declare any purchases you made in New Jersey so that New York can get its tax.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about two parts of the same country. Except in Alabama there is general agreement that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is valid.
Countries refuse to extradite people to other countries every day for political reasons. Dozens of countries won't extradite to the US because of capitol punishment. So I am not sure how your example fits. The US doesn't need to extradite to other countries if it feels like civil rights are going to be taken away.
Re: (Score:3)
Even though there might be claims to the contrary, NJ and NY are part of the same country.
Now, someone who gets a traffic ticket in Jersey and who returns back to Germany or Brazil does not have to worry about having their domestic license suspended.
There is supposedly a difference with extraditable offenses. In general, if it is a felony (or similar) in both countries, it can be considered an offense that extradition can occur. However, there are fuzzy areas. For example, even though Amanda Knox was fou
Re: (Score:2)
That's more akin to extradition. You broke a N.J. law while in N.J.
Re: (Score:3)
The Middle East doesn't want or even understand the idea of absolute freedom.
Who does want absolute freedom?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, she shouldn't have gone to Saudi Arabia in the first place. no one should.
Re: (Score:2)
She shouldn't have went there, that would have been her mistake and when you enter that country you are going to have to deal with their laws, your a moron if you don't realize how stupid it is to travel to a country without checking up on how they behave.
What fucking hole have you been living in to not know the Middle East is full of HIGHLY a oppressive KINGDOMS a
For fucks sake, people need to take personal responsibility for their choices and actions. Americans going to the Middle East are just fucking s
Yes, "reputation" (Score:3)
Because in the last few years, we've seen what "reputation" really means. Bill Cosby, Lance Armstrong, Jian Ghomeshi, Colonel Williams, the list goes on.
But we must protect "reputation", because that's less expensive than, you know, actually being good or worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth used to be an affirmative defense. We're getting away from that.
Re: (Score:2)
they still have a comfy life and tons of money and are free to roam the world?
Why don't people think about this shit? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And don't say anything about Father corporation?
Really.. fuck US corporate culture.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't just expect that everything you say is monitored and will be used against you.
There is a big difference between what you say - verbally or in private writing - and what you write in public. He wrote this in a public place, he had no reason to expect that it would be withheld from his employer if they were to come looking for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, whatever. When I bump into something you wrote, I tend to turn off my brain, avoid reading and overreact.
FTFY.
The first rule of facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing important should go on facebook!
To protect their reputation (Score:2)
Because this news is good for their reputation...
Wait (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK it is slander to tell the truth if you do it with intent to harm someones reputation! WTF? True anyhow.
The Chiropractic board won a case because someone said 'they were quacks' (para). A true statement, but because of intent it was slander.
Everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Luxembourg, Europe and last month we jailed a guy for 9 months for a Facebook rant.
http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembou... [www.wort.lu]
---
(CS/mth) Two Luxembourg nationals on Thursday were found guilty of sending death threats to immigrant rights activists Serge Kollwelter and Laura Zuccoli, with one of the men sentenced to nine months in prison.
The pair were found guilty by a Luxembourg City court of publishing xenophobic comments and threats in a discussion feed on Facebook on March 31 last year.
A 54-year-old defendant was sentenced to nine months in prison, while his 45-year-old co-defendant was served a nine-month suspended sentence, under the condition that he will not be caught for a similar offence over the next five years. ...
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't seem like much of the same thing to me. That was an instance of someone doing something they could be jailed for where they were at the time, who happened to use Facebook to do it.
The idea that I can be arrested for saying something that's perfectly legal where I said it by any country in the world that choses to pass a law against it is completely unworkable. Picture a dystopia where nobody ever speaks, because pretty much anything that can be said is illegal somewhere. Or even one where that does
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but at least I have a hope of keeping myself informed of all the laws governing the political entities I live in. There is no possible way for a single human being to know and keep on top of all the laws governing behavior and speech in every country, county, state, city, etc. in the entire world. So one of them trying to enforce their internal laws on the entire world is patently ridiculous.
Re:Everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
I live in Luxembourg, Europe and last month we jailed a guy for 9 months for a Facebook rant.
http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembou... [www.wort.lu] ---
(CS/mth) Two Luxembourg nationals on Thursday were found guilty of sending death threats to immigrant rights activists Serge Kollwelter and Laura Zuccoli, with one of the men sentenced to nine months in prison.
Well ranting and threatening to kill somebody are two different things. The former is not normally illegal. The latter is illegal pretty much everywhere, regardless of whether you do it on the Internet or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a credible threat. e.g. Me threatening to run rstab on your eye isn't
When Are You Going To Learn (Score:2)
Well, this is the United Arab Emirates (Score:2)
The savagery of censorship should be expected under such tyranny. And even in the US free speech gets little respect, so the best thing to do is keep it anonymous as much as possible. The hate against freedom is strong on this planet.
anti-trolling legislation (Score:2)
You want "anti-trolling legislation", this is what you will get.
The only diffrence between this and the Curt Shilling article is how some dumbfuck english major wrote them.
Tourism (Score:2)
my company's policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When in Rome (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't make the "law" any less unjust.
That said, It was kind of a stupid thing to do on his part. Should have resigned first, gone back home, *then* get hot on Facebook (though IMHO glassdoor.com would have been a better place to dump his invective.)
I just hope for his sake that ... nevermind; just RTFA'd. Dude went ballistic.
PS: summary sucks - the guy could wind up in prison for *five* years, not one.
Re: (Score:2)
One must wonder therefore why we need lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
But a bad law IS an excuse from the law. Fuck that shit. Defend free speech!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So? Try to go to Australia, break US law and then go to the US.
Heck, you might not even have to go to the US to be in trouble, US law enforcement might just come and get you.
Most nations doesn't like when people break their laws. Try to go to some nation where law isn't enforced, for example you could join up with ISIS and kill a bunch of civilians, then go to a western country where murder is illegal. It is very unlikely that they will let things slide just because you were on someone else's turf while the
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When in Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?
Sending money to Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
pedophilia
Re: (Score:2)
Running a gambling website.
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Insightful)
Running Megaupload ? (OK that was NZ)
Re:When in Rome (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe not Australia, but how about Russia? I suspect that Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] has maybe faded from our collective memory.
Quick summary: Sklyarov is Russian. He lived in Russia, where he worked for a Russian software company writing Russian software. In Russia.
One piece of Russian software he worked on while working for his Russian employer in Russia is something that would have run afoul of US copyright law, but it was out of US jurisdiction because the software was written by a Russian working for a Russian company in Russia.
Then Sklyarov made the mistake of coming to DefCon, where he, a Russian, was arrested for writing software that violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which is out of jurisdiction in Russia, where he lived (as Russians tend to do) and worked for a Russian company writing Russian software, in Russia.
In short, he committed no crime because the law that was applied to him is out of jurisdiction.
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for bringing this up. Minor correction is he was charged but not convicted.
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Insightful)
And he spent significant time in foreign jail far from home anyway. Far too much time considering that the charges were obviously inappropriate.
Re:When in Rome (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the software was sold in the US. And, charges against the dude were dropped. And it was 14 years ago. So I think it's understandable that it's no longer a burning issue.
Re:When in Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that would be a crime committed by whoever was selling the software someplace where it was illegal, not the guy who wrote it someplace where it as legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo! Immerman gets it.
Re: (Score:3)
The question of US jurisdiction over Sklyarov's actions was never litigated, because a deal was arranged wherein the charges against Sklyarov would be dropped in exchange for his testimony against Elcomsoft, his employer. Elcomsoft was then acquitted at trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. I'll cop to being a tad imprecise with my language.
Re: (Score:2)
To a point, yes, but are we going to arrest Canadians in Canada for smoking Cuban cigars, which can be legally bought and smoked there? I think not.
The suggestion about sex tourists involves crimes committed at least partially on our shores: the sex tourist bought his ticket and made his plans here. He is a citizen here, and subject to our laws for that reason. He lives here. He works here. He went on that vacation with the express purpose of committing acts that are illegal here.
Skylarov's presence in
Re: (Score:3)
Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?
Go look at the US ESTA application that all Australians have to fill out before travelling to the US.
There's a metric shitload that will get you rejected. Drugs, being associated with a banned group, moral turpitude (we dont even have anything like that on the books in Oz), having previously overstayed a Visa. If you lie on the application to get entry and the US finds out, they will arrest and deport you. At least they've now stopped asking if I'm a Nazi.
The US is one of the harder countries for Aust
Re: (Score:2)
He must blame himself for voluntarily accepting UAE jurisdiction, yes — much as a raped girl must blame herself for accepting a spiked drink from a stranger.
That UAE incarcerates people for opinions expressed online is still an outrage, however — much as a rape is regardless of the mistakes made by the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant! Because you chose to make that particular analogy, nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists regardless of how poor an analogy it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have so many of them here on /., it is frightening.
Fortunately, it is not poor at all. Own mistakes, that lead one into trouble, are rarely an excuse for those, who cause the actual trouble itself.
It does not matter, whether the "trouble" is rape or unjust incarceration.
Re: (Score:2)