Nokia Siemens Sued For Providing Monitoring Equipment To Iran

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."

Comments

Law?

[Jedi Alec]

'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?

[maroberts]

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?

[Jedi Alec]

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:Law?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

All theoretical ethical stuff aside, it will be interesting to see if a case like this will go forward in a US court.

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:Law?

[hairyfeet]

Considering we overthrew their democratically elected government in the 50s to put in the Shah as our puppet, one of the worst dictators we could dig up, just so our corporations could get better deals? Yeah I think we really don't have much moral high ground there at this point. Is Iran a brutal place? Yeah, no doubts there. But considering our idea of "democracy" is elect someone we approve of I really don't think we have much moral high ground left in that area at this point frankly.

In case you don't know and would like to read up here is a good starting point.

Re:Law?

[PopeRatzo]

.unlawful where exactly?

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:Law?

[PopeRatzo]

One country can not be "better" than another.

Sweden vs the Republic of the Congo. I think you can say one is better.

Denmark vs Burma. Discuss.

Re:Law?

[maroberts]

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?

[Nadaka]

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.

Forum shopping?

[jrumney]

Not that I'm defending Siemens and Nokia for providing spy equipment to a regime known to torture and kill its citizens for exercising political speech, but how exactly does a court in Virginia have jurisdiction over German and Swedish companies for civil damages allegedly sustained in Iran against an Iranian citizen?

Re:Forum shopping?

[cappp]

It's called the Alien Tort Statute and states that

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

. A few countries establish their own rights to hear international claims, known as universal jurisdiction - 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 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.

Short answer, yup they can.

Because they can

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, the Iranian government is not going to respect an American court decision. So, they're just trying to get headlines by suing a merchant. Was that equipment under embargo? But wait, an American embargo on Iran is bad because it hurts the common people more than the government. But if there was no embargo then how was it illegal to sell the equipment? I suppose Siemens should have recognized the Iranian government as "evil" and refused to do any business with them on a purely voluntary basis. But then that's racism against Muslims! Can anyone help? I'm so confused.

Re:Because they can

[c0lo]

I'm so confused.

Relax, cool down. Nokia-Siemens sold them because every government asks them to; 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

[dbcad7]

You are confused.. I can tell by your statements.. We'll start at the beginning.. Whether or not the Iranian government recognizes an American court decision doesn't matter, because they are not being sued for anything in this... An American embargo doesn't matter either, because nothing was sold by an American company.. If you want to get to brass tacks, there isn't a major economic power in the world, that isn't guilty as hell for selling equipment causing suppression, misery, and death.. And they sell it to whoever has money.. and sell ?., heck they even give it away and charge the taxpayers for it to keep the corporations churning out more.. As the fine article states.. This is someone suing the wrong people in the wrong court.. However, as they used to say on The Peoples Court "Anybody can sue anybody for anything."

Re:Because they can

[dunkelfalke]

Well, the US has managed to do it to a Finnish company, so there.

Re:Because they can

[dave420]

Stop trotting out that old "wipe Israel off the map" nonsense. The actual quote was that he hoped for the regime of Israel to fall, a sentiment shared by many rational, sane folk across the world. When you use those untruths is just shows people that you haven't actually read anything on the subject, and that you are in fact just regurgitating what you heard on TV. The "kills and tortures its own citizens" and "trains terrorist organisations" equally applies to the US, too, just in case you missed that lovely part in US history.

They all do it!

[bre_dnd]

Don't be naive. Every single telecommunications vendor has tapping capability built into their equipment. Every western government *mandates* that this functionality is built in. It is not the equipment manufacturer who is morally wrong here. If you think it's wrong in Iran, it's wrong in the US or Europe too.

"Lawful Intercept" is required

[Terje Mathisen]

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:Legal wranglings

[Zironic]

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:Please remind me...

[dave420]

The fucked up thing is the first country in the Middle East that offered help to the US was Iran. Iran was absolutely shocked when Bush added them to his "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union address in 2002, which Bush did simply because you can't have an axis of 2 countries (Iraq and North Korea) and not look like you're bullying them. Iran used to be a very moderate, western country. Women's rights, great economy, progressive thinking, socially moderate, etc. Most Iranians are the same as they were back then, only the powers that be are still reeling from having the democracy overthrown by meddling western powers (US & UK, as we know), which has resulted in this theocracy taking place as the perceived last-gasp of maintaining their autonomy. It's no wonder they are acting the way they are.