Slashdot Mirror
Iran Court Summons Mark Zuckerberg For Facebook Privacy Violations
wiredmikey (1824622) writes "An Iranian judge has summoned Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to answer allegations that his company's apps have breached people's privacy, it was reported Tuesday. The court in Fars province ordered that Zuckerberg address unspecified 'violation of privacy' claims made by Iranians over the reach of Facebook-owned apps, ISNA news agency reported. 'Based on the judge's verdict, the Zionist manager of Facebook... should report to the prosecutor's office to defend himself and make compensation for damages,' Rouhollah Momen-Nasab, a senior Iranian Internet security official, told ISNA. Access to social networks, including Twitter and Facebook, are routinely blocked by Iranian authorities, as are other websites considered un-Islamic or detrimental to the regime."
Facebook's unique proposition is that it can be both "un-Islamic" and "un-American" at the same time, doing the same thing.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"...the Zionist manager of Facebook..."
I'm guessing the verdict and sentence have already been established. All Iran needs is a victim.
No country is on that list. They USA will never and has never extradited a person to another country.
Good thing you're an Anonymous Coward, because you're not even close to reality. According to US Embassy based in London:
During the same time period, the UK submitted 54 extradition REQUESTS to the US, of which none have been refused. Of those 54 requests, 38 resulted in extradition of an individual from the U.S. to the UK. In the remaining 16 cases, the individuals either returned to the UK on their own or other circumstances made extradition from the U.S. to the UK no longer necessary.
It really is a shame. That part of the world used to be known for arts, sciences, and education. I wish that it were still that way...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Agreed. Iran has some pretty intelligent people there, and much of the population is college educated.
The problem is, after seeing Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc., no one is looking to overthrow a government any time soon, but looking instead for slower reforms.
There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.
You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).
Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.
While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?