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."
Somewhere, Mark Zuckerberg is *still* laughing.
There is no way I see Zuckerberg appearing in an Iranian court anytime soon, regardless of the charges. I personally wouldn't step foot in the country myself, as an atheist, I'd be risking my neck because I'd likely say something stupid and get myself thrown in prison for heresy.
Go to country where I can get my hand cut off for offending the authorities? No.
I'm sure Mr. Zuckerberg is aboard the first American Airlines flight from San Francisco to Tehran.
Oh wait, no Southwest flight goes to Tehran.
Surely he's booked on United Airlines. No, wait, they don't fly to Tehran either.
Looks like NONE of the US carriers go there. Is it because they don't like money? That can't be
right. Is it because they are shareholder driven and their shareholders are all either dirty jews
or clean jews or some combination of clean and dirty jews? That seems unlikely.
OH WAIT, I GOT IT!
IRAN IS A TERRORIST NATION, A SPONSOR OF TERRORIST GROUPS, CALLS THE US
THE GREAT SATAN AND WANTS TO DESTROY US AND ISRAEL TOO AND IS A HOTBED
OF RELIGIOUS CRAP THAT MAKES THE BIBLE BELT AND WASHINGTON DC LOOK LIKE
SECULAR NOOBS.
I guess they won't have Zuckerberg to demonize if he doesn't go there.
Perhaps they'll burn his effigy along with President Obama, the US Flag, and a fake
nuclear wessel.
Ehud
Tucson AZ US
Wow, sounds like an emmy award winning south park episode
I'm sorry, but Facebook just reorganized how they display postings and the Fatwa didn't appear. Maybe they would like to advertise with Facebook to ensure that their Fatwa status updates appear at the top of everyone's feeds?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Of Course Zuc wont appear in Iran, the CIA wont let the greatest target fed intel gathering effort in history go down so easy.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/tec...
The USA has on a number of occasions extended its own laws to cover interactions with foreigners over the Internet. You only have to look at a certain naturalised New Zealander who the US have tried to extradite (Mega something or other, wasn't it)
The European Union isn't perfect either, as this "Right to Be Forgotten" law also seems to want to establish national law when the dealings are with foriegn companies that essentially only have sub-offices over here. In actual fact, the Iranian allegations of "Invasion of privacy" are fairly similar to the European Union position, which is one reason why I hope that the silly ruling is buried in some manner.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If we send the Beeb's in Zuck's place I think we could make everyone happy. Iran gets a white boy they can prosecute or just hold without cause for a really long time and the US no longer has to put up with his illegal actions or that noise he purports to call music. Considering there's a petition before the White House to have him deported back to the Canada anyway, I vote we offer this as an alternative.
He should say that he'll fly over as soon as they send one of their Iranian stealth fighter jets to pick him up.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
He really could hire multiple private armies and stage an invasion just to make a token appearance @ their Kangaroo court. But inbetween the border crossing of his choice and the prosecutor's office there is likely thousands of iranian troops that are unlikely to surrender.
Is he actually a Zionist or is Iran just jumping to a conclusion based on his heritage?
Sent from my TARDIS
...they could ask for someone who would show up instead. What's Dennis Rodman up to these days?
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Being order by an Iranian judge to appear is akin to being nominated for a humanitarian award. I cannot image now proud I would be if asked to appear. Has anyone worked out some kind of award system for being asked to appear in foreign country or tried in absence for human rights work?
That sounds awfully extreme. Is there a hole somewhere waiting for you too?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/...
erm, violating Iranians' privacy...
That's a beheadin'
Ayatollah Japser Beardly
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
They have a "Committee for Determining Criminal Web Content"? Really?
Someone should send them a link to 4Chan and watch the entire committee's heads explode.
You're right, when I upload pictures of my drunken escapades to a social networking site to an account tied to my real name, and my real friends and family, I really do expect that they will be held in the strictest confidence.
While I have no love for Facebook -or Zuckerberg - and its invasive policies, I have to wonder if Iran has any jurisdiction over Facebook anyway?
Does Facebook run any servers in Iran? Do they have any offices in Iran? Do they actively seek to bypass attempts by the Iranian government to block its citizens from accessing Facebook? And, if so, do they have any evidence that Zuckerberg himself is behind these heinous "crimes"?
The very fact that this judge is calling on Zuckerberg himself (and using inciteful language by calling him a "Zionist") rather than taking the Facebook.com to task reveals the true motivations of this summons. It has nothing to do with "privacy violations"; if Facebook.com's success was due to an awesome collection of cute kitty photos, the judge probably would have accused Zuckerberg of leading believers astray from the faith by distracting them with false idols or something.
There are many (many, many) problems with Facebook, Israel, the United States, etc. that need solving. However, the judge has no interest in opening discussion about these issues. This is just another obvious attempt by the Iranian political machine to inflame anti-American and anti-Semitic hatred.
You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.
IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it. Noone is making you start a Facebook page (well, I should qualify that: noone has ever tried to force ME to make a Facebook page. Maybe I'm special, and the rest of you lot are held at gunpoint until you have your Facebook page set up).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
or convincing you to willingly give up private information
You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.
I am well aware of that. However a large number of facebook users apparently are not.
IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it.
And I don't use it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
it should be reiterated that when the government of Iran refers to "zionist" its usually directed toward leaders of israel (who are, admittedly, zionist.) Extending this descriptor to Zuckerberg based solely on his last name feels like the court is making a leap of faith. It wouldnt surprise me if the whole thing is a 'look over there!' maneuver from local courts to deflect criticism of Irans own violations of privacy as they pertain to the internet. Certainly no respectable political or legal figure in Iran would realisically expect this to work outside of the sphere of public opinion. Its all rather akin to George Bush remarking that terrorists attacked us because they 'hate our american freedoms.'
Good people go to bed earlier.
...to Iranian users not to use FB.
Roll their eyes like when your minister bitches about premarital sex, drinking, voting for the Republican douche who is running with a "family values - creationism" platform, etc ....
lets face it, clergy are scum. They are parasites.
I'm sure the Iranians have observed America's approach to Kim Dotcom with interest.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
That's not facebook, that's a bad employer.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
That's because everyone here knows that. It's not news.
Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.
Well, nobody cares, because everybody knows it's coming apart, take one last look etc etc. I mean, privacy is going away, whether we like it or not. We only have to decide what we're doing about it. Will we decide to live and let live, or continue to go to war with one another over our differences, only now armed with the terrible knowledge of just how many differences we have? Oh sure, we'll learn about similarities too, but for some reason we don't seem to focus on those. Here's hoping, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Who's there?
> Iran
Iran who?
> Iran away.
> Knock knock
Who's there?
>Iran
Iran who?
>Iran for office but as soon as I got there they locked the door and threw away the key.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
There is no core system but 4LL4H
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh shit!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
what Mullah wants, Mullah gets. and Mullah wants scalps on the wall.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
No, you cannot obtain a divorce in the normal sense as a Roman Catholic. The closest you can get is an annulment.
There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment. See also Matthew 5:31-2 and Matthew 19. My family used to joke that they believed in murder but not divorce, as a way to keep the relevant spouse on their toes. You should try again with a different analogy.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.
Exactly. If this were any other country (or rather, if this were a predominately Christian or Caucasian country) saying the exact same things (minus the word "Zionist") everyone on /. would be applauding them.
Replace "Facebook" with "Megaupload," "Mark Zuckerberg" with "Kim Dotcom," and "Iran" with "United States," and you have the exact same result.
The only difference is the victim. In the case of Facebook, its users (the "little guy") are the victims. In the case of Megaupload, big corporations are the supposed victims. Now, explain to me why this case makes the Iranian government more evil than the US government?
I'm still pretty sure the Iranians would give him a show trial. Pretty sure. Yup. Pretty sure.
You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.
So by your logic, every password, security question, or purchase you've ever made using the "interwebs" is open to public scrutiny? I suppose there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your world?
The US was no less wrong with insisting they had jurisdiction over Kim Dotcom. That in no way excuses what Iran is doing.
But that is besides the point. The OP was asking why nobody was discussing the alleged privacy violations. This is because - although there is no defending Facebook's actions - it is widely recognized that it would be a pointless discussion; the judge (and the Iranian government in general) is not interested in discussion about those issues but rather is merely engaging in a diatribe against the United States and the Jews, using Zuckerberg as its red flag.
Fuck you. Leave Oprah out of it.
I mean really, who is twisting their arm to use the stupid program? Sheep thinkers use it. Make your own app, make it transparent that respects the users' freedom. Use GNU Social. Zuckerberg made suckers of the American people among other users, selling their habits for data-mining to the highest bidder. Facebook is a big help to Prism. But no one is focing Iranians to use Facebook. Educate people and offer free (as in freedom) alternatives. Arabs and Persians used to be foremost in maths and sciences in the civilized world, they have long lost that distinction. Maybe it is time to get it back. Make a better alternative. Creat something even Amercians would want. That would be a breakthrough.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
What could possibly go wrong?
- I stole your sig.
So traditionally Jews used their father's name as a surname e.g. 'ben Moshe'. In the late 18th Century various governments, including the Austrian Empire, tried to integrate Jews more fully, both by granting them rights as citizens, and by forcing them to adopt some of the local customs, such as having a hereditary surname. Napoleon did the same thing. In Czarist Russia, the Jews were allowed to choose surnames. In most of the German states, well.
Zuckerberg ('sugar mountain') got off lucky. We also had Mandelbrot ('almond bread'), and various of the type pleasant word + natural feature, e.g. Goldbach ('gold brook') or Rosenblum. Those people who were unlucky, well...
Jews were named Bettelarm (destitute),
Maschinendraht (machine wire), Fresser (glutton), Saufer (boozer), Taschengreifer (pocket grabber) and
Todtschlager (killer). Beider, who was unable to replicate most of Franzos's findings, insists that only "a small
series of surnames were totally contemptuous."
Long story short, the type of compound surname he has is very strongly associated with Germanic Jewish ancestry. And yes, as far as that goes, he's Jewish. The linked article goes into more detail, and is pretty interesting, if you have a spare minute.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.
And believe it or not, I have intentionally chosen not to use it. I have never had an account there. Yet, they likely have quite a bit of personal information about me based on all of my friends and relatives who do use it regularly.
My point more so, however, is that they make money by selling personal information. Now, if people are willing to give up their personal information to a for-profit in exchange for crappy free games and making it easy to find out which of their friends most recently crapped in which coffee shop restroom, then so be it. However when they are not clear about how much information they give to who - and at what cost - then they do deserve to be examined a little closer.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.