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.
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.
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
"Great Satan" -- first used in Nov 1979 to label the USA by Iranian leader Ruhollah Khomeini.
"Axis of Evil" -- first used in Jan 2002 to label Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea by President George Bush.
So it is childish to make the comparison, but "they started it", if you are comparing the two phrases.
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.
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.
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?