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.
Regardless of my actual ethnicity or religion, if my last name ended in ...berg I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.
Regardless of ... well, pretty much anything, I wouldn't go anywhere near Iran.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Wow, sounds like an emmy award winning south park episode
Zuckerberg wouldn't even need to say anything. He'd be jailed as an evil Zionist spy or some other nonsense the moment he tried to leave the country. I wouldn't fare any better with the last name Levine. You couldn't pay me enough money to travel to Iran.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
"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.
I've known many people over the years who identify themselves as 'Persian'.
They've been exceedingly nice, smart people for the most part. But, even they try very hard to distance themselves from Iran, the land of the batshit crazy.
And, I'm sorry, but the present-day country called Iran is no place I'd ever want to go. The historical Persia which had art, and science, and philosophy (and tolerance), and lots of cool things ... that I'd love to see.
But don't ever forget there's a difference between the historical entity, and the present one. And the present one is ruled by crazy idiots.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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."
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?