Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail

blindbat writes While back home in the U.S., a man working in the United Arab Emirates posted negative comments about the company he worked for. Upon returning to the country to resign, he was arrested and now faces up to a year in prison under their strict "cyber slander" laws designed to protect reputation.

Comments

basically how the UAE works

[Trepidity]

It's an old-school feudal state mixing in a little bit of a hot modern idea, corporate oligarchy. The businessmen and sheikhs (many of whom are related) run the place, and jailing foreign workers if they get inconvenient is one of their main tools to retain control. Usually you don't hear about it because most of the workers aren't from the USA.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[cheesybagel]

UAE? Isn't that where they take your passport while you work there?

Re:basically how the UAE works

[wisnoskij]

So just like America then?

Re:basically how the UAE works

[Trepidity]

Yeah, that's common across the region; Saudi Arabia does it too. Seems a bit unnecessarily old-fashioned, since with computerized passport control these days you could keep someone from traveling by just flagging them in the computer, no need to actually confiscate the passport. But maybe keeping the physical passport is a better intimidation tool?

Re:basically how the UAE works

[cdrudge]

I think you might be thinking of Qatar where it's been in the news more recently regarding domestic slaves er I mean workers. Employers confiscate the passports, overwork, beat, and or assault the workers, don't pay them, and when they become a issue turn them over to the government to deport. If they try to leave on their own, guess what...they don't have any paperwork so they are just as screwed as if they remained.

http://www.theguardian.com/glo...

Re:basically how the UAE works

[colin_young]

It's not old fashioned. It allows a private corporation to restrict the freedom of their labor, while the government has plausible deniability and can turn a blind eye to the practice.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[swb]

Seems a bit unnecessarily old-fashioned, since with computerized passport control these days

You're assuming that escape from UAE will be on a flight through a border control.

If you escape without passing through border control, having a passport will make it a damn sight easier to get INTO another country. The lack of an exit stamp from your last country might be a hassle at entry somewhere else, but a lot less of a hassle than not having a passport at all.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[Eunuchswear]

And then you try leaving the country with a passport with no visa or entry stamp. Be prepared for a few hours of questioning.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you try leaving the country with a passport with no visa or entry stamp. Be prepared for a few hours of questioning.

Yes, I had that happen to me. I'm from an EU country that allows its citizens to have two passports. I traveled to Algeria for a week to help a customer install some telecommunications equipment, and had a visa. On arrival, the local manager took my passport (literally just took it out of my backpack while I was not paying attention), and told me I was needed for two weeks instead of one. I told him to fuck himself and booked a flight back home the next day. Upon exiting I had to explain why my passport didn't have an entry stamp or visa, and I simply told them that I had lost the passport but that my country allowed for two so I could freely travel. Took me half an hour to clear customs.

The manager was fired and my passport was Fedex'd back.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[rwa2]

Wow, cool story. Still, the cynic in me wonders if that manager was fired because he didn't manage to take both of your passports :P

Re:basically how the UAE works

[petermgreen]

Heres an article from 2009 which talks about similar things happening in Dubai.

http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

Re:basically how the UAE works

[CrimsonAvenger]

Kuwait also. Had to go there once upon a time (ten or eleven years back), they took my passport on arrival, and gave it back when they were ready to let me leave.

Needless to say, I haven't been back, and have no intentions of ever going back.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[wired_parrot]

Slander laws exist in almost every country, including the United States. And what the contractor said went beyond a simple rant - he implored other contractors not to work with the firm in question (thereby causing commercial harm to the company) and used racist language in his diatribe. If I went on a similar rant against an American company that resulted in a substantial loss of revenue for that company because of my allegations, I would very likely also be sued. The difference is that US courts have a higher standard to meet in a defamation suit, but given the loss of revenue and the racist diatribe even under US standards this contractor would be in hot water.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[kharchenko]

I never understood the whole 'take your passport' thing. I was under impression that if I show up at the US embassy, say that I am a US citizen, that my passport was forcefully taken from me, and I want to go home, they'll go through some checks and give me the documents I need to go back. No?

Re:basically how the UAE works

[i.kazmi]

In order to do that, you need to be aware of your rights. The people who are effected by this practice the most are usually uneducated laborers from developing countries (such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc). Most of these people come from extreme poverty led on by dreams of a better future and are unaware of their rights. Add to this the fact that the staff at their respective embassies is more likely than not to treat them like dirt instead of being helpful and the abuse these people receive is not surprising. Also, all of this is made worse by the fact that many of these people have paid sizable (for them) amounts of money to agents/brokers to secure these 'jobs' and are reluctant to return home with nothing to show for the investment. The people doling out the abuse are aware of all these factors and take advantage of the situation as much as they can. It is very rare for citizens of developed nations to get mistreated because they are usually aware of their rights, their embassies look after them and any rights violations can spark an international incident.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[cheesybagel]

For all I know he could have left assets there that he wanted to get back.

Re:basically how the UAE works

[RockDoctor]

I never understood the whole 'take your passport' thing. I was under impression that if I show up at the US embassy,

First you've got to get to the Embassy. If the country in question requires you to carry your ID card, visa and passport at all times, then the odds of you making it to the Embassy are pretty slender.

Remember, Dorothy, you're not in Kansas any more. The rules of home don't apply there because, uh, you're not at home any more.

Two things

[gurps_npc]

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

Re:Two things

[MickyTheIdiot]

And separation of corporations from the state.

Re:Two things

[fey000]

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?

It's a tricky system to get right.

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so tricky, in this case. The man made the comments while in the US. That somebody read them from the UE makes no difference; the non-offence took place on US soil, where he's free to write whatever he wishes about the company without the fear of criminal charges.

Re:Two things

[MickyTheIdiot]

You are talking about two parts of the same country. Except in Alabama there is general agreement that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is valid.

Countries refuse to extradite people to other countries every day for political reasons. Dozens of countries won't extradite to the US because of capitol punishment. So I am not sure how your example fits. The US doesn't need to extradite to other countries if it feels like civil rights are going to be taken away.

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

When you do something like, say, post on Facebook, when does that post stop being "active"? At what point are you no longer making the statement therein, even though it is still publicly "out there?" Remember, the written word is different than the spoken word: it exists long after the action of putting pen to paper.

Say I am in a country that has no law against threatening to kill someone, anyone. I say aloud, "I am going to kill gurps_npc." Okay, great, that country doesn't care, no harm done.

Now say I post the same thing to Twitter, while I am still in my original "safe" country. Okay, still great. Then I travel to a country that DOES have a problem with such threats, in particular gurps_npc's country. Does my statement not count because I didn't actually type it from within the offended country? Or is it in fact still "happening" and I should be held responsible for it? Here I am in the offended country, and if someone looks at my twitter feed, which I am accepted as responsible for, it clearly says, "I am going to kill gurps_npc." Am I not responsible for that? Am I not, in fact, continuing to take the action of making that statement now that I am in the offended country?

The point is, the written word endures long after its creation, in an actual, active way, that is no less active than the moment at which is was created, and if one is going to violate a law by way of written word, one has to deal with the consequences when stepping into the jurisdiction in question.

That is not to say that the law in the article is not absurd, there's no doubt that it certainly is. And that's also not to argue for extradition. But when the act you commit continues to endure and you enter a jurisdiction in which that act is unlawful, you should expect to deal with the consequences.

Re:Two things

[Richard_at_work]

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

You realise that that would kill basically any third party country or courts such as the International Court of Justice trying people for genocide, drug cartels etc, right?

Re:Two things

[Nyder]

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

It should work that way, but then they'd have no grounds on which to charge/bring Kim Dotcom to the USA to face charges. And the USA doesn't like to lose face, so I'm guessing that guy will spend a year in jail in the UAE.

Re:Two things

[resfilter]

US citizen with government intel that's illegal to spill, travels to russia where there's technically no specific law that says 'no talking about private US government stuff' (just guessing..)

instead of simply spilling the beans to the russians on the down low, they get on a computer and post it all over publically accessable internet forums which state the user's identity.

guy comes back to USA expecting not to be jailed. derp. by USA standards, this guy is an idiot for expecting that, right?

so why is this different?

it is different, of course. very much so. but exactly how it is different is fairly important to understanding the situation

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.

When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.

This is straightforward, simple concept.

Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.

Re:Two things

[b0r0din]

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

#2 is a really poorly thought out idea, in all manner of ways.

When you're in NYS you have to abide by NYS AND US laws. When you're in the US there's no way to force you to abide by US AND international law, which for the most part has no teeth.

Some eastern european country could declare cybercrime completely legal, and now those criminals are not criminals in that country. Not that we have any power to enforce it now.

Re:Two things

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Bad example -- they agree not to spill it as a condition of employment, and are bound to it during, and after employment.

Whether Snowdon should be considered a hero or not is separate from whether he violated the law, which is not in dispute.

But news organizations are happily printing info as it is released, withot fear. Government is correctly criticized for hassling them and spying without warrants.

Re:Two things

[demonlapin]

Bad analogy. Fucking is the primary method of producing more virgins, and the state is just a corporation with an army.

Re: Two things

[gedeco]

When I use a Cisco voip phone from Japan through a VPN tunnel through California to phone Rusia, the ip will tell you are in California.

Interesting....

Re:Two things

[wonkey_monkey]

The Middle East doesn't want or even understand the idea of absolute freedom.

Who does want absolute freedom?

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

You are incorrect. Mainly because you are ignorant of how international laws work. There are treaties that various countries have agreed to. Specifically, the International Court of Justice is supported by a treaty that over 120 countries have agreed to. By agreeing to that treaty, those countries have ceded legal jurisdiction.

International Law does NOT apply to countries that have not accepted that treaty - including but not limited to China and India.

In addition, the treaty has exceptions that let countries attempt to bring charges in their home country rather than using the international court.

As for Drug cartels, they are rarely involved in International courts, in part because they do rarely violate the laws created by the treaty (which tend to focus on genocide and war crimes) and in part because their home countries would rather bring charges themselves.

So no what I propose would not in any way affect the International court of Justice

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

whether he violated the law, which is not in dispute.

Innocent until proven guilty. If he did what everybody believes he did, that's against the law. But legally we presume him innocent.

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

...is like fucking for virginity

i am not sure where you are going with this.

sure maybe it didn't work the first time, but it seems like it is worth trying until it does work.

Re:Two things

[ceoyoyo]

I expect there's something in the employment contract for companies in the UAE that you agree not to say bad things about them. There certainly is in the law of the country. So how is someone like Snowden spilling the beans in Russia different from this guy shooting his mouth off in the US?

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

Your objection makes little sense. First of all, International laws are not some strange set of things. Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.

International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not mean it has no teeth, it means it does not exist as a law.

In fact international criminal law lets the host country decide to prosecute first. It only goes to the international court if the host country would rather not try the case but want the court to try it. As such, it has SEVERE teeth - capable of imprisoning someone for life. But it has a loophole designed to let the host country have a veto on it. If they use the veto they lose reputation - which has some severe trade penalties - and possibly military ones as well.

Your comment about cybercrime being completely legal is true and pointless. As you pointed out already we have NO POWER TO ENFORCE THAT LAW AS IS, so my proposed rule does not create a new problem. It merely stops governments from abusing their current power.

My idea is well thought out, it simply does not solve all possible problems. Similarly, my idea does not cure AIDS, teach kids to read, or double your lifespan.

The question is does my idea cause more new problems or solve them. The answer to that is that it solves problem.

Re:Two things

[msauve]

So, as long as someone uses a server in Sealand as a VPN exit, they can do anything they want with impunity?

Re:Two things

[N1AK]

Sounds like a good idea, but how does that work when the internet is involved? Does Facebook count as everywhere? What about phone calls? Mail?

That's already an issue, which is why clear jurisdiction is important. If I (Britain) write something in a Facebook (American) private message about liking the Dali Lama to another individual (German), but that message was forwarded to someone Chinese without me knowing and the content breached Chinese law (made up example), I then travel to HK for a holiday 5 years later and get arrested for it, would the answer be only travel to countries you know all laws about and whether you've ever done anything that might breach any of them anywhere?

Should it be ok for the German government to arrest American tourists for remarks covered by their anti-nazism laws made in the US? Can an Italian business owner be arrested when he arrives in France for not paying his workers the French minimum wage?

Yes, there are some complex scenarios that the internet has made more common; however, that doesn't mean that we need to agree a solution so that we can have clear jurisdictional boundaries.

Re:Two things

[locofungus]

Unfortunately, the US does exactly the same thing when people passing through the country did things legally in their home country that the US doesn't like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:Two things

[Baloroth]

Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

And if the nation has no laws against those crimes? Because the people in charge of the laws are the people who committed the action? And yes, that does happen. Frequently. I'm not even going to give examples, because if you can't think of them, you really need to open a history text sometime.

No offense, but the idea that a country can't prosecute someone for anything they did outside the country is just plain stupid.

Re:Two things

[N1AK]

Some eastern european country could declare cybercrime completely legal, and now those criminals are not criminals in that country.

Yes; and when they do it would quickly lead to some very painful international sanctions, followed by the outlawing it again. Additionally, if your cybercrime includes doing something illegal by US law on a server based in the US you can bet the US has jurisdiction. You're inventing an unlikely scenario, and it doesn't in anyway impact on his point.

Re:Two things

[mlts]

Even though there might be claims to the contrary, NJ and NY are part of the same country.

Now, someone who gets a traffic ticket in Jersey and who returns back to Germany or Brazil does not have to worry about having their domestic license suspended.

There is supposedly a difference with extraditable offenses. In general, if it is a felony (or similar) in both countries, it can be considered an offense that extradition can occur. However, there are fuzzy areas. For example, even though Amanda Knox was found innocent by one trial, by US law, there is no double jeopardy. However, there is not that stipulation in Italian law, so it will wind up a long court battle if the US extradites her or not.

Re:Two things

[gman003]

Well, there's one simple brute-force solution: create a world government. If one government runs everything, they get automatic jurisdiction over everything, and have one universal set of laws to apply everywhere.

Which, when you think about it, kinda makes sense. It's weird that laws change based on which arbitrary piece of dirt you happen to be standing on.

Re:Two things

[Eunuchswear]

systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Hahaha, some of you guys are so fucked! :-)

Re:Two things

[b0r0din]

Whether the law exists or doesn't at an international level doesn't matter. In your discussion of state laws applying to an international framework, you are making a false equivalence.

In the case of war crimes and trade law, some effort is put forth by various governments and international courts. Enforcement is available. So to say suddenly that countries can or should do whatever they want within their own legal frameworks is frankly stupid. Lots of countries have much less stable governments than the US. Genocide is a perfect example. If a nation state determined that genocide was legal and started murdering the population, would you simply put forth trade restrictions?

You do know that the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime, right? That is the very definition of extra-territorial jurisdiction. You seem way out of your depth here, and as I said your ideas seem really poorly thought out.

Re:Two things

[b0r0din]

Darth Vader, is that you?

Re:Two things

[andrewbaldwin]

Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country.

So..... If you are in country A fire a rifle across a border and kill someone in country B then according to your approach country B should not be able to try you for murder (either by extradition or in absentia)?

I agree that this case seems extreme - though I'm not sure of the wisdom of the person's actions - but to extrapolate from a specific case to a universal principle seems dangerous to me

Slightly off topic

Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

I admire your approach -- it's just a shame some well known US corporations don't think that way when they operate in other countries

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

No offense, but you are an incredibly ignorant of the law and history. You mention history books but have no idea what is in them. My idea is not 'my idea' - it is century old accepted legal principle that diplomats and ambassadors use to site all the time. The US can't tell Britain what side of the road to ride on, we can't arrest Putin for murdering his opponent, and we can't arrest people in Mexico for playing music so loud that people in America can hear it.

But the internet came along, and ignorant people did not know how to deal with it so they suddenly said forget the principle.

The fact that a new technology comes along and makes it harder to stick by your principle does not mean your principle is stupid, nor does it mean you abandon the principle. It means you work to create a new set of laws to handle that issue. In this case, the proper way to deal with the internet problems is with treaties. Treaties that establish what laws are in each country.

If the treaties don't work, you go to war against that country. That's why we are fighting with ISIL. We disagree with the laws that they created in their own country, so we bomb them.

You seem to think that all problems can be solved by laws. No. Laws apply to their own nations, not other countries. International problems can not be solved by national laws, and this is clearly an international issue - it happened between 2 nations. You solve international problems with either treaties between countries or wars.

Your insistence on solving international problems with national laws is a bad idea. The long established concept of jurisdiction is an intelligent, well tested idea. The fact you can't tell the difference is indicative of your intelligence.

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

If you think that someone eating a BLT or handing out fliers can legally get you deported and beheaded than you need to take some legal courses.

The existence of illegal actions do not prove that those actions are legal, whether they are done by a citizen or by a country.

Re: Two things

[gurps_npc]

Some people use a glove when firing a gun to prevent fingerprints and gunpowder residue. Then they burn the glove.

Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.

The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.

Re:Two things

[seeland]

What? He/she never said that it was proper or even implied it... He/She was saying it is incredibly improbable and unrealistic anyone would agree to an international consensus to completely give up all forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Re:Two things

[wed128]

To be fair, she shouldn't have gone to Saudi Arabia in the first place. no one should.

Re:Two things

[penguinoid]

We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country.

I don't see how that would be possible, nor how it would be a good idea. Suppose a country legalizes espionage on foreign nations or corporations -- the other nations would never put up with this, and if they can't arrest the people responsible they would declare war instead. There's a bunch of laws against things that would be sufficiently repulsive that people would not want to accept it among their citizens even if it had occurred in a foreign nation. On the other hand, if petty obscure laws were enforced like that no one would be able to travel anywhere -- but that, I think, is up to the nations in question to decide.

How about a compromise? You apply this rule to your own jurisdiction, and don't try to enforce it on other countries.

Re: Two things

[gedeco]

Funny, didn't know that using a company VPN counts as a crime.
You make assumptions without knowledge of possible legal use and the way how tcp/ip works.

Sorry but technical misunderstandings are part of the discussion, specific when one tries to oversimplify.
No offense

Re:Two things

[laie_techie]

>

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys.

However, you are required to declare any purchases you made in New Jersey so that New York can get its tax.

Re: Two things

[fisted]

The premissa of the discussion was that whatever is posted is /not/ in complicance with the law
Nice straw man, though.

Re: Two things

[Archimonde]

I think the point is concerns the poster's location. So if you post something in country X then you have to abide by country X's laws. It doesn't matter if you post through 20 proxies or not.

Re: Two things

[gedeco]

Exactly!
But how you will know?

Re: Two things

[Archimonde]

Well, you know when the person is in some country or not. That's one of the reasons we have borders and databases. And if the guy is illegaly in some country, that is completely different kind of problem.

Re:Two things

[sjames]

That's more akin to extradition. You broke a N.J. law while in N.J.

Re: Two things

[gurps_npc]

I never said it was. In fact I will outright agere that it is not illegal for a company to use a VPN. Nor is it illegal to use a glove when firing a weapon, nor is it illegal to burn that glove.

But it IS illegal to destroy evidence. The second you do that, it becomes a crime. So if your burn a glove that was connected to a crime, that action becomes illegal. Totally legal actions, when taken in furtherance of a crime become illegal. And the use of a VPN you describe would be a crime.

No offense, but you are making assumptions about the legal system that indicate you don't know jack shit about how it works.

Knowledge of tcp/ip etc is irrelevant to the legal code.

I did not oversimplify, nor did I make a technical misunderstanding.

I simply applied long standing, generally accepted legal principles in use for hundreds of years to current issues.

I repeat - the fact that technology now allows people to hide the fact that they are breaking the law does not invalidate the law.

Here, let me explain is to you in a simple manner. 1) Online poker is illegal in certain countries (The DOJ says the US is one of them).

2) But it is legal in England.

3) If you personally set up a VPN to make it seem like people are playing London, when in fact they are playing online poker from Utah, then YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. Even if you yourself never play online poker, only renting out your VPN to your neighbors.

This is a very simple legal concept. Not that hard to understand. Legal actions become criminal when used in furtherance of a crime. Perhaps you have heard of the words "accessory to a crime"? That is what you are describing.

Re:Two things

[sabri]

once you no longer want to provide me with bed, food, room, TV, and other amenities that I wouldn't get in Russia :)

You mean amenities like Bubba who wants you to toss his salad?

Re:Two things

[BitZtream]

She shouldn't have went there, that would have been her mistake and when you enter that country you are going to have to deal with their laws, your a moron if you don't realize how stupid it is to travel to a country without checking up on how they behave.

What fucking hole have you been living in to not know the Middle East is full of HIGHLY a oppressive KINGDOMS a

For fucks sake, people need to take personal responsibility for their choices and actions. Americans going to the Middle East are just fucking stupid unless they happen to have the power of the military WITH THEM.

Re:Two things

[gurps_npc]

No. My equivalences are exactly the same. I am not applying state laws to an international framework, I am applying long standing international legal principles to a an international framework. when a country does something stupid, like you describe, you have two choices - International treaties and the penalties spelled out in them, or WAR.

Perhaps you have heard of it.

Which is exactly what is happening right now with ISIL. When countries get out of hand, we have two choices - diplomatic punishment or military punishment. You on the other hand, seem to think we can call their mommy and have them punish them.

Yes, the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime. Bit you demonstrate total ignorance of how that works. You've been watching way too many movies and think that's how it works. If you were aware of how Interpol actually you would realize it proves me correct, as they take a lot of effort to avoid extra-territorial jurisdiction.

I am not outside of my depth, I work in the legal field, and my stepfather is a defense lawyer for international criminals. I have had long discussions about what is and is not legal - and which countries obey those laws and which countries ignore them.

So to educate someone that clearly knows very little about how international law works, particularly Interpol, here is a short education

1. Interpol is not some kind of magic international police. Countries - and not all of them - willing sign treaties, agreeing with a set of rules govern how it works. The participating countries then change their own laws to do what the treaty says. Note treaties, not national laws control Interpol. The treaties in question (like all such treaties) specify what happens if the country signs the treaty but does not change their own laws in a timely fashion.

2. Interpol does NOT HAVE ANY POLICE. There are no Interpol cops. No SWAT, not even traffic cops. They provide training and communication between national police. That's it. So when a crime takes place in say Sweden, committed by a band of criminals that reside in Finland, Sweden does not send cops to Finland. Finland does not send cops to Sweden. Sweden investigates, gets an extradition order, and sends information to their Interpol office. That office sends it to all their other offices, and notifies Finland. In Finlnd, the standard, regular Finish police go and arrest the criminals. Once the Finish cops arrest them, the criminals go through the Finish legal system, where they are either extradited to Sweden or a Finish judge say no.

You live in a movie based fantasy world that does not exist. There are NO EXTRA TERRITORIAL INTERPOL COPS.

Re: Two things

[gedeco]

Personally as an EU citizen living on the border, I somethimes go to France. Except for ANPR camera, cell phone localisation ther is nothing to fill up such database. Sometimes I walk...
you've got a point, but not solid one.

Re:Two things

[MMC Monster]

Try getting a gay marriage from California recognized in Texas.

Re: Two things

[gedeco]

Yep, but the country you are residing can make some action a crime or not.
And sometimes it will be hard to find out which law have to be enforced. It can be complicated. Which is my point.
The guy posting on facebook was not aware he was breaking some law. (In my personal opinion, which does not count, he didn't)
Altough it is clear to you which law has to be followed, the road is open for misinterpretations if you can' correctly identify the country which law is applicable.
I guess this is the price of globalisation.

Re:Two things

[b0r0din]

Right dude. Make inane comment, then wall of text defending said stupid comment with more stupid comments. Good luck with your law degree.

Re:Two things

[b0r0din]

No one said anything about interpol cops, man. The only one living a fantasy world is you. You're being obtuse.

Re:Two things

[GNious]

I understand your view, here's theirs:

Facebook can be accessed from [random country]. Anything you post on Facebook is available (viewable) in said [random country]. Thus, you've broken the law in [random country].

No amount of arguing, wishing, debating, dreaming or really anything else non-cash-related will change this.

Re:Two things

[Cederic]

Given the legal status of homosexuality in Russia, maybe this is one reason he seems so keen to visit the US and get prosecuted.

Re:Two things

[vux984]

Bad example -- they agree not to spill it as a condition of employment, and are bound to it during, and after employment.

So if you violate an employement contract its a criminal offense? That you can be arrested for, and go to jail for? Noooope... its a civil contract dispute... employer can sue for damages, that's about it; even if the employer is the federal government.

Re:Two things

[mjwx]

Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.

When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.

This is straightforward, simple concept.

Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.

This is a simple is you assume no state is corrupt.

The problem you've got is you assume that US law applies everywhere. It doesn't.

When you enter another country, you become subject to the laws of those countries even if those laws can be applied retroactively. The US respects this convention (well at least openly pretends to) as they want other countries to respect their laws.

So what you do in California could get you in trouble in Russia if you go to Russia.

The only defence and solution to this is not to travel to countries where you may have violated the law in. 99% of these places are backwards shitholes, so it's relatively easy. Put simply, if you slag off the Emirs, you've got to be an idiot to go to the UAE.

Re:Two things

[gman003]

I am not the Sith you're looking for. You don't need to see my identification.

Yes, "reputation"

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Because in the last few years, we've seen what "reputation" really means. Bill Cosby, Lance Armstrong, Jian Ghomeshi, Colonel Williams, the list goes on.

But we must protect "reputation", because that's less expensive than, you know, actually being good or worthwhile.

Re:Yes, "reputation"

[MickyTheIdiot]

Truth used to be an affirmative defense. We're getting away from that.

Re:Yes, "reputation"

[Racemaniac]

they still have a comfy life and tons of money and are free to roam the world?

Why do we support these idiots?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to stop supporting countries like the UAE that have demonstrated time and time again that they have no regard for fundamental human rights.
Let them fend for themselves.

Re:Why do we support these idiots?

[Eunuchswear]

Why do you support those idiots?

Because they own you, fool.

The moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are fortunate enough to have the choice: do not live in, work in, or visit any nation that doesn't embrace the notion that a government exists to protect fundamental rights of individuals.

Re:The moral of the story

[EzInKy]

Could you please name such a nation? I live in the USA where the government exists to protect the rights of corporations.

Why don't people think about this shit?

[damn_registrars]

Seriously, if you post something to an internet forum, that post is no longer under your control. Don't say something online about someone if you are concerned how they might react to it. Yeah, jail time is extreme by western standards but the person who wrote it is not faultless.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[MickyTheIdiot]

And don't say anything about Father corporation?

Really.. fuck US corporate culture.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[damn_registrars]

You shouldn't just expect that everything you say is monitored and will be used against you.

There is a big difference between what you say - verbally or in private writing - and what you write in public. He wrote this in a public place, he had no reason to expect that it would be withheld from his employer if they were to come looking for it.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[fustakrakich]

Faultless from what? Nobody has any right to inconvenience him in any way. Jail time is extreme by any civil or humane standard. I did not know that you are pro censorship also.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[fustakrakich]

Again, you are full of it. It makes no difference how or where or when it is said. They do not, under any circumstances outside a mutual agreement have any right to use it against him. You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[damn_registrars]

Have you considered a new hobby? Following me around and showing that you love replying to my comments without reading them is a rather odd choice, particularly on a website with as few readers as this one. We heard recently that Gary Con is coming up soon, maybe you can find something to do there.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[fustakrakich]

Eh, whatever. When I bump into pro-censorship bullshit, I tend to react.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[damn_registrars]

Eh, whatever. When I bump into something you wrote, I tend to turn off my brain, avoid reading and overreact.

FTFY.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[fustakrakich]

Well,see, you're just full of shit. So take it as you wish. Somebody turned your brain off for you. And since you don't even know which end of the screwdriver to hit, it is not likely you can fix anything for anybody.

btw tnx for the money shot :-P

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[damn_registrars]

It is rather amusing that you are refusing to think when replying to a thread about people not thinking. An outside observer might see this and suspect you to be a sock puppet as you are doing more for my argument than against it.

Re:Why don't people think about this shit?

[fustakrakich]

'Argument'? You're funny...

I am the 'outside observer'. And you fascinate me.

Re:When in Rome

[Penguinisto]

That doesn't make the "law" any less unjust.

That said, It was kind of a stupid thing to do on his part. Should have resigned first, gone back home, *then* get hot on Facebook (though IMHO glassdoor.com would have been a better place to dump his invective.)

I just hope for his sake that ... nevermind; just RTFA'd. Dude went ballistic.

PS: summary sucks - the guy could wind up in prison for *five* years, not one.

The first rule of facebook

[avandesande]

Nothing important should go on facebook!

To protect their reputation

[mythix]

Because this news is good for their reputation...

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Try to go to Australia, break US law and then go to the US.
Heck, you might not even have to go to the US to be in trouble, US law enforcement might just come and get you.

Most nations doesn't like when people break their laws. Try to go to some nation where law isn't enforced, for example you could join up with ISIS and kill a bunch of civilians, then go to a western country where murder is illegal. It is very unlikely that they will let things slide just because you were on someone else's turf while the crime was committed.

If you still think US is any different, ask Snowden or Assange.

Wait

[g0bshiTe]

Isn't it only slander if it's not true? So if what he posted is true then it isn't slander right?

Re:Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK standard is harm. Truth is not a defense. The UAE standard might be "I don't like what he said".

Re:Wait

[HornWumpus]

In the UK it is slander to tell the truth if you do it with intent to harm someones reputation! WTF? True anyhow.

The Chiropractic board won a case because someone said 'they were quacks' (para). A true statement, but because of intent it was slander.

Re:When in Rome

[g0bshiTe]

Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?

Re:When in Rome

[Kinthelt]

Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?

Sending money to Cuba.

Everywhere

[nospam007]

I live in Luxembourg, Europe and last month we jailed a guy for 9 months for a Facebook rant.

http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembou...
---
(CS/mth) Two Luxembourg nationals on Thursday were found guilty of sending death threats to immigrant rights activists Serge Kollwelter and Laura Zuccoli, with one of the men sentenced to nine months in prison.

The pair were found guilty by a Luxembourg City court of publishing xenophobic comments and threats in a discussion feed on Facebook on March 31 last year.

A 54-year-old defendant was sentenced to nine months in prison, while his 45-year-old co-defendant was served a nine-month suspended sentence, under the condition that he will not be caught for a similar offence over the next five years. ...

Re:Everywhere

[T.E.D.]

Doesn't seem like much of the same thing to me. That was an instance of someone doing something they could be jailed for where they were at the time, who happened to use Facebook to do it.

The idea that I can be arrested for saying something that's perfectly legal where I said it by any country in the world that choses to pass a law against it is completely unworkable. Picture a dystopia where nobody ever speaks, because pretty much anything that can be said is illegal somewhere. Or even one where that doesn't help, because some country passed a law against being silent.

Re:Everywhere

[Jahta]

I live in Luxembourg, Europe and last month we jailed a guy for 9 months for a Facebook rant.

http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembou... ---

(CS/mth) Two Luxembourg nationals on Thursday were found guilty of sending death threats to immigrant rights activists Serge Kollwelter and Laura Zuccoli, with one of the men sentenced to nine months in prison.

Well ranting and threatening to kill somebody are two different things. The former is not normally illegal. The latter is illegal pretty much everywhere, regardless of whether you do it on the Internet or not.

Re:Everywhere

[fustakrakich]

We all live under a gun. The law is capricious and arbitrary and quite fickle. Until we learn how to disable the weaponry (or there is a global epiphany), we're kinda stuck with what we have. Might makes right

Re:Everywhere

[HornWumpus]

If it's a credible threat. e.g. Me threatening to run rstab on your eye isn't

Re:Everywhere

[T.E.D.]

Yes, but at least I have a hope of keeping myself informed of all the laws governing the political entities I live in. There is no possible way for a single human being to know and keep on top of all the laws governing behavior and speech in every country, county, state, city, etc. in the entire world. So one of them trying to enforce their internal laws on the entire world is patently ridiculous.

Re:Everywhere

[fustakrakich]

Just don't travel with anything valuable. You are surrounded by thieves. Many of them wear a uniform and a badge. Most people seem to be very tolerant of that, or it wouldn't be happening. If they can't be bothered, there is little point dwelling on it. Just do your best to enjoy the time you spend wherever you go.

When Are You Going To Learn

[Greyfox]

You do not talk about Fight Club in Derkaderkastan!

Re:When in Rome

[radja]

pedophilia

Re:When in Rome

[Intrepid imaginaut]

One must wonder therefore why we need lawyers.

Re:When in Rome

[ceoyoyo]

Running a gambling website.

Hey assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should bomb countries like the UAE.

Re:US Man?

[mi]

He has no one to blame but himself.

He must blame himself for voluntarily accepting UAE jurisdiction, yes — much as a raped girl must blame herself for accepting a spiked drink from a stranger.

That UAE incarcerates people for opinions expressed online is still an outrage, however — much as a rape is regardless of the mistakes made by the victim.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Running Megaupload ? (OK that was NZ)

Re:When in Rome

[Phreakiture]

Maybe not Australia, but how about Russia? I suspect that Dmitry Sklyarov has maybe faded from our collective memory.

Quick summary: Sklyarov is Russian. He lived in Russia, where he worked for a Russian software company writing Russian software. In Russia.

One piece of Russian software he worked on while working for his Russian employer in Russia is something that would have run afoul of US copyright law, but it was out of US jurisdiction because the software was written by a Russian working for a Russian company in Russia.

Then Sklyarov made the mistake of coming to DefCon, where he, a Russian, was arrested for writing software that violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which is out of jurisdiction in Russia, where he lived (as Russians tend to do) and worked for a Russian company writing Russian software, in Russia.

In short, he committed no crime because the law that was applied to him is out of jurisdiction.

Slavery

[Ryanrule]

Its called slavery. Yes, it is old fashioned.

Re:When in Rome

[linuxrocks123]

Thanks for bringing this up. Minor correction is he was charged but not convicted.

Re:When in Rome

[kamapuaa]

Well, the software was sold in the US. And, charges against the dude were dropped. And it was 14 years ago. So I think it's understandable that it's no longer a burning issue.

Well, this is the United Arab Emirates

[fustakrakich]

The savagery of censorship should be expected under such tyranny. And even in the US free speech gets little respect, so the best thing to do is keep it anonymous as much as possible. The hate against freedom is strong on this planet.

Re:When in Rome

[Immerman]

Well, that would be a crime committed by whoever was selling the software someplace where it was illegal, not the guy who wrote it someplace where it as legal.

anti-trolling legislation

[davydagger]

You want "anti-trolling legislation", this is what you will get.

The only diffrence between this and the Curt Shilling article is how some dumbfuck english major wrote them.

Re:cocks r popular on /.

[Shortguy881]

That statistic makes me feel good

Tourism

[ohnocitizen]

Can we organize in some way to take tourism dollars away from countries like this?

Re:Tourism

[harryjohnston]

I reckon you should need to get a license to travel to the UAE, including mandatory training on their various absurd laws. With an examination.

Re:Tourism

[mjwx]

Can we organize in some way to take tourism dollars away from countries like this?

Tourism isn't a big thing in the UAE precisely because of backwards crap like this.

The UAE has a lot of expats and guest workers. The "Guest Workers" are lured from places like India, Bangladesh and the Philippines so mostly they're beneath the notice of the average westerner (I guess we can call this a third world problem) which is a shame as the "Guest Workers" are really mistreated. As for the expats, they should know what they're getting into.

Personally I will refuse to travel to the UAE and try to avoid businesses that originate in the UAE (such as Emirates Airlines) because of the way the UAE operates.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing "just" about the entire UAE. Almost all their laws are barbaric and designed for oppression.

But then all arabic countries are less about freedom and equality and more about keep the rich guy in charge rich and in charge.

my company's policy

[slashmydots]

My company has a really successful policy to avoid these types of problems. Don't work with foreign companies. Don't sell to them. Don't talk to them. Don't visit them. Don't take visitors from foreign countries. Don't use foreign suppliers to buy anything. Don't use foreign financial companies. It cut out foreign fraud numbers down to zero, which has been a big help since back to back 3 Germans in a row tried to rip us off (and 1 Alegerian and 1 Israeli and 2 British customers).

Re:When in Rome

[russotto]

The question of US jurisdiction over Sklyarov's actions was never litigated, because a deal was arranged wherein the charges against Sklyarov would be dropped in exchange for his testimony against Elcomsoft, his employer. Elcomsoft was then acquitted at trial.

Re:US Man?

[mrchaotica]

Brilliant! Because you chose to make that particular analogy, nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists regardless of how poor an analogy it is.

Re:When in Rome

[Khashishi]

But a bad law IS an excuse from the law. Fuck that shit. Defend free speech!

Re:US Man?

[mi]

nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists

Yes, we have so many of them here on /., it is frightening.

regardless of how poor an analogy it is.

Fortunately, it is not poor at all. Own mistakes, that lead one into trouble, are rarely an excuse for those, who cause the actual trouble itself.

It does not matter, whether the "trouble" is rape or unjust incarceration.

Re:When in Rome

[Phreakiture]

Sure. I'll cop to being a tad imprecise with my language.

Re:When in Rome

[Phreakiture]

To a point, yes, but are we going to arrest Canadians in Canada for smoking Cuban cigars, which can be legally bought and smoked there? I think not.

The suggestion about sex tourists involves crimes committed at least partially on our shores: the sex tourist bought his ticket and made his plans here. He is a citizen here, and subject to our laws for that reason. He lives here. He works here. He went on that vacation with the express purpose of committing acts that are illegal here.

Skylarov's presence in the US had nothing to do with his offenses. It was never done expressly to thwart US law.

Re:When in Rome

[Phreakiture]

Bingo! Immerman gets it.

Reputation doesn't belong to you

[peektwice]

The UAE law meant to protect reputation is founded on the mistaken belief that one's reputation belongs to him or her. Much like "brand image" it is the consumer, or the beholder in this case, to which the reputation belongs.

Re:When in Rome

[sjames]

And he spent significant time in foreign jail far from home anyway. Far too much time considering that the charges were obviously inappropriate.

Re:Bomb them

[Cederic]

Or maybe Americans should obey the laws of the countries they visit.

Is that too fucking hard?

Re:Only in the news because he's American

[Cederic]

No, it's like hacking US military computers from the UK and the US government bitching for fucking years to extradite you. See also: Gary McKinnon.

Except the UAE didn't even bother to extradite him, they arrested him in the UAE for publishing statements in the UAE - where he was when he published them doesn't alter fact that he published in the UAE. His mistake was going back there. Or maybe going there in the first place.

So no, it's nothing like going to Utah and admiring the scenery.

So... they read facebook over there?

[St.Creed]

Now that's amazing. They actually read facebook in other countries? Who'd have thought that posting something on a public website would be read by people you work with? Especially when you do that on a site that sends them a mail when you post something?

Yes, the laws in the UAE are very harsh and oppressive. But it's really hard not to notice that when you work there, so it's not a surprise, I hope, that they use it against foreigners that get uppity.

Is it a disgrace the UAE has these laws? Yes. And putting someone 5 years in jail for an outburst is way overboard. But you get paid good wages in the UAE precisely because not a whole lot of people want to work under those conditions. It's like soldiers complaining about danger: what did you think the pay was for?

For those wondering ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... this is what actual totalitarianism looks like.

Re:When in Rome

[mjwx]

Other than copyright or piracy exactly which US law could you violate while in Australia and then be arrested for upon arrival back in the US?

Go look at the US ESTA application that all Australians have to fill out before travelling to the US.

There's a metric shitload that will get you rejected. Drugs, being associated with a banned group, moral turpitude (we dont even have anything like that on the books in Oz), having previously overstayed a Visa. If you lie on the application to get entry and the US finds out, they will arrest and deport you. At least they've now stopped asking if I'm a Nazi.

The US is one of the harder countries for Australians to gain entry to. Having a possession charge against you 10 odd years ago because you were caught with a joint means that in order to get authorisation to travel to the US you have to attend an interview at a US embassy to ensure you're not a drug user. Possession is a misdemeanour in Australia, you dont even go to court for it.