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

[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.

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[b0r0din]

Darth Vader, is that you?

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

[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.

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: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: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: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.

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:When in Rome

[Phreakiture]

Bingo! Immerman gets it.

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: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.