As several people here have pointed out, Iran is not disconnected from the Internet. Users in Iran have been able to connect to the internet without any atypical problem... this rumor has been swirling about for a few days. I manage a Persian-language website with many readers in Iran, so I have both the motivation and the resources to check into this... we've seen no decrease in traffic from within Iran. I've also been able to find no source for this that doesn't trace back to the Internet Traffic Report, which as other has pointed out has a somewhat inexact methodology. This is the second time this has been mentioned in Slashdot, and everytime it is posted, it gives me a heart-attack... there might be a need to post a correction or at the very least to stop asserting that Iran has no connectivity without better confirmation.
From what I can tell from the phrasing of the suit (and I'm not a lawyer), it seems like what the law in question does is allow people from other countries file suit against US companies for actions committed in other countries. So if I'm a chemical company, and I dump a bunch of chemicals over in Canada, the Canadians who get sick can sue me over it.
I think the key thing here is that they are NOT just bringing suit against the Yahoo! Holdings (HK) but also against the parent company in the US. I think if they were just bringing suit against the Chinese branches, they would have more trouble under point a), but they aren't, they are basically saying that Yahoo! Holdings (HK) is a wholly owned subsidiary, so Yahoo! Inc is responsible for their actions. It is pretty common for these kinds of cases... companies will set up tiny little companies with no assets to speak of that are, for example, in charge of running a mine or a plant. That way when there is a civil suit because of an industrial accident or pollution, the tiny company takes the fall, but can't pay out much money, and the big company is protected. However, there has been some success in the past with proving that the parent company was the one actually making the decisions, and holding them responsible for the actions of the smaller company (thus allowing bigger payouts). My guess is that is what is going on here, except with an international bent.
I'm not sure about if it will stick, but according to the complaint, found on the Human Rights Groups website, http://www.humanrightsusa.org/ they are suing based on Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and some California laws. In the claim it says, "The Alien Tort Statute provides federal jurisdiction for "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The Torture Victim Protection Act supplements and confirms the ATCA by providing federal jurisdiction for acts of torture, as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1350." It seems like they are suing both Yahoo and YahooChina.
Regardless of if it holds up in court, they have drawn attention to the situation, which probably was at least half their goal.
Slashdot Mirror
As several people here have pointed out, Iran is not disconnected from the Internet. Users in Iran have been able to connect to the internet without any atypical problem... this rumor has been swirling about for a few days. I manage a Persian-language website with many readers in Iran, so I have both the motivation and the resources to check into this... we've seen no decrease in traffic from within Iran. I've also been able to find no source for this that doesn't trace back to the Internet Traffic Report, which as other has pointed out has a somewhat inexact methodology. This is the second time this has been mentioned in Slashdot, and everytime it is posted, it gives me a heart-attack... there might be a need to post a correction or at the very least to stop asserting that Iran has no connectivity without better confirmation.
From what I can tell from the phrasing of the suit (and I'm not a lawyer), it seems like what the law in question does is allow people from other countries file suit against US companies for actions committed in other countries. So if I'm a chemical company, and I dump a bunch of chemicals over in Canada, the Canadians who get sick can sue me over it. I think the key thing here is that they are NOT just bringing suit against the Yahoo! Holdings (HK) but also against the parent company in the US. I think if they were just bringing suit against the Chinese branches, they would have more trouble under point a), but they aren't, they are basically saying that Yahoo! Holdings (HK) is a wholly owned subsidiary, so Yahoo! Inc is responsible for their actions. It is pretty common for these kinds of cases... companies will set up tiny little companies with no assets to speak of that are, for example, in charge of running a mine or a plant. That way when there is a civil suit because of an industrial accident or pollution, the tiny company takes the fall, but can't pay out much money, and the big company is protected. However, there has been some success in the past with proving that the parent company was the one actually making the decisions, and holding them responsible for the actions of the smaller company (thus allowing bigger payouts). My guess is that is what is going on here, except with an international bent.
I'm not sure about if it will stick, but according to the complaint, found on the Human Rights Groups website, http://www.humanrightsusa.org/ they are suing based on Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and some California laws. In the claim it says, "The Alien Tort Statute provides federal jurisdiction for "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The Torture Victim Protection Act supplements and confirms the ATCA by providing federal jurisdiction for acts of torture, as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1350." It seems like they are suing both Yahoo and YahooChina. Regardless of if it holds up in court, they have drawn attention to the situation, which probably was at least half their goal.