- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
UAE cybercrime law means sharing images or footage of war can bring jail, prison time and deportation
A British man is among 20 people who have been charged in the United Arab Emirates under cybercrime laws in connection with filming and posting material related to Iranian attacks on the country.
The 60-year-old man, understood to be a tourist who was visiting Dubai, was charged under a law that prohibits sharing material that could disturb public security.
The case was highlighted by Detained in Dubai, an organisation that provides legal assistance to individuals in the UAE.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s crazy how many idiots convinced themselves authoritarian governments weren’t a big deal…
Like, I don’t feel bad for anyone dumb enough to visit Dubai.
Well he is british so he already has a shit government with a king with zero free speech and a history of abusing and oppression.
The worst thing about being Irish is the proximity to the British…
The worst thing about being British is proximity to the monarchy…
Like, people always forget that the real problem was the French aristocrats who took over Britain and didn’t have any loyalty or comradarie to the English people.
For like 300 years the royals and English government used French, they didn’t switch to English until fear of revolt made them want to build cohesion with the masses.
TLDR:
The first victims of the “British” royal family, were the fucking British. As the Empire grew, they changed their definitions of “us” but always only after finding a new “them” to distract the British populace from the fact that foreign invaders have been ruling their island for a literal thousand years.
It’s hard to shit on an occupied people because their occupiers never stopped occupying…
Reminder for those that still need it that under the veneer of money and splendor, the UAE is still an oppressive assbackwards shithole.
A British man is among 20 people who have been charged in the United Arab Emirates under cybercrime laws in connection with filming and posting material related to Iranian attacks on the country.
The 60-year-old man, understood to be a tourist who was visiting Dubai, was charged under a law that prohibits sharing material that could disturb public security.
The case was highlighted by Detained in Dubai, an organisation that provides legal assistance to individuals in the UAE.
While restrictions on filming attacks during conflict are not unusual globally, the case has attracted attention because of the UAE’s reputation as a magnet for influencers whose livelihoods depend on constant filming and posting. Despite the law, footage from recent Iranian attacks has been widely spread on social media.
Radha Stirling, the head of Detained in Dubai, said the unnamed man, who is from London, had been charged along with 20 other people after police found a video of an Iranian missile strike in Dubai on his phone, despite the fact he had apparently deleted the video from his phone immediately when challenged.
According to the official case summary, those accused are alleged to have used an information network or information technology tool to broadcast, publish, republish or circulate false news, rumours or provocative propaganda that may incite public opinion or disturb public security.
“The charges sound extremely vague but serious on paper. In reality, the alleged conduct could be something as simple as sharing or commenting on a video that is already circulating online,” said Stirling in a statement.
“Under UAE cybercrime laws, the person who originally posts content can be charged, but so can anyone who reshapes, reposts or comments on it.”
One video can quickly lead to dozens of people facing criminal charges. Penalties in such cases can include up to two years in prison, fines ranging from 20,000 AED (£4,000) to AED 200,000, or both, and foreign nationals will also face deportation.
Stirling warned that the risk is compounded because multiple counts can be applied, meaning a person who reposts several clips or articles could theoretically face cumulative charges and multiple sentences, even where the actions were entirely innocent.
“There are countless images, videos and news reports circulating online about the conflict. People understandably assume that if something is already widely shared or published by media outlets, it must be acceptable to comment on or repost it. In the UAE, that assumption can be extremely dangerous,” she said.
“Journalists have travelled to Dubai specifically to film missile interceptions, sending footage to editors abroad who then publish it from outside the country. But once that material appears online, residents and visitors inside the UAE who share or comment on it could suddenly find themselves accused of spreading rumours or damaging public security.”
The case comes amid the imposition of tight new rules on journalists and members of the public, including visiting foreigners, during a time of high tensions in the Middle East.
Restrictions in Iran are particularly severe, while Gulf monarchies, which have been targeted by unprecedented drone and missile attacks from Iran, have also imposed tighter controls.
Israel has barred publication of content deemed a direct security threat, such as live broadcasts showing city skylines during missile attacks, images that identify locations of missile impact sites or information on military plans and air defences.
Governments seem particularly concerned about images that disclose the location of missile and drone strikes, or that show projectiles being intercepted.
AFP, one of the few international news outlets with a Tehran bureau, said this week it has been unable to visit the scene of the strike on a school in the southern town of Minab, where Iranian authorities say more than 150 people, many of them children, were killed by a US Tomahawk missile.
Man I fucking hate the Guardian.
Is there no source people can share that doesn’t force you to accept cookies or subscribe?
This still won’t let you read articles on websites like that though.
What do you mean? I must be doing something right because I click the link and get no cookie popup and can read it. Is there a paywall I’m missing?
or just use ublock and noscript? I was able to view the article without any of that. Not even sure how you use the internet without them but you do you.
I have ublock but not noscript
You said you’re able to view the article without either one? What browser do you use?
Looks like it does in fact work on desktop but I still have trouble getting it to on mobile. I’ll experiment around with it
I said (or thought I implied) I use both and I use Firefox.
Oh yeah you did I misread that my bad I was like “WHAT HOW”
There are.
They’ll all have heavy right wing bias though. Is that what you want?
Every single one that doesn’t flood me with a “cookies or subscribe” banner has a right wing bias?
Pretty much yes.
Why?
Because all the big media conglomerates are pushing right wing agenda. They don’t want/need your money that bad because they have the financial backing and those “news portals” are not a service, but a tool to spread propaganda.
On the other hand, true independent or left leaning publications don’t have the same financial backing, thus rely on subscriptions, ads and seemingly anti-consumer approaches just to stay afloat.
Remember: if it’s “free”, you’re the product.
PBS and Mother Jones both don’t.
Yes they have a donate button, what they don’t have is “turn off your adblocker or subscribe to keep reading this article”
Boh of them let you hit X on the donate and then keep reading.
I think your assessment is wrong.
