Under UAE cybercrime laws, the person who originally posts content can be charged, but so can anyone who reshapes, reposts or comments on it.

all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 20 points 8 months ago

Are there links to the videos? Can I share them too

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Why can't they have videos of what happened?!!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I don't know the specific situation there, but traditionally if you have a military conflict going on, battle damage assessment is part of a military's job.

    Battle damage assessment (BDA), sometimes referred to as bomb damage assessment, is the process of evaluating the physical and functional damage inflicted on a target as a result of military operations. It is a core component of combat assessment and is used to inform judgments about mission effectiveness and potential follow-on actions, including reattack recommendations.[1]

    Information on battle damage is highly valuable to the enemy and military intelligence and censors will endeavor to conceal, exaggerate or underplay the extent of damage depending on the circumstances.

    With long-range weapons


    which is what Iran is using against UAE targets


    it can be hard to know whether-or-not you're actually hitting something. You need some sort of reconnaissance platform or a physical person to go out and take a look. So in general, a defending military would rather not permit an attacking military to know what has actually been hit. If the attack missed, then they don't want the attacking military to know, so that they can fire another at the target, for example. And if there are accuracy issues or jamming or other things going on, they don't want the attacking military to know about that. If the attacking military is defeating jamming efforts or has resolved accuracy issues or similar, they also don't want the attacking military to know about that. They're going to want their attacker to be as blind as they can keep them, to deny them a useful battle damage assessment.

    In one extreme case of this, the UK, in World War II, had Nazi Germany fire V-2 rockets, early ballistic missiles, at them. Guidance systems at the time were primitive, limiting accuracy, and the British conducted an extensive disinformation effort, mis-reporting where rockets were hitting and seeking to prevent Germany from obtaining access to accurate information. This led to Germany consistently shooting V-2s at the wrong place, because they were trusting that bad information for their battle damage assessment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Direct_attack_and_disinformation

    The only effective defences against the V-2 campaign were to destroy the launch infrastructure—expensive in terms of bomber resources and casualties—or to cause the Germans to aim at the wrong place by disinformation. The British were able to convince the Germans to direct V-1s and V-2s aimed at London to less populated areas east of the city. This was done by sending deceptive reports on the sites hit and damage caused via the German espionage network in Britain, which was secretly controlled by the British (the Double-Cross System).[79]

    EDIT: Another WW2 example that comes to mind: for some time, Japanese warships had been trying to depth-charge American submarines, but using an incorrect depth. A congressman released information to the public about this fact. That information then made its way to Japan, at which point the Japanese military corrected their weapon use.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May

    May was responsible for the release of highly classified military information during World War II known as the May Incident.[6] U.S. submarines had been conducting a successful undersea war against Japanese shipping during World War II, frequently escaping their anti-submarine depth charge attacks.[6][7] May revealed the deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics in a press conference held in June 1943 on his return from a war zone junket.[6][7] At this press conference, he revealed the highly sensitive fact that American submarines had a high survival rate because Japanese depth charges were exploding at too shallow a depth.[6][7] Various press associations sent this leaked news story over their wires and many newspapers published it, including one in Honolulu, Hawaii.[6][7]

    After the news became public, Japanese naval antisubmarine forces began adjusting their depth charges to explode at a greater depth.[6][7] Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, estimated that May's security breach cost the United States Navy as many as 10 submarines and 800 crewmen killed in action.[6][7] He said, "I hear Congressman May said the Jap depth charges are not set deep enough. He would be pleased to know that the Japs set them deeper now."[6][7]

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Idiot goes to authoritarian country, proceeds to complain about authoritarian measures

  • source
  • 31 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 67 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    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....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    And this is why I will never step foot in the UAE, even fly on a plane that stops there.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 50 points 8 months ago

    Reminder for those that still need it that under the veneer of money and splendor, the UAE is still an oppressive assbackwards shithole.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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.

    God forbid the truth and objective reality actually gets out. What a shit hole country.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago
    • Was that a mis...
    • Nope!
    • look there's anorher....
    • ....bird? Yes, big one wasn't it?
    • it just blew...
    • oh, look, here's your drink! And that pretty lady who's totally not a hooker seems to like you!
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (17 children)

    Man I fucking hate the Guardian.

    Is there no source people can share that doesn't force you to accept cookies or subscribe?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    This still won't let you read articles on websites like that though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I said (or thought I implied) I use both and I use Firefox.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Oh yeah you did I misread that my bad I was like "WHAT HOW"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    haha all good. Also another thing that might have impacted my experience is I use Consent-O-Matic which helps eliminate most GDPR pop-ups which is half of what was annoying you; right? Which, FWIW, is why you get those cookie pop-ups most of the times. For right wrong or indifferent it's an EU law and The Guardian follows it I guess. I mean sure it would be nice if they just didn't try to collect shit cookies so they didn't have to then ask you about it, but that's what we got sooooo [sigh]

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    There are.

    They'll all have heavy right wing bias though. Is that what you want?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Every single one that doesn't flood me with a "cookies or subscribe" banner has a right wing bias?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    PBS is a non-com non-profit.

    Mother Jones literally runs a bi-monthly subscription magazine that funds their operations, aside from the ads on their website.

    And both of them enjoy being in the US while The Guardian is a British publication, with more stringent requirements on financial steps, which is why they have to ask for permission to collect your information. Oh, and even then, their site manages to load a total of 3 trackers. Mother Jones is at 218 just loading the front page, both checked with domain level adblocking...

    But hey, if you'd rather enjoy the mirage of not being datamined instead of being told upfront and offered to not be datamined for a little money... that's on you buddy. But I doubt that unicorn will show up on your next birthday...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment