Airline worker arrested after sharing photos of bomb damage in WhatsApp group
192 points
5 hours ago
| 27 comments
| lbc.co.uk
| HN
Someone1234
4 hours ago
[-]
> publishing information deemed harmful to state interests

Is the charge, which I think kind of speaks for itself. Full on: "You embarrassed us, straight to jail."

In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared by the media then we'd reflect on if our routing is safe/correct and make proportional changes for safety. Not a big deal, nobody is fired, life moves on.

I feel like actions like this are going to hurt the UAE themselves, because how can you improve if there is no dialog? No information to even start a dialog? A lot of hard conversations are NOT going to be had because I guess it is a state secret?

reply
Animats
7 minutes ago
[-]
> Is the charge, which I think kind of speaks for itself. Full on: "You embarrassed us, straight to jail."

That's exactly it, and the UAE admits it. The Atlantic covered this last month.[1] Dubai uses influencers as part of their strategy to market Dubai as a safe place for rich people. There's an influencer visa. There's a government Creators HQ office to help with relocation and permits. Dubai requires an “Advertiser Permit”, which include a ban on publishing anything that “might harm the national currency or the economic situation in the State.”

The BBC showed several influencer videos side by side, all with the same message: "Are you scared? No, because we know who protects us."[1] They're as on-message as Sinclair in the US.

So is AlJazeera, now. Earlier in the war, attacks on Dubai were reported. Now, they don't seem to be, although coverage on hits outside the UAE is good. AlJazeera is run by the UAE government.

The UAE has been cracking down on this for a while, according to Bellingcat.[3] "Think before you share. Spreading rumors is a crime."

The hits on the Burj Al Arab hotel, the Fairmont hotel, and Dubai's airport were too big to hide completely, but UAE authorities did take action against people who posted videos. That was back in late February - early March. News of later hits appears to have been successfully censored.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/03/dubai-...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giBHZ31RMU

[3] https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/04/02/war-uae-iran-infu...

reply
tremon
4 hours ago
[-]
how can you improve if there is no dialog

The UAE doesn't have a self-advancement culture, it's a capital-backed monarchy that imports pretty much all of its research and production; in other words it piggy-backs on the knowledge produced in other societies. There is no advancement through dialog in the country itself.

reply
pydry
4 hours ago
[-]
They're effectively at war and are freaking out about capital flight which poses a unique existential risk to them especially.

I imagine most countries in that situation would clamp down on freedom of speech and prohibit sharing photos of missile strikes. This would include most of the ones that pay lip service to freedom of speech in peace time.

Ukraine does this too.

reply
dralley
3 hours ago
[-]
Ukraine does it to avoid assisting Russian damage assessment and targeting efforts. Avoiding embarrassment is not really part of the equation, especially when they need to push for more international support.
reply
oa335
3 hours ago
[-]
> Ukraine does it to avoid assisting Russian damage assessment and targeting efforts.

Isn’t UAE doing this to avoid Iranian damage assessment and targeting efforts also?

reply
michaelt
1 hour ago
[-]
The censorship is dual purpose.

They want to make it so Iran doesn’t know if they successfully hit that Oracle data centre.

But they also want to make it so foreign investors don’t get scared off by the prospect of their data centre getting blown up. Obviously investors will avoid the area so long as missiles are flying - but by coming through the conflict "unscathed" will let them bounce back fast. Likewise with tourism.

Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Iran have a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.

reply
kelipso
48 minutes ago
[-]
Isn’t Ukraine’s censorship dual purpose as well?

They are more likely to get funding from EU if they can make it look like they can win the war.

Which of these is the bigger motivation? Hard to say. But I gather most drones have cameras, so I imagine Russia has a pretty good idea of where their drones are striking.

reply
rightbyte
16 minutes ago
[-]
"Avoid embarrassment" is very much why you quench public discourse.
reply
LightBug1
3 hours ago
[-]
Why worry about it. Sudan has been getting a front seat viewing of "existential risk" for some time now.

Fuck the UAE. Beautiful people - bullshit governments. Per usual.

reply
Henchman21
1 hour ago
[-]
Its almost like the idea of nations and representative government have been co-opted by sinister forces to advance an agenda that doesn't serve the people.

Perhaps its time humanity evolve beyond this foolishness?

reply
schiffern
4 hours ago
[-]

  >In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared 
OTOH, anyone remember "loose lips sink ships?" Beyond the famous poster, it was backed up by robust censorship laws.[0][1]

You might say it's different since we were at war, but this ignores how the threat model and immediacy is very different in the UAE vs here in the (geographically well protected/isolated) US.

Battle damage assessment, especially if it's timely, is critical information in any conflict. This is especially true for modern drone-based / hybrid asymmetrical conflict.

[0] https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/spring/m...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

reply
jordanb
2 hours ago
[-]
Loose Lips Sink Ships was itself an information management scheme to avoid informing the public.

The Germans didn't have spies collecting rumors in the US. Nor did they need them during Operation Drumbeat (the U-Boat attack on the US coast). The US was completely unprepared for Drumbeat. They had no harbor defenses, no convoys, inadequate and unprepared coastwatcher and patrol services.

The point of the censorship is to not cause panic among the public as they realized how badly the US was losing. Drumbeat was worse for the US than the attack on Pearl Harbor was, both in terms of lost ships and number of Americans killed. It was about controlling embarrassment for the Navy. American ships were blowing up and sinking within eyesight of shore. Vacationers were finding dead seaman washed up on the beaches of Florida and New Jersey. The military did not want these events turning into major media events.

And to the extent that the censorship was justified, yes, at the very least we were legally in a properly declared war.

Ironically, there was one time the media did cause a massive problem that could have affected the outcome of the war.

The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter to Pearl Harbor after the battle of Midway and managed to learn from some indiscreet senior commanders that we knew where the Japanese fleet was because we cracked their codes.

The reporter published the story in the Tribune. It was pure dumb luck that the Japanese never noticed the story. Roosevelt wanted the reporter and Robert McCormick brought up on espionage charges, but Admiral King asked him not to prosecute because the Japanese didn't seem to notice the article but they'd definitely notice the trial.

reply
Legend2440
59 minutes ago
[-]
>The Germans didn't have spies collecting rumors in the US.

Yes they did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duquesne_Spy_Ring

reply
jordanb
26 minutes ago
[-]
This ring was broken up before the US was even in the war. Operation Drumbeat began after the Pearl Harbor attack at the end of 1941 but was most intense in early 1942. There was lots of Bund activity in the 1930s and prior to Pearl Harbor but very little afterwards.

But also, even if there were Bund spies in American ports was unnecessary and unable to provide tactical information to the German U-boats. Unable due to practical limitations of communication. Unnecessary because the US was so ill-equipped for the battle. For instance, the Bund wouldn't have been able to report on the movement of convoys because there were no convoys.

The US still had charted aids to navigation light up, and cities weren't blacked out allowing the submarines to sit off the coast and see US ships silhouetted against the city skyline behind them. A German submarine sailed into New York harbor using a tourist map as a chart!

reply
lazide
46 minutes ago
[-]
Germany not only had spies, there were multiple (albeit failed/foiled) sabotage attempts by Germany on US soil.

Part of the issue the US had is the very large (significant percent of the population) 1st gen German immigrant population. There were concerns they would sympathize.

What was actually happening is many of these immigrants were there to get away from Hitler and Germany as it was at the time, so Germany found most of its attempts stymied instead. But they did try.

reply
somenameforme
2 hours ago
[-]
Iran is going to be getting constant satellite date. They not only have their own satellite surveillance systems, but also will be getting support, probably covert, from a variety of other countries which also have robust satellite networks.

This is solely for "domestic" (which extends well beyond the UAE) PR purposes, and I expect the US is actively encouraging these countries, behind the scenes, to keep losses under wraps.

reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
Feet and inches level precision matters. This is why these kinds of videos are tamped down because they can show how close or far off target a strike was, and is extremely valuable training data.

Additionally, seeing who responded, the agencies they are associated with, and their faces matter as well.

The UAE is an authoritarian state, but this is how most states operate during a state of war. Even Ukraine tamps down on videos and social media being shared of incidents based on the likelihood whether or not it would expose operational details.

reply
post-it
4 hours ago
[-]
It's not in the interests of the UAE to improve. There's the (possibly misattributed? but topical nonetheless) quote by the previous emir of Dubai:

> My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel.

They want to prolong the Land Rover phase as long as possible.

reply
SanjayMehta
2 hours ago
[-]
For what it's worth, the quote is half and half. The full context is that he went on to say he wanted to avoid the second camel.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/dubai-sheikhs-words-lost-in...

reply
Teknomadix
4 hours ago
[-]
So in other words; Mercedes-Benz was the peak, and he was estimating a decline trajectory slower than the rise.
reply
chasil
2 hours ago
[-]
Assuming that our civilizations can wean ourselves both from fossil fuels and chemical feedstocks, then the camel may be in their future.

I think the timing stated here is quite optimistic.

reply
skywal_l
4 hours ago
[-]
Note that they did not "publish" the picture. They shared it in a private group. This is 1984 kind of stuff. This will hurt Dubai's brand way more than any kinetic attack from Iran.
reply
gerikson
4 hours ago
[-]
Dubai's brand (before the war) was "you're welcome to come here to make money, but criticize the government and you're out". I'm sure there's a ton of young influencers who don't know the first thing about the place to not have internalized it, but I remember a spate of articles and books about 15 years ago of Westerners falling afoul of the local laws and losing everything.
reply
notahacker
22 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah, tbh people not scared by stories of people as wealthy and white and Western as then being prosecuted for kissing their unmarried opposite sex partner on the beach or falling out with the wrong person are not going to be worried about how wartime paranoia interacts with airline employees
reply
duped
2 hours ago
[-]
There are a lot of things that I would expect to hurt Dubai's "brand" but people still travel there. I don't understand why anyone would travel there in times of peace, let alone during war. You don't even need it for connecting flights.
reply
f6v
4 hours ago
[-]
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest

You'd absolutely get detained by authorities in Ukraine or Russia for sharing consequences of airstrikes on critical infrastructure. I'm sure other countries would do the same (not that it's good).

reply
traceroute66
2 hours ago
[-]
Well, in Russia you would most likely accidentally fall out of the window that a careless person left open.
reply
konart
1 hour ago
[-]
You can open Telegram and watch at videos and photos of almost any Ukrainian strike.
reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
A large number of those tend to be vetted. Additonally, frontlines level videos do go through significant vetting and some form of MDM is used on personal phones in the frontlines.

Additionally, on the Ukraine side as well as the Russian side, civilian strike information isn't deemed critical from a NatSec perspective as plenty of Russians and Ukrainians lived on both sides of the border and still have relatives on either side, so both assume the other has granular level knowledge of non-frontline spaces.

reply
dylan604
2 hours ago
[-]
obviously, countries have ways to determine BDAs for their attacks, but you don't have to give it to them for free. The concept of oversharing is lost in the age of social media.
reply
miohtama
4 hours ago
[-]
It's public interest of Dubainers of not to expose any problems, as the premise of the emirate is built on loose money, loose rules and high life and this kind of money is first to flee in the case of hiccups.
reply
brikym
2 hours ago
[-]
Problems such as 'Dubai porta-potty'
reply
infecto
2 hours ago
[-]
Honest question. The UAE is well known for very questionable imported labor. Do you think they or the people who live there care?
reply
stavros
1 hour ago
[-]
But how can they improve if they don't let the slaves criticise the state?!
reply
throw_m239339
3 hours ago
[-]
Foreign residents cannot criticize UAE or its government and monarchy in any way, under threat of prison and/or torture.

How is that complicated to understand? It's a brutal regime with a fake Monaco to attract rich tourists, influencers, investors and prostitutes, but the moment you fall in disgrace in the eyes of the authorities, you're done.

> ‘I was beaten and tortured’: how a British father and son made a fortune in Dubai then became wanted men

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/british-father...

You're all acting here like UAE is some sort of reasonable country with fair laws, when it's a dictatorship.

reply
brikym
2 hours ago
[-]
We now know what happens to a lot of influencers and wannabes: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/dubai-porta-potty-influencer...

The car junk yards are also really sketchy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrGCv3sZXAQ

reply
t0mas88
3 hours ago
[-]
Exactly. A dictatorship with a medieval religious view on human rights related topics.

And most of those influencers aren't even rich...

reply
netdur
4 hours ago
[-]
there are two sides, such as how photos can stress citizens and act as propaganda, making them harmful to state interests, ultimately it is their country and their rules, not yours, regardless of how much you disagree with it

you are also missing the elephant in the room, whatsapp's claim of end-to-end encryption is a lie

reply
chasil
2 hours ago
[-]
The actual text from the article implies that OS exploits compromised the device.

"The UAE government owns majority holdings in telecom companies Etisalat and Du. This gives security services the power to observe all communications on their networks.

"The Arab state has also used the Israeli-developed software Pegasus which allows agents to listen into private calls and read messages, even if they are shared on encrypted apps like WhatsApp,.

"The spyware can infect a device even without the user activating a link - such as via a WhatsApp call, even if it isn't answered.

"Once inside, it can access all WhatsApp messages, logos and contacts."

reply
ufmace
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't think that means anything as the author of the article almost certainly has no clue about anything but what the Government there told him. They're just quoting general knowledge and speculation by other equally-uninformed third parties.
reply
chasil
1 hour ago
[-]
Well, how would you a) obtain the incriminating photo, then b) determine that it had been transmitted?

An OS exploit and stat() for an atime would do it.

reply
alephnerd
1 hour ago
[-]
> you are also missing the elephant in the room, whatsapp's claim of end-to-end encryption is a lie

Not exactly.

E2E is illegal in the UAE, and Meta has only advertised E2E in countries where it can operate E2E freely.

All chat apps that operate in the UAE need to store data locally with full access given to the UAE's Telecom and Interior Ministries.

reply
adjejmxbdjdn
4 hours ago
[-]
Group chats are openly not E2E encrypted.

Even personal chats are publicly not E2E encrypted.

There are other insidious ways you can publicly and openly end E2E encryption (I think backups might do that).

Essentially, while WhatsApp may not be lying their default 1 to 1 chats are E2E encrypted, it makes sense to use it as if it weren’t because it’s so easy to disable it even with their publicly disclosed information.

reply
Tepix
3 hours ago
[-]
Wrong. Both WhatsApp and Signal group chats are E2EE.

Telegram group chats are not. Even 1on1 chats aren‘t E2EE on Telegram by default.

Also, reporting is an issue: If a member of the group "Reports" a message to WhatsApp, a copy of the recent messages in that chat is decrypted and sent to WhatsApp for review to check for terms-of-service violations.

reply
duxup
1 hour ago
[-]
Sadly I think for those in power it doesn’t hurt them.
reply
andai
3 hours ago
[-]
>How can you improve if there is no dialogue

Didn't UAE have a phone line to the king that anyone can call?

Sounds like the cost of actually calling it may be higher than I thought though.

reply
andai
3 hours ago
[-]
I visited and asked a friend there if women can vote. She became very offended. What! Of course we can vote!!

10 seconds later

Hang on a minute. We have a king. Nobody can vote!

reply
throwawaysleep
3 hours ago
[-]
The UAE is a bunch of absolute monarchies. You are applying the processes of a democracy to hereditary absolute monarchies.
reply
HarHarVeryFunny
2 hours ago
[-]
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest and shared by the media

Perhaps, but increasingly not here in the US, which used to consider itself the leader of the "Free World".

Trump thinks nothing of declaring journalists terrorists and threatening to take away the broadcast licenses of TV stations that are embarrassing him.

It'd be nice if we could say this is just Trump, a bad president gone gaga, but the Republican party supports him, so unfortunately this authoritarian control of the media seems to be becoming normalized.

reply
aa_is_op
2 hours ago
[-]
This was posted inside a private group, so I doubt this applies. He should get a good lawyer.
reply
littlestymaar
3 hours ago
[-]
> In most of the world such photos would be deemed of public interest

In peacetime, definitely. In war time, there's a necessary balance to be found between “information as public interest” and “providing free battle damage assessment” to an adversary.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of jailing people for pictures, but we cannot ignore the importance of intelligence in modern combat with ubiquitous precision weapons.

People have similarly been arrested for filming air defense at work in Ukraine, and again it makes sense because giving away key sensitive information for social network cred isn't something you want in a country suffering from a military aggression.

reply
beepbooptheory
3 hours ago
[-]
These days when you hear "most of the world.." used as a kind of indirect appeal to common-sense legislation, you just gotta wonder what or who they are talking about anymore.

Its a strange beautiful notion though. That there is some grand consesus out there somewhere, in The-most-of-the-world, where laws are just and rational, where states-of-exception only exist in the kitchens and the classrooms. I just know one day the barrelman will cry out, and we will know we have reached the-most-the-world.

reply
tbrownaw
4 hours ago
[-]
> Radha Stirling, chief executive of London-based advocacy group Detained in Dubai, said Dubai police had "explicitly confirmed they are conducting electronic surveillance operations capable of detecting private WhatsApp messages."

And later it mentions that they "also" use the Pegasus spyware. Although I'm not sure I'd trust that as actual confirmation that this was a separate attack vector. Even if "someone in the chat leaked it" is AIUI the most common way something like this would happen.

reply
Esophagus4
4 hours ago
[-]
> Radha Stirling, chief executive of London-based advocacy group Detained in Dubai, said Dubai police had "explicitly confirmed they are conducting electronic surveillance operations capable of detecting private WhatsApp messages."

Whoa.

reply
Marsymars
18 minutes ago
[-]
To be fair, an operation where you encourage people in group chats to report and share anything suspicious with police would be consistent with "electronic surveillance operations capable of detecting private WhatsApp messages."
reply
dijit
4 hours ago
[-]
The headline makes it sound as if it could have been useful for terrorism or something. Like "how bombs affect airplanes".

But the actual article is much more haunting.

reply
aunty_helen
2 hours ago
[-]
The “nothing to hide” people need to be real quiet about now.
reply
DarkmSparks
3 hours ago
[-]
The irony is this arrest is most probably the first most people have heard of them getting flattened.
reply
chasil
2 hours ago
[-]
They also lost an aluminum plant, of which there are no pictures.

https://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/aluminum-association-com...

reply
uxhacker
3 hours ago
[-]
Could the weak spot with WhatsApp be that images are saved to a persons device? Also the metadata is not encrypted.
reply
wilburx3
4 hours ago
[-]
Anything Meta should be binned if you care about yourself.
reply
uyzstvqs
4 hours ago
[-]
They didn't actually crack WhatsApp traffic. Someone in the group probably just reported it.

WhatsApp's insecurities are that Meta has access to a full network graph of all users' contacts, and that it wants to upload an unencrypted backup to Google or Apple by default. If there was an actual backdoor in the closed-source crypto, I highly doubt they'd give Dubai police access to it.

reply
lamasery
1 hour ago
[-]
WhatsApp put a (weirdly tame and unremarkable?) image a friend of mine tried to post into review and ended up never letting it show up in a thread, the other day. He was able to post a screenshot of it sitting in his view of the thread, and the message about why it was temporarily delayed (it never showed up, though).

This was in a chat of close friends, not one of those weird huge spammy groups of strangers or something. Nobody was using the report button on him, lol.

We’re all in the US. WhatsApp has some level of awareness of the images you’re sharing, apparently.

reply
jmye
4 hours ago
[-]
I’ll preface this with agreeing that you’re probably correct.

That said, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Meta built an intentional backdoor, and that someone else (or many someone else’s) found it and was utilizing it.

reply
breisa
3 hours ago
[-]
If such a backdoor exists, it is probably cryptographically secured to prevent "unauthorized" access. E.g. the xz backdoor was secured like that.
reply
svachalek
3 hours ago
[-]
Or that the government offered Meta $50 for a list of agitators and they said why not. Given Meta's track record it's totally on brand.
reply
righthand
3 hours ago
[-]
> They didn't actually crack WhatsApp traffic. Someone in the group probably just reported it.

So you don’t know any of this? You have no proof someone in the group reported it. You have no proof they weren’t using a backdoor they found with or without Meta knowing this…

You’re just here to defend Meta then?

reply
constantius
3 hours ago
[-]
The poster is right, it's very unlikely that WA has been backdoored/cracked, and it seems obvious why.

A backdoor to the world's largest messaging app would be extremely valuable: while it can exist, it's unlikely that it'd be so widely available the UAE police can use it for such insignificant cases. And because of its value, no one with access to it (the US, the UAE, Meta) would want it to become public knowledge through such an insignificant case, because everyone they really want to spy on would switch to Signal in a second.

reply
righthand
2 hours ago
[-]
It’s weird that the notification backdoor never gets talked about, but your Whatsapp messages are decrypted in plain sight when the text content is shipped through the notification services. This is mentioned always for Signal but Whatsapp always gets a pass even though it’s a way more malicious company and indeed probably using that hole to profile/track it’s users.

The only response is “oh no Whatsapp cant leak anything the security model of how chat messages are backed up is a-okay!”

reply
unethical_ban
2 hours ago
[-]
Signal got called out for it because it actually happened to a user with the police. Of course it affects all apps. It's also local, so irrelevant to the discussion of networked/encryption hacks someone alleged above.
reply
righthand
23 minutes ago
[-]
My point is that we simply don’t know what the police mean by “broke encryption”. It could be they are able Mitm the notifications server not that they’ve broken the whatsapp double ratchet.
reply
ljlolel
3 hours ago
[-]
It’s just Occam’s razor chip out

Way easier for one of a group of humans to report than for a conspiracy hack

reply
charliebwrites
4 hours ago
[-]
This is why the First Amendment is so important
reply
Maxious
4 hours ago
[-]
“[w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States (1919)
reply
hackingonempty
3 hours ago
[-]
"In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of speech that the government may ban to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)." - Wikipedia
reply
iamnothere
3 hours ago
[-]
Thank you. It really is disturbing how many people want to take us back to the Wilson era. Civil liberties are a good thing, folks!
reply
chasil
2 hours ago
[-]
reply
pixl97
4 hours ago
[-]
Eh, there was a lot of media censorship during WWII.
reply
kibwen
3 hours ago
[-]
It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime.

> The objective of wartime censorship was to prevent the exposure of sensitive military information to the enemy. Similar censorship had been practiced by the U.S. Army in the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. During World War I, however, the press censorship system was formalized and extended, according to the Army's official history, to include anything that might "injure morale in our forces here, or at home, or among our Allies," or "embarrass the United States or her Allies in neutral countries."

https://www.army.mil/article/199675/u_s_army_press_censorshi...

reply
dennis_jeeves2
3 hours ago
[-]
> It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime.

Happens even without a war, just saying...

reply
kibwen
54 minutes ago
[-]
Let me rephrase that: it's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment using war as a pretense.
reply
kelnos
11 minutes ago
[-]
It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment whenever it suits their interests, using whatever plausible-enough pretense they can find.
reply
tencentshill
4 hours ago
[-]
So we give up our rights when at war? Why not always be at war? Eastasia has always been at war with us.
reply
pixl97
3 hours ago
[-]
Yes and yes.

It's unfortunate life isn't black and white, but that's the way it is.

reply
folkrav
3 hours ago
[-]
Guess why the US now has a "Department of War".
reply
aunty_helen
3 hours ago
[-]
Hauntingly, they’re actually calling the ME “west asia” now.

In my copy of animal farm, there’s actually a foreword relevant for this discussion. It goes into Orwells difficulty getting things published around ww2 as there was speech that whilst legal was frowned upon during wartime.

reply
righthand
3 hours ago
[-]
“It’s fine because it happened during WWII, the only thing we base history off of to determine limiting rights is fine. Dumber less informed people did it, so should we!”
reply
raw_anon_1111
2 hours ago
[-]
Yes because with the first amendment, a president can’t sue news organizations for saying mean things and get them to pay him personally $15 million a piece (Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC) and teachers can’t be fired for quoting racist comments of a dead podcaster.

https://cbs12.com/news/local/matthew-theobold-florida-martin...

reply
basisword
3 hours ago
[-]
If you believe Trump wouldn't be doing things like this if America was actually facing direct consequences for its warmongering, I have a bridge to sell you.
reply
mohamedkoubaa
2 hours ago
[-]
After Whatsapp was bought by Facebook why would anyone assume it is still private?
reply
chinathrow
2 hours ago
[-]
Middle ages, in 2026. Dubai hasn't changed.
reply
flyinghamster
3 hours ago
[-]
I'm of two minds on this. In peacetime, I'd consider something like that to be unreasonable and harmful, not that I'd ever even consider setting foot anywhere on the Arabian Peninsula. But, if anyone has noticed, World War III is raging all around us, and when an enemy who wants to kill you is backing that up with explosive payloads, you really don't want to be handing them battle damage assessments.
reply
mohamedkoubaa
2 hours ago
[-]
If you give away freedom for security you deserve neither
reply
152334H
4 hours ago
[-]
The article's frame is concerning, but is it right to attribute the arrest to zero-click spyware? How is the process of the police's discovery known?
reply
wat10000
4 hours ago
[-]
And people wonder why I refuse to connect through Dubai.
reply
t0mas88
3 hours ago
[-]
Indeed. And interestingly those people also believe this myth that Emirates is somehow always super luxurious. Emirates Economy is just as cattle class as all other large airlines, but with a worse safety record and having to go through Dubai. Just don't do it.
reply
aunty_helen
3 hours ago
[-]
Emirates has never had a passenger fatality. What do you mean worse safety?
reply
felixg3
2 hours ago
[-]
Probably referring to crew rest hours (esp. a problem in the late 2010s, near-misses at DXB etc. Not having had passenger fatalities is a bad indicator for safety records in the 21st century.

The ek521 report is a good example documenting systemic failures at EK

reply
aunty_helen
14 minutes ago
[-]
Well, if not ever having a fatality isn’t good enough, they’re consistently top 10 rated for safety. I just don’t buy ops criticism. It’s fine to not like Dubai, but emirates are provably one of the best airlines.
reply
bparsons
2 hours ago
[-]
The censorship is to shield embarrassing info from GCC and American audiences. As others have pointed out, Iran has its own satellites, and allies with satellites that can conduct their own battlefield damage assessments.
reply
jmyeet
1 hour ago
[-]
If you go to another country, you should be aware of their laws. If you don't like their laws, don't go. Personally, I've never understood Dubai's "charms". Is is Earth's Mos Eisley [1]. The legal system is completely corrupt and The economy is reliant upon slave labor [2].

For example, in Thailand it's a crime to step on the local currency [3]. Why? Because it's technically disrespecting the King, whose face is on the notes. Or in Japan, it's strictly illegal to bring adderall into the country under any circumstances [4].

I guess my point is that I really struggle to find sympathy for people who go to another country and act surprised that it's different to their home country.

The UAE's restrictions on spreading such images as hurting national security actually goes beyond that. Did you know that it's now illegal to criticize Israel in the UAE [5]?

Speaking of which, the US really isn't that much different on that last point [6].

[1]: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mos_Eisley

[2]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...

[3]: https://nyccriminallawyer.com/weird-things-to-get-arrested-f...

[4]: https://miusa.org/resource/tip-sheets/japanfocus/

[5]: https://dawnmena.org/how-the-uae-is-suppressing-criticism-of...

[6]: https://www.aclu-nj.org/press-releases/secretary-state-lette...

reply
OutOfHere
2 hours ago
[-]
If you have a private conversation to have that would risk you getting arrested, you shouldn't be using WhatsApp or Signal for it. Consider something more obscure, not connected to your phone number or name, and make messages disappear after 24h. Consider SimpleX, Briar, etc. Obviously don't leave any trail or photos on your device either. Moreover, the device shouldn't be reachable via WhatsApp, Signal, SMS, or even a phone number, as these are common vectors for attackers. Your mobile device should probably be using hardened GrapheneOS or something else with sufficient obscurity. Do not make the mistake of activating a SIM or installing any Google app on the device. As a legal disclaimer, do not break the law.
reply
moralestapia
3 hours ago
[-]
What people do not know or understand about the Arabian Peninsula is that you have essentially zero rights.

People think, "It cannot be that bad" because a lot of money is spent on good PR for the region, and also because they never find themselves in situations where they get to see how little their lives are worth in those places.

You go to a hotel for a week or take a business trip, everyone smiles, the food is good, whatever. You are not going to trigger any of the bad stuff that way. Before you say, "Well, yeah, if you do something egregious...", nope. Something as innocuous as disagreeing with a superior at work could land you in jail. You are 100% at the whim of people who have more power than you over there.

reply
nutjob2
3 hours ago
[-]
> "Well, yeah, if you do something egregious...", nope.

Leaving a bad review online for a local business can get you arrested and jailed.

reply
arduanika
3 hours ago
[-]
> The UAE government owns majority holdings in telecom companies Etisalat and Du. This gives security services the power to observe all communications on their networks.

> The Arab state has also used the Israeli-developed software Pegasus which allows agents to listen into private calls and read messages, even if they are shared on encrypted apps like WhatsApp,.

This seems to be the key part from a tech standpoint. Notice that it doesn't come out and say whether Pegasus played a part in this particular arrest, or the telecoms, or both, but it seems to be implied.

Also, I'm intrigued by the punctuation error at the end: "...like WhatsApp,." Did an earlier draft go on to list others? Does Pegasus help governments read messages from Telegram? Signal? It would be interesting to know more.

reply
Zak
1 hour ago
[-]
> Does Pegasus help governments read messages from Telegram? Signal?

Yes. It attempts privilege escalation and exfiltrates whatever message contents it can from multiple apps. Signal has some potential resistance to that since messages are encrypted in transit and at rest. The easiest weak link would be displaying message content in notifications, which is optional in Signal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

reply
arduanika
26 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting, thanks. I guess I'll carry on feeling marginally superior for choosing Signal over the others as my default, while remaining bleak about the overall landscape.
reply
nutjob2
3 hours ago
[-]
These ME countries are authoritarian hellholes with a thin veneer of civility and modernity. Think I'm exaggerating? How about being randomly dragged off your flight to have your vagina inspected: https://www.arabnews.jp/en/middle-east/article_30004/

Being thrown in jail arbitrarily without much recourse is such a common occurrence it's spawned its won business category: https://www.detainedindubai.org/

I personally would not step foot in any of these places. This article is not news, it's par for the course.

reply
rasz
3 hours ago
[-]
Its called free BDA, straight up aiding the enemy by correcting his fire.
reply
projektfu
3 hours ago
[-]
There is no war in Ba Du Bai.
reply
m0llusk
4 hours ago
[-]
This defensiveness just makes the situation worse. If they came across as at a disadvantage and doing their best that could attract help and admiration. Trying to cover things up while being hostile just makes them look like reactionary creeps with too much power. An unfortunate turn of events in any case.
reply
rolymath
4 hours ago
[-]
Not like I like the UAE (I don't), but during this war they made it plenty clear that it is illegal to record and share any videos or pictures of the damage that was caused by the Iranian attacks. Everyone in the country knows this, and I'm sure airlines have procedures to familiarize staff with the laws of the country they're flying to. If they don't, still not the UAE's problem. Don't like the law? Go somewhere else.

(inb4 any arm chair analyst decides this law is a bad law. That's not the point. The police only apply the law and not write it)

Secondly, I doubt this was some sort of high tech operation. More likely someone just snitched and/or some sort of meta data snooping.

reply
xnx
3 hours ago
[-]
...in Dubai
reply
PearlRiver
2 hours ago
[-]
Seeing millionaires praise Dubai was really eye opening to me. Seems that we don't really value democracy and freedom of speech as much as we pretend.

Give up the entire fucking Constitution for order, low taxes and non unionized servants.

reply
varispeed
3 hours ago
[-]
If you think WhatsApp is encrypted, I have a handful of magic beans to sell you.
reply
esskay
3 hours ago
[-]
Care to back that up? We know they don't encrypt metadata - that's not a secret. Message content however is E2EE - thankfully these things get audited: https://blog.cloudflare.com/key-transparency/
reply
kelnos
4 minutes ago
[-]
The onus is not on us to prove that it's not E2E encrypted, but on Meta/WhatsApp to prove that it is. The only way they can do that is by open-sourcing the client application, and providing a method for anyone to verify that the binary on their device was built from those sources, without modification.

Anything else is just theater. Anyone who is worried that their communications could get them arrested or attacked cannot safely use something like WhatsApp. There is no way to trust that a third party's keys haven't been added to a conversation, or that the client isn't leaking message content through some other means.

reply
varispeed
1 hour ago
[-]
This doesn't prove WhatsApp is encrypted at all. It proves that a directory of public keys is being logged and audited. That's it.

The protocol existing or being referenced doesn't prove it's what the production client is doing. That requires verifying the client code and behaviour end-to-end, not just the key directory.

reply