25 comments

  • Someone1234 1 hour 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?

    • schiffern 1 hour 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

      • somenameforme 5 minutes 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.

    • tremon 1 hour 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.

      • pydry 1 hour 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.

        • dralley 1 hour 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.
          • oa335 23 minutes 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?

        • LightBug1 39 minutes 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.

    • post-it 1 hour 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.

      • Teknomadix 1 hour ago
        So in other words; Mercedes-Benz was the peak, and he was estimating a decline trajectory slower than the rise.
        • chasil 7 minutes 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.

    • skywal_l 1 hour 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.
      • gerikson 1 hour 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.
    • f6v 1 hour 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).

    • miohtama 1 hour 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.
      • brikym 9 minutes ago
        Problems such as 'Dubai porta-potty'
    • HarHarVeryFunny 11 minutes 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.

    • andai 48 minutes 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.

      • andai 47 minutes 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!

    • aa_is_op 9 minutes ago
      This was posted inside a private group, so I doubt this applies. He should get a good lawyer.
    • throwawaysleep 46 minutes ago
      The UAE is a bunch of absolute monarchies. You are applying the processes of a democracy to hereditary absolute monarchies.
    • throw_m239339 1 hour 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.

      • t0mas88 40 minutes ago
        Exactly. A dictatorship with a medieval religious view on human rights related topics.

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

    • netdur 1 hour 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

      • adjejmxbdjdn 1 hour 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.

        • Tepix 1 hour 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.

    • littlestymaar 25 minutes 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.

    • beepbooptheory 26 minutes 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-eorld, 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.

    • throwanem 1 hour ago
      Presumably the UAE's legislators see the matter differently. But it is extremely "20th Century" of you, obvious American that you are, not really to understand sovereignty as a concept. Or not anyone else's sovereignty, anyway.
      • Someone1234 1 hour ago
        I'm not American. America didn't even exist when most of the core social concepts I referenced were popularized, and it certainly wasn't in the 20th century.

        Also, very self-telling, that I said "UAE should do better for UAE's own future sake" to which you responded: "you want to take away UAE's sovereignty!" Hmm, very odd, that.

  • tbrownaw 1 hour 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.

  • Esophagus4 1 hour 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.

  • aunty_helen 11 minutes ago
    The “nothing to hide” people need to be real quiet about now.
  • dijit 1 hour 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.

  • uxhacker 18 minutes ago
    Could the weak spot with WhatsApp be that images are saved to a persons device? Also the metadata is not encrypted.
  • charliebwrites 1 hour ago
    This is why the First Amendment is so important
    • Maxious 1 hour 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)
      • hackingonempty 44 minutes 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
        • iamnothere 14 minutes 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!
    • pixl97 1 hour ago
      Eh, there was a lot of media censorship during WWII.
      • kibwen 34 minutes 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...

        • dennis_jeeves2 16 minutes 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...

      • tencentshill 1 hour ago
        So we give up our rights when at war? Why not always be at war? Eastasia has always been at war with us.
        • aunty_helen 17 minutes 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.

        • pixl97 1 hour ago
          Yes and yes.

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

        • folkrav 27 minutes ago
          Guess why the US now has a "Department of War".
      • righthand 53 minutes 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!”
    • basisword 18 minutes 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.
  • mohamedkoubaa 11 minutes ago
    After Whatsapp was bought by Facebook why would anyone assume it is still private?
  • wilburx3 2 hours ago
    Anything Meta should be binned if you care about yourself.
    • uyzstvqs 1 hour 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.

      • jmye 1 hour 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.

        • svachalek 1 hour 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.
        • breisa 1 hour ago
          If such a backdoor exists, it is probably cryptographically secured to prevent "unauthorized" access. E.g. the xz backdoor was secured like that.
      • righthand 48 minutes 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?

        • constantius 23 minutes 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.

        • ljlolel 27 minutes 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

  • DarkmSparks 1 hour ago
    The irony is this arrest is most probably the first most people have heard of them getting flattened.
  • flyinghamster 43 minutes 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.
    • mohamedkoubaa 10 minutes ago
      If you give away freedom for security you deserve neither
  • 152334H 1 hour 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?
  • projektfu 57 minutes ago
    There is no war in Ba Du Bai.
  • wat10000 1 hour ago
    And people wonder why I refuse to connect through Dubai.
    • t0mas88 34 minutes 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.
      • aunty_helen 13 minutes ago
        Emirates has never had a passenger fatality. What do you mean worse safety?
  • OutOfHere 9 minutes 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 on the device.
  • arduanika 27 minutes 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.

  • nutjob2 28 minutes 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.

  • rasz 41 minutes ago
    Its called free BDA, straight up aiding the enemy by correcting his fire.
  • moralestapia 49 minutes 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.

    • nutjob2 19 minutes ago
      > "Well, yeah, if you do something egregious...", nope.

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

  • m0llusk 1 hour 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.
  • varispeed 1 hour ago
    If you think WhatsApp is encrypted, I have a handful of magic beans to sell you.
  • rolymath 1 hour 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.

  • xnx 53 minutes ago
    ...in Dubai
  • haerr 29 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • WangComputers 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • guzfip 1 hour ago
      These foreign agitprop accounts have gotten so ridiculous lol.
      • WangComputers 1 hour ago
        [flagged]
        • nutjob2 15 minutes ago
          I guess you'll change your tune the first time they force you to submit to an inspection of your vagina.