Slashdot Log In
Iran May Shut Down Internet During Election
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:43 AM
from the can't-stop-the-signal-mal dept.
from the can't-stop-the-signal-mal dept.
daveschroeder writes "'The Iranian government might block private access to the Internet for the general legislative election on March 14, two Iranian news outlets reported Monday. In 2006, the authorities banned download speeds on private computers faster than 128 kilobytes per second. The government also uses sophisticated filtering equipment to block hundreds of Web sites and blogs that it considers religiously or politically inappropriate. Many bloggers have been jailed in the past years, and dozens of Web sites have been shut down.' It would appear that Iran's own government is more a threat to the nation's internet connectivity than the fragility of the undersea cable network."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Third Undersea Cable Cut 655 comments
Many readers are reporting that another undersea fiber optic cable has been cut, apparently caused by another wayward anchor. It looks like Iran has completely lost Internet connectivity."
[+]
IT: Fifth Cable Cut To Middle East 676 comments
You may have noticed a number of stories recently about undersea cables getting cut around the world. Apparently the total is now up to 5, but the scariest part of this is that Iran is now offline. You can also read Schneier's comments on this coincidence. Update: 02/06 17:42 GMT by Z : As a commenter notes, though the country of Iran is obviously experiencing some networking difficulties, it is not offline.
[+]
In Iran, Blogging May Be Punishable By Death 495 comments
An anonymous reader writes "In Iran, crimes such as apostasy (leaving a religion, in this case Islam) and armed robbery are already punishable by death, but a new bill in Iran aims to add to the list 'establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,' effectively giving the government a free hand in silencing bloggers. The internet is widely used in Iran, despite its previous attempts at censorship. Will this change as the censorship grows more rampant?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot readers may recall the assertions [slashdot.org], roundly dismissed [iht.com] by undersea cable experts, that the cables were deliberately cut to sever Iran's internet connectivity, which, contrary to popular belief, never occurred [slashdot.org].
Many fervently believed the cable "cuts" were a prelude to war; still others insisted they were part of a plot to prevent the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse [wikipedia.org]. Interestingly, no one could explain how cutting only one of several mechanisms of Internet connectivity to Iran would stop the bourse from opening...
Well, there was no secret invasion of Iran, and the Iranian Oil Bourse, after many self-incurred delays, still opened [www2.irna.ir], to little fanfare. The opening of the bourse -- which doesn't deal in US dollars -- was supposed to be the turning point that sent the dollar into a freefall; however, myriad other factors seem to be hurting the dollar just fine on their own.
Why am I mentioning this? Because I think it is incredibly important to take a step back, get some perspective on things, and realize that actual totalitarian regimes are far more dangerous and damaging to individual freedoms and the free flow of information, in a very real and tangible sense, than even the wildest imagined conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have other means [wikipedia.org] of undersea cable traffic interception and surveillance. And even if the cuts were cover for the insertion of a tap at another location by a vessel like the Carter, there isn't any way to prove that one way or another.
I think the most interesting thing is that people seem to be looking for explanations that somehow involve nefarious US activity -- anything other than a string of coincidental cable failures in one geographic region. That aspect is especially interesting: given the sophistication that would be needed to carry out such an operation undetected from a technical standpoint, we somehow don't have the foresight to make it unnoticeable in other ways?
The "nefarious activity" in relation to Iran's internet connectivity is right under our nose, and it's the draconian restrictions the government imposes on its own people, not that a splice might possibly have been installed somewhere as part of an operation that requires incredible technological sophistication and wherewithal, but can't manage to make cable cuts not appear too "obvious".
The cable operators have numerous mechanisms to detect splices installed in their lines. So unless the cable operators themselves are in on it -- as some have alleged -- I don't think this hypothesis is plausible, either. And if the cable operators are in on it, then we wouldn't have needed to cut undersea cables and install splices, would we?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they wanted a splice, they could have done it a hundred miles away and no one would have noticed before the breach was fixed at the other end. Especially, if they used a submarine team.
Though, there are more efficient ways of doing things so I doubt it, but they could do
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Funny)
It's the only logical conclusion.
Parent
I did explain why (Score:2)
there you are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official. You seem to think that Iran is a reasonable place full of professionals that vote their conscience. If that's true, then the expression of their will is their current leader, and their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official.
You are either completely ignorant of how elections work or you're flamebaiting. Its "top elected official" was one of the only candidates not to be ruled "too liberal" by the Council of Guardians in the 2005 election runoff. This was, in part, a reaction to America's foreign policy. (When your greatest enemy invades the neighboring country, and then completely reneges on its agreements with you, it tends to bolster the reactionary political bloc.) Most Iranians didn't have a choice. And believe it or not
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, etc. But the point is that those people all have constituencies for whom they speak, and they can do it all day long without fear of being jailed for what they say. That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel
Um, how about ceasing to fund terrorism-using militant religious extremists? How about stopping shipments of cash and arms over the northern Iraqi border and through Syria to people who use them against civilians, blow up police stations, etc? How about simply recognizing that Israel exists, in the way that, say, Egypt, or Jordan have?
Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs? Stalin's bureaucracy was sophisticated, too. China is very sophisticated, and far more subtle and clever (than Iran) in how they present their repression to the rest of the world. Sophistication has nothing to do with whether or not a citizen can stand up and say what they want to say, or form a political movement that might challenge the militant theocracy that, in practice, runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel
No. They like to talk that way, to stir up at least some common nationalistic sentiment among their people, the better to gloss over the repressive things they do in running the country. When you have a hugely unemployed population of young males (who are also told what sort of haircuts they're allowed to have, and whether then can use the word "pizza" or not, lest they become corrupted by evil foreign sensibilities and habits like... having what you want for dinner and calling it what the rest of the world calls it), continuing with the ongoing theatrical exercise in describing a state of war that doesn't actually exist is a timeless classic. Actual war would look very different. And you wouldn't have all of Europe just as worried (and voting the same way in the UN) if this was just the US and Israel that finds Iranian behavior to be alarming. Israel isn't lobbing missiles into Iran. But Iranian missles were hitting towns in Israel just yesterday.
Oh God, not this again.
How many times, and how many variations on "they will soon be gone," and "they will disappear from the map," etc., do you need to hear?
Parent
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.
And the people who make that call aren't up for election. Ahmadinejad is not "the regime"--Khamenei is. Along with the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts. And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.
Let me ask you a question. I mean this in sincerity. Do you believe Hezbollah to be more evil than Israel? If so, why? Look at the total number of civilian casualties caused by each side. Look at Israel's involvement in the region, specifically what it has done to Lebanon for the past thirty years. Hezbollah was primarily responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s. I actually happen to think Hezbollah is more evil than Israel, for ideological reasons, but I don't separate them that far from one another. Israel's certainly been the cause of much more death. Iran is playing a politically savvy game, in the same way America has for decades. Iran has quite clearly enumerated what it will take to get it to recognize Israel: elections that involve Palestinians. (He actually says so in the speech where he supposedly called for Israel to be destroyed. Funny, that.) Much of what we allege Iran does (for example, the Syrian examples you quoted) is part of a war of rhetoric. Iran can cite as many examples of the same--for years America supported Mujahideen E-Khal, which carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. America has shot down Iranian planes full of civilians. Why should Iran be the one to cave to American demands? Iran held Americans hostage for a year--a dickish thing to do, but it pales in comparison to the overthrow of their democratically elected government and ensuing exploitation. We had our reasons, but do you think that justifies it, in their eyes? Especially given how much Iran helped us during both World Wars?
So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs?
I wasn't saying that it was a good thing. I said it was sophisticated because it is, and as a result you can't look at it like the President is an accurate reflection of the will of the people. It's just not that simple. The political system is surprisingly complex, and in many ways mirrors the American one, in that our higher officials are not necessarily selected by those they govern. In Iran's case, it's essentially two governments in one, with one subservient to the other, and the subservient one includes the electable offices--but who qualifies to be elected is completely determined by the superior government. I agree with you: Iran doesn't do a good job of representing itself on the world stage. But that has a lot to do with who its enemies are. America wages a much better PR campaign, and so does Israel.
runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.
Now you're just being naive. Iran is not the source of the problems in Iraq, nor is it trying to prevent Iraq from becoming stable. A stable Iraq is in Iran's best interests. What it wants, however, is an Iraq free of American influence, much like America wants an Iraq free of Iranian influence. Neither scenario is achievable, and neither player is happy, so each is making the other bleed for it--America through the UN sanctions, Iran through its covert operations in Iraq. But even in light of those operations, the vast m
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html [historyguy.com]
WMDs were found in Iraq, "although not of a militarily significant capability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction [wikipedia.org]
Why invade Iran? There are other options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb [wikipedia.org]
Someone needs to be in the mideast to oppose the Iran theocracy. Replacing a secular dictator with a pro-US secular democracy would be
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:4, Informative)
Need we go over why the United Nations is an unreliable source here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse [wikipedia.org]
How long was it going on? We don't know, but it makes anything the UN says regarding Iraq highly suspect.
Parent
Re:The US is propping up far worse governments (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't begin to imagine what it is the US has invested in Colombia that would have necessitated Colombia's sudden change of heart.
Parent
Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would suggest watching the documentary "The Corporation." It's a bit extremist, but interesting none the less.
Re: Capitalism (Score:5, Funny)
*License* the rope. Patent the knot design.
Get subscribers to sign up for the feature presentation. Then copyright the video.
Sell advertising slots. Tie in action figures complete with movable rope.
Air a documentary on E!. Stir up the talk show networks with a recorded last message.
Write a computerized algorithm for robots to tie knots. Patent that.
Then no one can die this way again without your estate's permission. Sue them posthumously with previously prepared legal documents.
Parent
Absolutely atrocious. (Score:2, Funny)
-1: horseshit (Score:5, Informative)
This is bullshit. Hillary has been prowar, except when campaigning. The Clinton administration had a couple war efforts. Obama's foreign policy guy is Brzezinski, who isn't specifically anti-war. Only when it's a terrible, terrible idea.
Can we not mod up baseless political bullshit from either side? Thanks.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that largely rules out war against Iran barring an overt act of hostility against us or an ally of ours. Which is more than enough for me.
The scariest moments for me in the last 8 years were when it seemed like Bush was almost serious about trying to push for a preemptive war against Iran. Such a thing would have made Iraq look like Venice Beach. Fortunately even the morons who thought
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re:Absolutely atrocious. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html [nytimes.com]
As well as a speech he made last week that I cannot find online at the moment. He said 'greatly reduce' at first, then alluded that the US should eliminate them to 'lead the way'.
Then again, posting truth gets you modded as Flamebait around here.
Parent
Good for him. (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the US will never do that, I think we should get rid of ours. Seems our real threats are goat-herders with 50-year-old tech and more stomach for the fight than the nation that took it to their homeland.
Don't need nukes for that, we need high tech weapons to pick out the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, we should give every nation their own nukes and delivery system. MAD you know.
The problem is that the whole MAD thing falls apart when you're dealing with religious fanatics that view martyrdom as a path to glory. It's like threatening to shoot a guy wearing a suicide vest.
MAD also gets a little edgy when you're dealing with dictators [cia.gov] who are just bat-shit crazy and can't be trusted to act rationally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite what the current administration wants us to believe, current terrorism is about as much of a threat to our security as drug gangs are - they cause a mess of trouble, make life suck for a minority of people, and in general cost us a lot in law enforcement. But they aren't threatening to change our economy, political system, or national borders.
ie, they are not a real national threat to the continuance of most of the US as a decent place to live.
We keep nukes around because a singl
How is this modded flamebait? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The New Psych Ops (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a CONSPIRACY! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait... is it still considered a conspiracy if it's out in the open and it's definitely 100% not the US or oil companies? I'm not sure which I prefer, prelude to war or the possibility that the Iranian leadership could become MORE crazy.
Being a naive westerner, it appears to me that the freedom-hugging ideas that float around on the internets don't seem to have an effect on political/religious thinking of countries like Iran.
Does this indicate that it is having an effect?
They are getting the hang of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Before everyone foams at the mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
2. What is this meant to do? I see no real security benefits to blocking the internet.
3. In speculating after what happened in Africa, is this an attempt to block outsiders from knowing what is going on in the country, or to keep outsiders from influencing the country, or to keep their own people unaware of what is going on in their own country? No matter which one, info will come out eventually, so the only thing I can see happening is that people can't tell others what is going on at the polling places before it is too late. But either way it would be too late, because there wouldn't be time for others to come and help out if there is forced voting.
I guess I'm just confused as to how this is supposed to help them out, as it only makes them seem overly secretive, with little to no long term benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for assuming " info will come out eventually", that's usually not the case. When the only information available comes from sources operated by the state or vetted by the state, there's little opportunity for information to simply "come out".
Gee, there's a surprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
<sarcasm>wait, i don't understand (Score:2)
actually i'm not, i hate bush (Score:2)
sometimes affects more than Iran (Score:2)
US is to Iran, as Osama is to US (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
They make contradictory claims about why, but in the end, it is a one day inconvenience for internet users. The most sinister reason I can think of for them wanting to shut it down is to prevent riots caused by posts alleging election improprieties (real or imagined). Really sinister.
Am I missing something? What's the big deal?
Just shut it all down in Iran. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I call you an inbred idiot because you're being led by one of them? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If their attacks restricted themselves to Israeli soldiers, military installations & equipment, and political and military infrastructure, they'd have more sympathy in the West.
Firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas; bombing markets, discos, stores and buses loses them all credibility and plants them firmly in the realm of "terrorist organization". They use the threat and practice of violence against an unarmed civilian population as a