Iran May Shut Down Internet During Election 234
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."
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.
The New Psych Ops (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Technology (Score:2, Insightful)
They are getting the hang of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Before everyone foams at the mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I call you an inbred idiot because you're being led by one of them? Didn't think so.
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.
Gee, there's a surprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:1, Insightful)
I personally believe that if anyone needed to be invaded or at least occupied in some way, it should have been Iran. Not that I condone that kind of action without a lot of rationalisation first. But it makes a lot more sense to me than invading Iraq. But then again, Saddam didn't try and kill my daddy. That'd probably sway me.
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?
Re:The New Psych Ops (Score:2, Insightful)
The US is propping up far worse governments (Score:-1, Insightful)
And yet, the Bushites would have us believe Iran is their "starting point" for spreading freedumb and duhmockracy throughout the world... and kindly ignore their lust for all the oil underneath that country.
Case in point is the Bush administration's recent attempt to overthrow the democratically elected leaders of Venezuela... and yet the Bush administration is still funding Columbia, a state which routinely kills judges who try reforming the country, or politicians who try fighting corruption, or especially the systematic murders of people who try organizing labor in Columbia. But hey, let's ignore all that, and please ignore how much Bush's friends lust for Venezuela's oil. The important thing to remember is that Hugo Chavez called George W Bush the devil.
Re:Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
US is to Iran, as Osama is to US (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Saudi Arabia, the US? (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 weapon.
Considering Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May of 2000, according to U.N. Resolution 425, Hezbollah was to have disarmed. Did they? No. They aren't to be trusted and need to be treated accordingly.
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (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, and cutthroat muderers who send mentally disabled women into markets full of children to blow up bombs. No? That's NOT what the people of Iran want? Then why do they put forth a government that acts in that way, and talks in terms of wiping other countries off the map? Or perhaps you're wrong, and the place IS ruthlessly controlled by militant religious crazies. You can't have it both ways. Either it's NOT a moderate, forward-looking country with a professional middle class that can shape the government - in which case you've been painting the wrong picture and you know it, OR, those people do have liberty to do as they choose, and the government you see there now - and its actions - IS what they choose... in which case you're also painting the wrong picture. Reformers there are shot down at every turn - both literally and figuratively.
Re:Good for him. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is old history for Americans (lets face it, yesterday is old history for you lot whenever it doesn't involve Americans getting killed) but I should imagine most Iranians are pretty pissed off about the support for the Shah and then Saddam Hussein.
And now, the US is indirectly supporting the theocratic regime by providing an immense outside threat to push the population to extremism. Iranians may not like their government, but having seen what your geno^H^H^Hliberation of Iraq was like they certainly prefer it to the alternative - and this empowers the religious conservatives who otherwise would be forced by their generally secular, progressive and young population to liberalise. In fact, prior to Dubyas rampage through two of its neighbouring countries, that was exactly what was happening in Iran, albeit slowly.
Iran has plenty of capacity for internal change, and homegrown democracy, even after everything we have done for them. All we have to do is leave the buggars alone long enough to let it blossom. Sadly, while they sit on resources we want to suck up for our decadent lifestyles, that won't happen.
Re:-1: horseshit (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 Iraq would in fact be like Venice Beach knew what a bad idea that was so it never got much past the saber rattling stage -- plus Iraq was already going sour so they knew there'd be no support for it.
We're not going to topple the hard-line Iranian government by going to war with it. Our aggressive attitude towards them empowers the hard-liners and weakens the reformers, because regardless of what we'd like to think the Iranian people would rather their government tell them what to do than let our government tell them what to do. Engagement with Iran on the other hand weakens the hard-liners by taking away the threat they claim -- with quite some substantiation -- we represent.
Re:Good for him. (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 single regional or global hegemony is an inherently unstable state, that will not continue for even the rest of my parent's lifetime, let alone mine. When we fall or another power rises, given the fact that any opponent large enough to pose a real threat to us will have nukes, and will likely have the same MAD level concerns about using them, we'll be quite happy to have kept our place as a nuclear power.
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
Re:Good for him. (Score:2, Insightful)