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."
Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Absolutely atrocious. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Technology (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A few Thoughts (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".
Re:Before everyone foams at the mouth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (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 it without noticing if they wanted to spend a few billion or two.
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 terrorists from civilian populations.
Just shut it all down in Iran. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
I would suggest watching the documentary "The Corporation." It's a bit extremist, but interesting none the less.
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.
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A few more notes: time for perspective? (Score:3, Interesting)
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, Ahmadinejad does more than sound off crazily--he's actually made quite a bit of headway in Iran to reducing corruption and pollution. As far as presidents go, he's done some good, and some bad. It just so happens the bad he does is almost entirely on the foreign policy side (in addition to his absurd economic policy), but there was never really an alternative to him, as his chief opponent, Rafsanjani, was clearly corrupt. But Ahmadinejad is no more the absolute voice of the Iranian people than George W. Bush (who currently enjoys what, a 15% approval rating?) is the absolute voice for America. How much power do we have, really, over choosing who runs for President? What makes you think it's so different in Iran?
I am sure you hate to hear this, but Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable. There's no shortage of crazies in Iran, this is very true, but a.) being Persian, and b.) having been to Iran numerous times, I can assure you that Iranians are not pleased with the way in which they appear to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel, and those two countries have made it exceedingly difficult for any moderate voices in Iran to be viewed as anything but submissive to what has historically been Western imperialism. It's not like the Iranians have much reason to trust the UN or the US when they say: "just stop your nuclear enrichment and we'll make sure you still get fuel." There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel. Iran suspended its enrichment for years while the UN inspectors twiddled their thumbs. It didn't make any difference: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, however remote, is enough to challenge Israel's hegemony in the region. (And considering that Iranian-trained guerillas have been the only force to successfully achieve military objectives against Israel in the past thirty years, I can imagine how uncomfortable the entire ordeal makes Israeli leadership.) That's just the way it is.
Get your facts straight. That suicide bombing was attributed to al-Qaeda, and Iran and al-Qaeda don't particularly like one another. Second, Iran has never been linked to a suicide bombing. There has never been a Persian suicide bomber, to my knowledge. That is chiefly an Arab phenomenon, and I don't even think Hezbollah (the extremist militants and terrorists whom Iran funds) condones suicide bombing.
Oh God, not this again. Way to buy into the media's sensationalism, hook, line, and sinker. You are aware that the allegation to which you refer is patently false, and that's not what he said? [youtube.com] But that's ok; it's easier to believe what you're told.
There's no doubt that Iran is fucked up right now. But we Americans have a very large hand in that--ESPECIALLY in our dealings with Iran post-9/11. Pick up "America's Secret War" by George Friedman if you want to see just how badly we've shot ourselves in the foot, vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic.
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?