The Internet Helps Iran Silence Activists 232
Hugh Pickens writes "Over the last couple of weeks, those who believe in the transformative power of technology to battle an oppressive state have pointed to Iran as a test case. However, as Farhad Manjoo writes on Slate, the real conclusion about news now coming out of Iran is that for regimes bent on survival, electronic dissent is easier to suppress than organizing methods of the past. Using a system installed last year, built in part by Nokia and Siemens, the government routes all digital traffic in the country through a single choke point, using the capabilities of deep packet inspection to monitor every e-mail, tweet, blog post, and possibly even every phone call placed in Iran. 'Compare that with East Germany, in which the Stasi managed to tap, at most, about 100,000 phone lines — a gargantuan task that required 2,000 full-time technicians to monitor the calls,' writes Manjoo. The effects of this control have been seen over the past couple days, with only a few harrowing pictures and videos getting through Iran's closed net. For most citizens, posting videos and even tweeting eyewitness accounts remains fraught with peril, and the same tools that activists use can be used by the government to spread disinformation. The government is also using crowdsourcing by posting pictures of protesters and asking citizens for help in identifying the activists. 'If you think about it, that's no surprise,' writes Manjoo. 'Who said that only the good guys get to use the power of the Web to their advantage?'"
Ins't this obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
The power of technology from a government's perspective is to have the subjects of your suspicion(citizenry) freely and enthusiastically enter all their beliefs( micro/macro blogging), the topology of their personal relations(social networking sites), and their personal communications(gmail) into the databases of private corporations for the easy mining of the data by the keepers of all the keys(NSA, MI5, and others). Then is is a simple matter to assemble an n-dimentional database of relationships into a large net. Then they need only to pull a single knot(a person) of this net and see all others strings and knots which are pulled also. With this tool the government can intercept and neutralize any waxing movement, meme, or influential person.
Re:Pile'o'poop article (Score:3, Informative)
'Compare that with East Germany, in which the Stasi managed to tap, at most, about 100,000 phone lines -- a gargantuan task that required 2,000 full-time technicians to monitor the calls,'
Comparisons with Nazi Germany be damned.
American much? [suite101.com]
Would you like a map and such as?
US citizens' have their hands tied (Score:5, Informative)
There is more to it (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, cryptography would help the Iranians a lot, but it is not a silver bullet. High profile targets would need to be wary of side channel attacks and other attempts to break their crypto, but even low level targets would be risking their lives. The very use of cryptography could be enough to get an Iranian thrown in prison, especially if it becomes known that cryptography is being used to evade government filters to send news of the protests to foreigners.
Re:another way to look at it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What they need (Score:1, Informative)
The Taliban was a client of ours until the September 11th attacks. Then we demanded that they hand bin Laden over or we'd bomb them. They demanded evidence. We sent the troops in. The Taliban never invited us, but after we finally ran them out of town, too late to stop their support of Al Qeada, the government we installed invited us to stay. Then we sent ten times as many troops to Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism until we split open their borders.
But here's a far more interesting tidbit. I couldn't confirm the date on the LA Times website of this article (May 2001), but it's a pretty enlightening view on how moral relativism in foreign policy is self-destructive.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html [mapinc.org]
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.
Re:What they need (Score:2, Informative)
The globalsecurity article you link has no information later than 2005. In the intervening 4 years - the US Government has:
Additionally, your assertion that "we own" the oil fields now points to an article explaining how the Iraqi Ministry of Oil is negotiating contracts from companies that lost to nationalization when Saddam was in power. I'm not sure how that means "we own" anything. The Iraqi government is contracting with corporations to extract the oil resources. Sounds like Iraq exercising its own sovereignty to me.
Re:What they need (Score:2, Informative)
Well - we're off into tangential territory to the article, so this will all probable get modded offtopic. That's ok - the US presence in Iraq is relevant to the US ability to affect any change in Iran, so it's not too far offtopic. :)
First off, I generally support the idea you're getting at - the appearance and perception of imperialism doesn't help the US in the slightest. Furthermore, the entire war premise was on dubious grounds to begin with (and "dubious" is a generous description of it.)
That being said - accuracy is important. Forming opinions about what's going on based on an understanding of the facts is much more useful than forming opinions based on kneejerk reactions to the crappy media reporting we get.
Have we abandoned our permanent military bases in Iraq?
Repeating this question over and over again doesn't really hep anything. You claim that the text of the agreement leaves room to interpret what we still "own" places or have made permanent structures. This is incorrect:
From the agreement: (Article Two - Definition of Terms)
"The installations and areas agreed upon" refers to the Iraqi areas used by the U.S. Forces while this agreement is valid."
and later (Article 5 - Ownership of Property)
Iraq owns all the buildings and installations, the nontransferable structures on the ground that are located in the areas and installations agreed upon, including those the U.S. utilizes, constructs, changes or improves.
and even later (Article 24 - Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.
All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns ... on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces... are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns
The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.
So you claim that the bases are permanent, but the agreement clearly states that they are owned by Iraq, not the US. You claim that we aren't withdrawing combat forces, pointing to the Victory Base Complex as your sole example. You claim we aren't leaving when the agreement clearly states a specific end date when all forces will be gone.
As far as as the Victory Base Complex goes - where do you suggest soldiers go as they depart the country? Maybe to the airfield where they will fly out? Might it make sense to stage all the units at the large base next to the airfield? Also - it's way off on the western edge of the city, which has urban sprawl that's now reached it. One side of VBC is against the city, while the other side faces the open desert. The Iraqi Government has specifically said that while it's status as "outside the city" is uncertain for the purposes of this agreement it will be defined as such. You seem to imply that such a position is tantamount to keeping combat soldiers in every city in the country. Your position is hyperbole at best and downright false at worst.
Where is your source of information? Who is telling you that we aren't abiding by the terms of the agreement? I'll tell you. I'm in Baghdad right now, I can see with my own eyes the how the pullout is going. I read the orders that define where we can and can't go, I see how tightly restricted our operations are. The "drawdown" has had an extremely marked effect. I know that from your perspective I'm merely some internet asshat, but I'm here, on the ground, in Baghdad and I