The Internet Helps Iran Silence Activists 232
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the alternative-views dept.
from the alternative-views dept.
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?'"
Steganography (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be true, but if encryption and steganography were the norm, the story would be different.
What if everyone used, say Freenet for publishing instead of http? The government would have much more trouble finding or censoring them.
Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with most net communication is that it is built with the assumption that the governments that it passes through are fundamentally friendly to the citizenry. Once DPI exists it is perfectly possible to just ban encrypted traffic to anything but a white list of banking sites etc, and then one has created a system where every letter can be read. It can be the perfect police state, and probably will be.
Stenography is probably the only answer to this, but the traffic patterns are still recorded so once the government concerned becomes aware that the receiver is hostile to them they can follow that social network back. It's not just Google who can work out probable friends of yours automatically. The other issue is that once you introduce higher technical barriers, the ability of the public to use the communication falls rapidly. Joe Protester probably can't set up stenography in the first place; most of the Iranian videos were emailed or went up via Youtube.
This is leaving aside how locked down Palladium computers could affect this issues in the future. The West of the internet is no longer very wild.
"only a few...pictures and videos getting through" (Score:5, Insightful)
For now. I suspect large proportions of recorded materials will find their way out sooner or later.
Might not help this revolution, perhaps the next one...
What they need (Score:1, Insightful)
What they need is to have the US and it's pawns to stop threatening to invade, and stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars [newyorker.com] to the CIA for undercover operations fomenting another coup [wikipedia.org] in that country. As long as they are being verbally and covertly threatened by the hyperpower that has just invaded the country next door -- the same country that invited Saddam to invade them in the 80s [consortiumnews.com] -- the hardliners will continue to rule Iran.
One simple rule that imperial powers tend to forget is that people are nearly always divided against their own government but nearly always united against a foreign invader.
The alternative is no technology (Score:3, Insightful)
you see the regime would love there to be no communications but they have to since young Iranians demand it. From what I can tell Iranians put up with the controls on public appearence/behavior because atleast in private they have outlets such as the Internet to express themselves, now with this under control too if I was an Iranian I would feel even more frustrated that it is creeping into their private lives. Maybe the youth have been placated with Internet and mobile phones but I'm hoping that whatever the outcome people will realise that the small luxuries that they are allowed to have can and will be used against them which in the longer term can only cause more angst and dissent.
Yet another way to look at it (Score:3, Insightful)
ARPA's Internet project grows out of control, works against sister agency's insurrection attempt.
No way with regards to Invasion (Score:5, Insightful)
If there has been on country that has benefited from the US "adventures" in Afganistan and Iraq it has been Iran, the US can't do anything to Iran at the moment it is too stretched out both financially and militeraly hence Obama recently changed tack from the previous threating stance. The Iranian leadership know this and that is why the continue with their nuclear program.
I also don't think there is any chance of another coup, there could be a counter-revolution but if this happens it will be because of the youth. Would the US like a counter-revolution, of course they would and the ayatollah is using this argument however the people are n't stupid and we should give them that much credit.
Re:another way to look at it (Score:4, Insightful)
So help was your weasel word to pretend to be saying something without having to defend it.
It's more defensible than you think, though.
The fact is that Twitter is designed to be a fun thing for people to use in a relatively non-oppressive society. As such, it's designed under the assumption that they don't *want* criminals or terrorists on their network. So their design works in a free country but can be used against a populace or simply suppressed in an oppressive country.
The problem here, really, is that overthrowing a government is not a trivial exercise and the populace of Iran needs the proper tools. Seriously, is anyone surprised that something called "Twitter" isn't exactly military grade?
I'ts only illegal in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think PGP and other steg. tools are not available everywhere in the world you have rocks in your head. The US does not have a monopoly on smart mathematicians or encryption methods.
The only effect of the US bans on cryptography export is to handcuff the US software industry, and make some congress-critters feel nice.
Re:US citizens' have their hands tied - SO WHAT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe it or not, the laws of the United States do have important consequences for people who live and work here.
Re:US citizens' have their hands tied (Score:2, Insightful)
You are really believing this shit, are you?
I can't count the levels on which this is just wrong.
First of all, I thought in the US (and many other countries), it were the rule, that if you murdered foreign people, and did other bad things to them, you would in the first place be a "hero", as long as they are officially the "evil ones". (Example: The "soldiers".)
Then, do you really think, Iran can demand *anything* from the USA? lol. You must be out of your mind!
Or are you just trolling?
Re:What they need (Score:2, Insightful)
"Nearly always" is your way of acknowledging that a lot of people, including Obama, have a whole lot of egg on their face about Iraq, and that you know damned well there's a big difference between "invader" and "aggressor."
Do you think we're going to abandon our permanent military bases in Iraq [globalsecurity.org]? Do you think we're going to allow Iraq to take back control of their own oil resources? You do know that we own them now [nytimes.com], don't you?
If we're invaders and not aggressors, we'd just leave the military bases and oil fields to Iraqis, and we would have left after their first election. But we're not going to leave, so stop pretending.
Re:another way to look at it (Score:5, Insightful)
To that extent, a centralized government controlled data infrastructure can always be used for nefarious purposes, even if that wasn't the intent on installation. As for-profit companies, Nokia and Siemens probably approached the proposal by looking at the bottom line profit, not the moral implications. Its just business.
But regardless of the intent why the DPI machines were put in place, the possibility for good and evil are both increased in lock-step. Within the US our centralization and inspection of domestic data in the name of fighting terrorism takes us down a slippery slope, even though the possible (and likely) misuses of this data are swept under the rug.
There are those of us who believe that the only way to ensure free speech (and all the good and bad that accompany it) is to ensure societies ability to develop decentralized communications exchange,
Embassy Wi-fi? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really that difficult for foreign embassies to create huge unfiltered Wi-fi spots that cover the city?
Re:another way to look at it (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporation will _always_ help whoever has money and is willing to part with it. They don't care for good or evil, or a human concept of "morals". They won't refuse a good deal just because it's "evil", neither will they go out of their way to do "evil" if there's no profit to be made. It just happens that most profit is in immoral acts.
Or criminal acts, in which case penalties and the chance to get caught are factored in as cost position. Morals and consciousness have no place in corporate decisions, mostly because the people involved can easily shift their moral concerns aside.
Re:Encryption VS Deep Packet Inspection (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really are going to try to crack every email , it would be fun to send a highly encrypted email , containg only large amounts of gibberish , to a friend everyday.
Sounds like a great way to get them to harass and investigate your friend. Your goal to drain their resources will just give them legitimacy to switch to more invasive tactics.
If they cannot break your code, they just might break the legs of someone who can.
Re:The internet never forgets (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless they are successful in a regime change. That is the whole point, no?
Re:another way to look at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporation will _always_ help whoever has money and is willing to part with it. They don't care for good or evil, or a human concept of "morals".
That isn't a foregone conclusion, although it's true for virtually every corporation today. There's nothing, aside from greed, that prevents corporations from having ethics built into them. Look at Ben & Jerry's, for example; while I don't agree with every stance they take, the corporation honestly tries to be good guys.
Re:What they need (Score:5, Insightful)
We are still in Afghanistan, not matter how much we want to forget.
But we didn't invade Afghanistan. We're there with the permission and support of the nation's government.
Re:Embassy Wi-fi? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Embassy Wi-fi? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which would get them kicked out of the country.
Embassies may be involute foreign soil, but but that doesn't mean the host country has to let you keep operating them. They can say 'You have 24 hours until this embassy stops being an embassy. We will expect you gone by then.'
Although in reality they'd just jam the signal.
Re:What they need (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't really have anything to do with moral relativism.
As long as we've decided that, objectively, killing US citizens is less evil than trafficking in drugs.
And, I look around at swat home invasions and the death of innocent people in the US, and, think, hey, we actually have decided that.
It's not 'moral relativism' at all. It's the exact opposite of it. It is 'Drugs are more immoral than causing the deaths of people. In all circumstances'.
Granted, it's totally fucked up objective morality, but it is objective morality. Killing people==somewhat evil. Drug trafficking==very evil.
Re:Steganography (Score:3, Insightful)
What if everyone used, say Freenet for publishing instead of http? The government would have much more trouble finding or censoring them.
Freenet demands significant space on your drive and significant inbound and outbound traffic.
Freenet needs as many active nodes and supernodes as it can get to remain efficient and secure.
I have often wondered precisely how many.
TrueCrypt can hide a file or folder. It can't conceal traffic moving in and out your home.
That marks the limit of "plausible deniability."
The secret police doesn't think geek. It has its own definition of what is "Plausible," its own definition of what is "Proof" - and its own definition of what is "Pain."
Re:No way with regards to Invasion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:another way to look at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly - what the fuck is with people submitting stories to this site that need to attack Nokia-Siemens in the summary?
No one would get a contract to put a cell phone network in Iran unless it included a monitoring system - just like every Western country.
If there's any one to blame on this censorship/monitoring technology - blame Western governments - they're the ones that have put these requirements in place years ago. Engineers could have made these networks with sufficient privacy controls at the implementation phase, but no government will accept complete privacy - they always want a way to monitor activity.
If we truly believed in concepts of freedom of speech and expression, we would have voted in political members that would restrict monitoring technology. But our selection in politicians are rather limited, and they seem to lack the creativity to accomplish goals of national security without using highly invasive methods.
Re:What they need (Score:5, Insightful)
The Taliban was a client of ours until the September 11th attacks.
Uh, the US didn't recognize the Taliban as the leader of Afghanistan. Neither did any country except Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, nor did the UN, and Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition prior to the war. When I refer to the government of Afghanistan, I mean the real one, not the Taliban pretending he's in charge.
Add in the fact that our attacks are, and have always been, assisted by the Afghani Army, and I'd say we were not invading. You might as well claim that the US has been an occupied country for over a century. After all, Congress was dissolved by Emperor Norton, and the standing Army they've formed is therefore clearly a rebel force.
To put it more succinctly, we're not required to acknowledge every insane person with a couple of guns that claims leadership of a nation.
How soon the geek forgets (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really that difficult for foreign embassies to create huge unfiltered Wi-fi spots that cover the city?
Iran Hostage Crisis [wikipedia.org]
Technicians willing to maintain a repeater outside the safety of the embassy compound, please raise your hands.
We offer a nice recruitment bonus, excellent death benefits, a bullet proof vest, an armored vehicle with a hair-triggered paramilitary escort.
If you are caught or killed the Secretary will, as always, disavow any knowledge of your actions.
All Very Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as Americans like to villanize the Iranians for political reasons, this is all very tragic to see the will of the Iranian people crushed by a few corrupt individuals and a couple of religious zealots in top authoritative positions.
I thought America was bad after the past 10 years of political dictatorship by our own collection of criminals, including their gestapo arrest tactics, wiretapping of all internal communications, and general spying of all citizens. At least here in the US we can succeed at voting the assholes out. That took 8 years, but the task got done finally.
It was a positive development to see the Iranian people, through political process, want change and friendship with the west and we are all better off for it. Our hearts go out to you all and hope you can make the changes to your system that will give you the freedom you deserve. Perhaps the Iranian dictatorship should read up about the demise of General Custer and a few other selected figures from history. They may all find themselves one day swinging from the end of a rope, or worse.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU (Score:2, Insightful)
We have always been at war of Eurasia!!
With a staff of 2,000 full-time technicians to monitor the calls, this reminds me of 1984. Or should I say, "Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death."
Re:not much different (Score:1, Insightful)
Seems that people in power around the world share the same priorities. Most importantly: Staying in power and having control comes first. Everything else is secondary to that.
Well this is a bit of a catch 22. If they can't stay in power, then all of their other objectives are moot anyways, so they have to try to stay in power.
Re:What they need (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think anything is that black and white. Should we encourage every democratic uprising? You bet. Should we get involved in every democratic uprising? Nope. But I think towards the revolutions in many Eastern Bloc countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West offered support, and, for the most part, it's worked out very well, though Russia clearly doesn't think so.
The reason not to interfere in Iran is because there is a very deep strain of anti-Westernism in the country, even among many who would topple the Ayatollahs. Going in there and trying to topple it by force would only serve to solidify the message that has been pushed since the 1979 revolution.
Re:All Very Sad (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, 'm getting rather tired of the United States being compared to autocratic regimes. It's apples and oranges. Was their abuse of power? You bet. Was the government stepping into areas that ought not be touched in a liberal democracy? You bet. But come on, even at his worst, Bush never had the sheer power the Ayatollahs do. Congress went along with him for a while, but that ultimately was only a few years, and the last two or three years of Bush's presidency was an absolute disaster for him and the Republicans. The political process worked, there was a peaceful transition of power, the public will was acknowledged and obeyed. The armed forces remained firmly out of the political picture, there was no question that the Marines were suddenly going to start patrolling the streets.
All nations, even the most free, suffer periods where liberties are attacked, where politicians and bureaucrats will sing the "for your own good" tune. The Founding Fathers knew this, and thus set up checks and balances, so that no branch could so thoroughly overwhelm any other as to actually see any kind of dictatorial regime take hold. In a way, in fact, the US Constitution is the polar opposite of the Iranian Constitution. The Iranian Constitution, in fact, sets up a center of political gravity that essentially wields absolute power at its whim.
For Bush to have truly resembled Khamenei, we would have had to see mass voter fraud in the 2006 mid-terms (which were critical to the GOP's being able to maintain a hold on Congress). More than that, there would had to have been some instrument of government that could actually deny candidates the right to run for office. No such entity exists, anyone can run for Congress, providing the meet the pretty minimalistic Constitutional requirements. Even the requirements for President only essentially rule out immigrant citizens. Maybe you won't have a chance to run for Congress or the Presidency, but you have the right.
The systems are utterly dissimilar, and even during the height of Bush's abuses, you could protest without fear, you could write on blogs or in newspapers without disappearing into the unknown, and maybe you're family gets a body back with a moronic and clearly false explanation, and maybe they don't.
Re:No way with regards to Invasion (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're confused on the facts or not--it's unclear from your speculations, but just for the record al-Qa'ida is not a Shia organization. While al-Qa'ida in *IRAQ* (see below) might specifically target Shiites, Bin Ladin has in the past made attempts to gain connections with Shia groups (though he has denounced at times as well!).
Also, FWIW, whiel you got the terminology correct, when people talk about the "Shia crescent" however it's usually said to start in Lebanon. It's not exactly a new thing either!
In fact think of al-Qa'ida as a brand, or an overarching corporate entity. Then you have terrorist franchises -- almost all of which ALREADY existed -- that affiliate with al-Qa'ida for name and fame. Thus you have what we call AQI -- Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and they call al-Qa'ida in the land of the two rivers or variants thereof, you have AQIM -- Al-Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (North Africa), etc. How closely are these various groups linked to Bin Ladin? Many not very closely at all. Bin Ladin and AQ are basically lessons in branding, and a brand that globally is LOSING mindshare right now. I would completely DISAGREE with your assertions about al-Qa'ida in Iraq, and point to the awakenning councils as just part of the evidence as to how al-Qa'ida has managed to estrange its base! Unfortunately with the terrible job ALL (and I mean ALL) American news media does covering terrorist organizations, the Iraq war, etc, this is poorly understood and poorly reported on. Thus you get every armchair analyst in the western thinking they understand the complex interrelationships between Sunni and Shia, al-Qa'ida and the Iraq war, etc. The correct answer? "It's complicated." ;)
If Al Qeada continues to enjoy the recruiting bonanza of US forces in this area, there's a good chance bin Laden will get the war he was looking for between the west and the muslim world. All he has to do is pull of another terrorist attack inside the US.
You're wrong (IMO of course) about any "recruiting bonanza" that translates into anything greater than jihad in Iraq, etc. America has avoided many of the Russian mistakes in Chechnya and Afghanistan that made this an issue. Furthermore, popularity numbers for al-Qa'ida as a whole due in large parts to the actions of al-Qa'ida in Iraq are down.
Lastly, if you're even REMOTELY right about any of your facts, what is taking so long for al-Qa'ida and Usama to plan an attack in the US? There are any number of extremely devastating attacks that could be pulled off easily, cheaply, and with only a few people -- so what's the hold up?
Gee. With so MANY countries in the world. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that Iran is in the news ALL the time? --And always with a negative spin?
Hmmmmmmmm?
Are we going to fall for this again?
How stupid are we?
I'm betting that the answer is: "Stupid Enough."
So get your flak jackets on; we're going to war! (--And we've not even finished fighting the first. . , ugh! --I can't even remember how many idiotic and morally bankrupt engagements we're still neck-deep in.)
So ask yourself. . . How stupid are you feeling today?
-FL
Re:US citizens' have their hands tied (Score:3, Insightful)
People following the law blindly is what makes dictatorships possible.