Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Cellphones Government Iphone Software The Media Your Rights Online Apple

Syrian Protesters Roll Out New iPhone Apps 105

Posted by samzenpus
from the the-people's-app dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Protesters in Syria, dealing with a strict media blackout, have rolled out new iPhone and iPad apps to share news, stories, and even jokes. Amid a brutal crackdown, rebels are fighting back on their iPhones. The Arab Spring's newest weapon keeps the opposition informed—and the regime in check."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Syrian Protesters Roll Out New iPhone Apps

Comments Filter:
  • Wait for the media (Score:5, Insightful)

    by future assassin (639396) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:20PM (#38079246) Homepage

    praises of brave souls trying to bring democracy into their lives in 3,2,1 while at the same time making fun of the occupy protests in "free" countries.

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:31PM (#38079362)

      Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.

      You realize that the OWS movement will never be taken seriously by reasonable people if hyperbole like this seem to be the common view of the movement, right? Because it totally won't. And shouldn't. Not saying it is. What I'm saying is your comments, and comments like this (which I see all the time on /.) only hurt yourself and the movement you (implicitly seem to) support.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ClintJCL (264898)
        So you're saying it's okay to destroy property, but not lives. Funny -- the bill of rights seems to disagree with that. Police throwing 5,000 donated books into a dumpster is not a visage of democracy.
        • by fsckmnky (2505008)
          The books were "abandoned" by the protesters voluntarily, as they were "evicted" from someone elses land.

          Research abandoned property law. Has nothing to do with the bill of rights.
          • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdot@g m a i l . com> on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:19PM (#38079976) Homepage Journal
            No, they weren't. If you ask anyone actually evicted by the police, the police did allow them to keep their property. They weren't abandoned, though maybe they were "abandoned". At this point, the law uses "words" that don't even have their common-sense "meaning" anymore, so maybe there is some legal status of "abandoned" that can be forced upon you even when you are not really abandoning your property.

            But by any common-sense interpretation of the English language, they were not abandoned. It was not voluntary. You are full of shit. And the bill of rights has a little something to do with every law in existence, for laws must take it into consideration in order to be legal. (Though there is always that awkward point after a law is passed, but before it is struck down. . .)

            • They tried to squat on private property (it was a public park, but NOT publicly owned property), for about 2 months. And youre complaining that they lost their tents? Theyre lucky that they werent all arrested for trespassing.

              The first amendment does NOT give you the right to squat on property.

              • by ClintJCL (264898)
                Actually, the park was converted from public to private land by a legal agreement requiring them to open the park to the public 24 hours. In other words, they legally agreed that it would be treated publicly, despite private ownership.

                Also, you are trying to equate summary punishment by police with some sort of justice. That's not how the justice system works.

                So in 3 sentences, you managed to lie and equate summary justice with actual justice. Nice to know where you stand.

                • Public use does not mean "campground". Seriously, do you really think its OK to go to Farragut Square in DC and set up a camp and a bonfire? What about camping out on the National Mall, does that sound "OK" or "Not OK" to you?

                  • by ClintJCL (264898)
                    Yea... Those are public lands. People should be able to peacefully assemble. The opposite of peace is... not tents. I'm sorry that congress made laws about HOW we can peacefully assemble -- in direct violation of an amendment saying it does not have that power. But I'm doubly sorry that people like you use that as an example of how things should be. Public land should be for the public to use how it wants. Basic democratic principle. Guess it's lost on you.

                    Say I want to go to a park for 4 hours, and tak

                  • by ClintJCL (264898)
                    Also, the National Mall has allowed many groups (but not individuals) to camp there. So you're wrong not just in principle, but in your example as well. Double wrong.
                  • by ClintJCL (264898)
                    In fact, with the National Mall -- since they have allowed some groups to camp there; to deny other groups based on their message would be a denial of 1st amendment rights, as government is not allowed to show message-based favoritism when doling out taxpayer. For example, when DC tried to not allow pro-marijuana messages on their subway trains, they lost a lawsuit. Of course, such unconstitutional favoritism is the whole point of the protester-permit process.
        • by perpenso (1613749) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:11PM (#38079890)

          So you're saying it's okay to destroy property, but not lives. Funny -- the bill of rights seems to disagree with that.

          The Bill of Rights speaks of due process. Setting up a camp in a public park against regulations, being *notified* to remove your property, being *warned* that property left in the park will be thrown out, might be considered a constitutionally acceptable due process. Requiring a permit to camp may also be considered a constitutionally acceptable practice.

          To be fair everyone was given notice that the park had to be cleared for cleanup. If a person chooses to leave their stuff there despite such announcements and warning there is an argument that the property was abandoned in a legal sense. It is a public park where camping is not allowed, is there not an inherent risk in setting up a tent? Personally I suspect may of those tents were left there in the hope they would get tossed, they were more valuable as PR tools than shelter. The cold weather is going to shut this thing down real soon and the tents will not be needed much longer.

          Police throwing 5,000 donated books into a dumpster is not a visage of democracy.

          The Mayor's office is reporting that Sanitation workers, not police, cleaned up things and that they handled books separately from trash. Books are being held at a city garage and may be picked up.

          • by T.E.D. (34228)

            The Mayor's office is reporting that Sanitation workers, not police, cleaned up things and that they handled books separately from trash. Books are being held at a city garage and may be picked up.

            Yes, that was their story.

            OWS's story is that they went down to this supposed holding area and were presented with 25 boxes of books. That was it. I don't know how many books were in those 25 boxes, but it's a pretty good bet it was only a very tiny percentage of 5,000.

            The mayor gave himself a major black-eye over this, and he'd kinda like to stay mayor after the next election. He has every incentive in the world to paint this action in the most positive light possible, perhaps even fudge the facts a li

            • by perpenso (1613749)
              Exaggeration and the spinning of events is likely to be coming from both sides. It was well known that the removal and cleanup was coming. Like some tents, I can't help but suspect that some books were left in the camp with the hope that they would get tossed, manufacturing a PR incident.

              As for the Mayor. I can easily envision him instructing workers to set books aside and I can equally envision sanitation workers ignoring the mayor and intentionally tossing books in with the trash. Both to reduce the am
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Do people have to die before you listen to them?

        • by Lotana (842533)

          Have a look at history. While strictly pacifist movements have gotten results (Ghandi), there are much greater number of examples where lives have to be lost before the demands are taken seriously.

          Self-immolation seems to be rather effective way to turn heads at the moment. Thich Quang Duc's example is probably one of the most famous ones. It has been said that Arab Spring has gotten into swing only after Mohamed Bouazizi's immolation which was followed by quite a number of copycats in other regions.

          So in t

          • by tehcyder (746570)

            So in the end I would answer: Most likely yes, people do have to die before any significant change is to happen.

            Let's just hope it's some of the fascist state goons, sorry law enforcement officers, rather than protesters.

            Once the police start beating young women with batons and pepper-spraying grandmothers, they have crossed a line. I don't care if the protesters were trespassing on the fucking President's front lawn, vague "property rights" (it's a publicly accessible park) do not trump people's rights to protest peacefully.

            Except in dictatorships.

        • These comparisons between OWS and Syria are frankly sickening. People over there are dying, and you want to compare that to the tragedy of only having a modest house, a comfortable suburban lifestyle, and a short stint of unemployment? You know what the people in syria would give to have a fraction of what you have?

          Heres a shocker for you: 80% of the people in this country ARE the 5%, when compared to the rest of the world. But no, your cause is totally on the same level as people fighting for their liv

          • by tehcyder (746570)
            The people in the Arab spring wanted a fair share of their own countries' wealth and freedom, they were and are dying for democracy, not just a bigger car.
            • THe people in Arab spring were under brutal dictatorships, and one man lit himself on fire because of massive, widespread government corruption that meant he could not make a living-- government thugs would take his vendor cart, his goods, etc.

              You really want to try to draw a comparison between that and some trespassing protesters getting their illegally pitched tents confiscated because they refused to buy the permits (which basically every other protesting group had NO issue getting)?

              You either lack persp

      • by Bucky24 (1943328) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:54PM (#38079656)
        I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and I take it very seriously. Though there's really no way to convince you that I'm reasonable, just a there's no way to convince you that OWS is serious. There will always be a segment of the population that is threatened by the idea that the system might be able to change.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pclminion (145572)

        Oh yeah. Because a crackdown that killed 3,500 people (according to TFA) is clearly the same as throwing away a few tents.

        The manner in which a government responds to a protest has no bearing on the importance of what is being protested. Whether protestors die or not is a function of the government, not the protestors.

        Suppose somebody does die in OWS at some point. Will the two movements suddenly be equivalent in your mind? Are you going to perform an arithmetic comparison of the number of deaths? What's

        • by Anonymous Coward

          And despite Americans' peculiar insistence on the infinite value of human life [...]

          wtf? remind me, which members of the OECD still practice the death penalty?

            • by Anonymous Coward

              wikipedia is your friend [wikipedia.org]

              death penalty abolished for all crimes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom

              death penalty abolished for crimes but under exceptional/special circumstances: Chile, Israel

              death penalty abolished in practice: Korea

              still practice death pena

        • The manner in which a government responds to a protest has no bearing on the importance of what is being protested

          I think the deaths might be part of what theyre protesting; care to stack that up against complaints of "Im not as rich as that guy"?

          • by pclminion (145572)
            Right, I'm sure the economic troubles affecting millions of Americans have not caused a SINGLE death. Get real. All it takes is 3,500 deaths due to inability to get proper healthcare, and we're up to par.
      • by fredmosby (545378)
        Yeah. As long as the US government isn't the most oppressive government in the world Americans have no right to complain about government oppression.
        • by Baloroth (2370816)

          No, but I would ask that the magnitude of two oppressions is different by several orders. Also, the reason for the protests is radically different. Long story short, comparing the two is... difficult.

          Complain and protest all you want, I'd even encourage it (I think OWS has some valid points). Just make sure you don't exaggerate the situation too much.

      • We have had 50k deaths and at least 10k disappeared in Mexico in the last 5 years in a phony drug war by a government that came from a stolen election but, since the killing is made on USA's behalf no many people there will raise their voice.

      • by tehcyder (746570)
        Suppressing democratic rights is suppressing democratic rights, arsewipe.

        By your relativistic logic, the events in Syria are insignificant when compared to something like the Second World War (tens of millions dead instead of a few thousand) so Bashar al-Assad's basically OK?
    • by perpenso (1613749) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:52PM (#38079640)

      praises of brave souls trying to bring democracy into their lives in 3,2,1 while at the same time making fun of the occupy protests in "free" countries.

      Very few people are making fun of "occupy" protesters. Its "occupy" campers that are being made fun of to some degree, even by supporters of the "occupy" protesters and the occupy movement in general.

      Camping in a public park despite regulations to the contrary is something quite separate and different from showing up on wall street carrying signs and speaking up about abusive practices. Get a room? Stay with a friend who lives in the city? Stay with a supporter who lives in the city? Camp in a *real* campsite outside the city and take a bus into the city? People I've spoken with who attended big protests in the 60s did these sort of things. Is there a lack or organization and planning today compared to the 60s, or is there a lack of supporters offering their couch or living room floor?

      • by Fned (43219)

        People I've spoken with who attended big protests in the 60s did these sort of things.

        People you've spoken with who attended big protests in the 60s weren't going through Great Depression 2: Foreclosure Boogaloo.

        Do the math. There are altogether fewer couches. People big-hearted enough to open their homes to protesters likely already have their homeless friends on the couch...

        • by perpenso (1613749)

          People I've spoken with who attended big protests in the 60s did these sort of things.

          People you've spoken with who attended big protests in the 60s weren't going through Great Depression 2: Foreclosure Boogaloo. Do the math. There are altogether fewer couches. People big-hearted enough to open their homes to protesters likely already have their homeless friends on the couch...

          Are you sure that most of the regrettably foreclosed upon are homeless rather than renting a smaller less expensive place? Those couches may still exist, just sitting in a smaller rented property rather than a larger owned property.

          From what I heard from the 60s protesters they often stayed in a crappy little rented apartment, not some large home. I think the comparison to the 60s is still appropriate.

          • by eriks (31863)

            From what I heard from the 60s protesters they often stayed in a crappy little rented apartment, not some large home. I think the comparison to the 60s is still appropriate.

            Yes, the comparison to the 60s is certainly appropriate, since as others have said, the 60s was a dress rehearsal for what's happening now. Though keep in mind that in the 60s there were still (lots) of poor people living in Manhattan. Nowadays, there really isn't a "crappy little apartment" to rent, anywhere in Manhattan. Even Harlem has been largely "gentrified".

            My thought when OWS first started in Zucotti Park was that they would eventually be forced out, and would need to look for other places to sta

            • by perpenso (1613749)

              However, I think the "camping" is actually a good strategy, for many reasons, foremost probably being the 24/7 presence accelerated coverage of the protest.

              The problem is that I think the coverage may be counterproductive. As the 99% watch on TV they feel less in common with these people. Basically the movement "leaders" are playing into the hands of their opponents who want to mischaracterize the protesters as largely the neo-hippie "professional protesters" who travel from one WTO/G20/etc event to another. The more the TV cameras focus on campers rather than protesters with signs on wall street the more distorted the perception of the movement gets.

              There are MANY precedents for american citizens "camping out" for their rights. Of the top of my head, the biggest one I can think of was the WW1 vets in Washington DC in the 30s. Tent city for miles...

              You might

              • by eriks (31863)

                It may be a negative in some respects, but there *are* a lot of people losing their homes, mostly due to the activities of a few very rich men. So symbolically it is appropriate... It probably can't be sustained long term, at least in it's current form. In the 60s, many "communes" formed. Most of them were not successful, though a few survive to this day. I think that idea could do better now than it did then. Not in the "flower power" sense, but in the practical living and survival sense, in an incre

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        Camping in a public park despite regulations to the contrary is something quite separate

        How pathetic has your country become when people sleeping in tents appals your nice middle class sensibilities?

    • Because the Occupy folks havent made clear what they want, and are generally trying to instigate violence with a reluctant system?

      Trying to compare the two scenarios is in such bad taste its not even funny. People are dying over there trying to unseat a brutal government, whereas over here theyre making a massive nuisance of themselves vandalizing parks, instigating violence, and illegally camping on public property. Yea, thats real noble.

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        People are dying over there trying to unseat a brutal government, whereas over here theyre making a massive nuisance of themselves vandalizing parks, instigating violence, and illegally camping on public property. Yea, thats real noble.

        You do not see the heavy irony here. It was the people demonstrating en masse by occupying public squares that finished off the Tunisian and Egyptian fascist governments, and it was those governments who tried to bulldoze camps and characterized the protestors as vandals.

        • Heres the difference, the police HERE have basically ignored the Occupy folks for two months, even though they were illegally camping in whats supposed to be a public park; and the protesters THERE didnt care because they wanted to dismantle the government due to its brutality and oppression.

          So lets be clear and open here: Is the dismantling of the US government the goal of the Occupy folks? We might as well get that out into the open.

          • by sysrammer (446839)

            So lets be clear and open here: Is the dismantling of the US government the goal of the Occupy folks? We might as well get that out into the open.

            Well, sure, some of them. Anarchists are drawn to this kind of thing. What percentage I don't know, somewhere in the 1% range I would imagine.

            As others have noted, you ask 10 occupiers what it's all about, & you get 10 answers. Ask 100, and 1 may say "yes, we don't need govt".

  • App Store Policy (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    That is until Apple takes their app down for no apparent reason.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wierd_w (1375923)

      Depending on how you want to define the term [WMD], the free and unfiltered exchange of ideas and information could well be described in such a fashion.

      I mention this, because of some of the verbage in the appstore agreement.

      When the pen is mightier than the sword, for those wishing to uphold the status quo, both must be controlled. The former moreso than the latter.

      Given apple's philosophy about openness, (or lack thereof), I wouldn't doubt that they would remove the app from the appstore for "inciting vio

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      That is until Apple takes their app down for no apparent reason.

      Or the Syrian government shuts down cellular communication or network communication among smart phones.

      Apple wouldn't dare get into bed with the Syrian government, as the look of it would do immense harm to the company image.

    • Wait, wait,

      Isn't Syria one of those evil countries who American companies aren't meant to trade with or ship technology to?

      How do they get Mac's and app developer licenses if there's an embargo?
      • by shagie (1803508)
        Syria has been under trade embargo since October 29th, 1991 as specified in Amendment to ITAR 126.1 [state.gov]. The appears to apply to the Arms Export Control and include Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea. The key thing is the 'arms export'. This appears to cover defense articles and defense services - not regular commercial items. Strong encryption is classified as a munition. If the Syrian app store doesn't use strong encryption algorithms for its drm or the sdk, one would presume that developer
  • by arcite (661011) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:47PM (#38079578)
    Would be rather fitting if the iPhone helped along a revolution for freedom.
    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Would be rather fitting if the iPhone helped along a revolution for freedom.

      Which would somehow make all the Apple marketing people puff out their chests in so much pride you'd have to walk through Cupertino sideways.

      That kind of PR you can't buy -- just quietly do what you can for them and let the media go on tooting your horn for you.

      Perhaps Microsoft or Google could take a page from that book -- Twitter was part of the Green Revolt in Iran, which certainly enhanced their exposure -- maybe Microsoft or Google could foment a rebellion somewhere... Gad. What a cynic I'm becoming.

    • by Nerdfest (867930) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:22PM (#38080020)
      It would also be quite ironic given the nature of the platform.
    • by unixisc (2429386)
      That's a pure technicality, since he was adopted out by Jandali, who only surfaced and claimed paternity in order to draw media attention. Steve was lucky not to have been raised by that loser. Nor did he ever have any connections w/ Syria.
  • Why IPhone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by horza (87255) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @06:51PM (#38079622) Homepage

    So the dissident first has to jailbreak out of his cell, only to have to jailbreak his cell? Why would they want to rely on an app that can be remote wiped by Apple at a moments notice? Not only are the Android phones more free, the faster processors will speed up encryption/decryption. Poor choice of phone.

    Phillip.

    • Re:Why IPhone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @07:19PM (#38079974) Homepage Journal

      So the dissident first has to jailbreak out of his cell, only to have to jailbreak his cell? Why would they want to rely on an app that can be remote wiped by Apple at a moments notice? Not only are the Android phones more free, the faster processors will speed up encryption/decryption. Poor choice of phone.

      Phillip.

      Wait. You think Apple would do that? You don't work at Apple. If they did Apple would be seen as a tool of bloodthirsty tyrants. I expect if the Syrian government even suggested Apple drop these apps you'd find an epidemic of "deaf ears" in Cupertino.

      Apple is all about saluting the Rebel in you, after all.

      • by horza (87255)

        Ultra-capitalist Apple left behind their rebel years a long time ago. They have more important things to do like stifling competition with law suits. All it would take is for a couple of guys at wikileaks to use the app and it would be yanked in a heartbeat. Cupertino have deaf ears to anything except what will maximise profits. Of course they would invent some transgression in the ToS of the app to make it appear their hands were tied and they would release a press statement soundly condemning bloodthirsty

    • by Anonymous Coward

      If you check the stats you'll find that it is Google who have used their ability to remotely wipe apps from Android phones on a number of occasions, not Apple. I'm sure at least some of those would have been with good reason, in response to yet more malware masquerading as a legitimate Android app, but you carry on believing whatever Google want you to believe.

    • by aiken_d (127097)

      Um. Google *can* and does remotely delete apps from phones:
      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/03/google-using-remote-kill-switch-to-swat-android-malware-apps.ars [arstechnica.com]

      And given that Android phones can report what apps you use to carriers, that's probably a really bad idea in a place like Syria.
      http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/11/16/verizon_and_sprint_using_rootkit_to_collect_data_from_android_phones [afterdawn.com]

      • by mjwx (966435)

        Um. Google *can* and does remotely delete apps from phones:

        Um, only through the Google market. Install an application from an APK and they cant do anything. Not like you can install an application package file on an Iphone without Apple's Express permission.

        Hey, dont let the facts in the way of a good baseless rant.

        • Not like you can install an application package file on an Iphone without Apple's Express permission.

          Millions of jail breakers do just that every day.

          Watch how far you chuck those stones there, the walls are mighty close.

          I see you had no response about pre-installed root kits on many Android that the protestors would not have the technical ability to remove and the government could compel Syrian carriers to cough up data for...

        • by aiken_d (127097)

          Dude, you're comparing manually install via APK to apps downloaded from Apple's App Store? Are you confused or dishonest?

          Tell me again how the Carrier IQ problem is baseless? Ignore inconvenient facts much?

          +1 for self-righteous, -2 for being wrong.

    • by Xest (935314)

      Because this is Apple's iProduct feel good story for 17th November 2011.

      Yesterdays was probably about a boy trapped down a well and Facebooking out on his iPhone for survival. Tommorrows will be someone using their iPad to get out of a forest they got lost in, the day after it'll be a miracle iPhone being dropped off a boat and find by it's owner washed up on shore using find my iPhone, after that we're probably due another one about one being dropped from a plane or cliff and not breaking again, it wont be

  • I didn't see any application link or name in that article, and a google search leads only to slashdot and that article.

    Did they mean a website, maybe?

    PS: I hope the new ruling party of Syria will be nicer to Israelis than ASSad.

  • still the driving force in that revolution. These apps will also be used by fundamentalists in that movement.

    For the record I despise the Assad dictatorship ( who wouldn't unless you are the dictator :P ), and I wish the Syrian people a true democracy and not another dictatorship or another Iran-like Theocracy (a sunni one). Most of the people running the show in the Syrian revolution have fundamentalist and pro Al-Qaedah positions. This was seen in many sectarian and extremest speeches by Mosk Imams in
    • That's because the USA and their allied dictators saw any moderate leftist social democrat as sons of Fidel Castro and Stalin born in hell, and the ones not allied to the USA applied the same methods; any natural leader except for the religious leaders was killed by the secret services of arab dictators, so they don't have union leaders, members of professional associations or a free press that could be pool of new moderate leaders.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Problem is that no Muslim country is a true democracy - by which I mean that not only do all people have the basic rights, but also, that outside of government, the majority communities don't harass the minorities, the way Copts are being persecuted in Egypt, other Chrisitans are being persecuted in Indonesia, Pakistan & Malaysia, and even in new Iraq, Assyrian Christians are being persecuted to the point that most have fled to... Syria.

      The easy access to weapons is symptomatic of another problem - t
      • by peppepz (1311345)

        Problem is that no Muslim country is a true democracy

        Turkey is one.

        If by "Muslim country" you mean a country whose citizens are mostly Muslim.

        • by tehcyder (746570)

          Problem is that no Muslim country is a true democracy

          Turkey is one.

          If by "Muslim country" you mean a country whose citizens are mostly Muslim.

          Stop spoiling his fun.

          Anyway, Britain is also just about a democracy, despite over 75% of the population being Muslim Asylum Seekers (Copyright The Daily Mail).

    • That's because the USA and their allied dictators saw any moderate leftist social democrat as sons of Fidel Castro and Stalin born in hell, and the ones not allied to the USA applied the same methods; any natural leader except for the religious leaders was killed by the secret services of arab dictators, so they don't have union leaders, members of professional associations or a free press that could be a pool of new moderate leaders.

      If I have made any more mistakes in my writing, corrections are welcome.

  • At a GDP per capita of just over 5000 USD, Syrians owning iPhones is the equivalent of Americans owning a 5000 USD device and using that to bring the government down. Or requires the American equivalent of earning 500.000 per year to make the cost of the iPhone for these Syrians comparable to their income. Like, the masses, right? Clearly, not quite. Syrians owning iPhones are a tiny and rich minority. Claiming these people are rebels is like saying the 1% are, really, rebels.
  • > rebels are fighting back on their iPhones

    Translated: the government have created an app so that they can better track and manipulate the citizens

    Or maybe this is saying that they are throwing iPhones instead of stones?

  • Is there an English version of the Syria app? Many in the USA support their search for freedom

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce

Working...