Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Censorship Communications Government

As Elections Approach, Iran Uses "Far More Advanced" Internet Censorship (dailydot.com) 40

Patrick O'Neill writes: Election time in Iran means increased censorship for the country's tens of millions of Internet users. But this months parliamentary election, experts say, comes with a new level of aggressive censorship from a government notorious for authoritarianism in cyberspace. "What's happening [right now] is far more advanced than anything we've seen before," said Karl Kathuria, CEO of Psiphon Inc., the company behind the widely popular encryption and circumvention tool Psiphon. "It's a lot more concentrated attempt to stop these services from working."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

As Elections Approach, Iran Uses "Far More Advanced" Internet Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @01:19PM (#51487831)

    It helps the iranians remember whom to elect. I really look forward to these votes, the deal with the western world has enabled more liberal candidates to be accredited.

    • In the Islamic Republic of Iran (that's the country's name, folks!) the Islamist candidates are legitimately popular with the lower classes. "It helps the iranians remember whom to elect." how utterly snobbish. As if there are right and wrong choices in a free election. There is only "agrees with me" and "doesn't agree". The people of IRI like their government and support it.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Iranians were in open revolt in 2009 [wikipedia.org]

    If Obama were a Islamic Manchurian candidate, what more could he have done for radical Islam?

    He's allowed ISIS to grow.

    He gave nukes and $150 billion to the Iranian mullahs - after leaving them in power in 2009. And leaving the mullahs in power wasn't based on non-interference principles. Just ask Muammar Gaddaffi about that...

    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @01:47PM (#51488111)

      Iranians were in open revolt in 2009 [wikipedia.org]

      If Obama were a Islamic Manchurian candidate, what more could he have done for radical Islam?

      Well he could have attacked the Iranian regime with heavy rhetoric and publicly allied himself with the protesters. That would have made it easy for the regime to discredit and kill the reformist movement.

      Instead he stayed back and a few years later got a relatively reformist president who's on much better terms with the west.

      He's allowed ISIS to grow.

      Because a Whabbist Sunni Arab movement is totally relevant to this discussion about a Shia Persian country.

      He gave nukes

      Yeah, because there's no more effective way to give someone nukes than by having them shut down their nuclear program and undergo a level of inspections generally loved by weapons inspectors.

      and $150 billion to the Iranian mullahs

      Shame on him for giving Iran back their own money!

      And leaving the mullahs in power wasn't based on non-interference principles. Just ask Muammar Gaddaffi about that...

      Brilliant idea, take the Muslim country in the middle east with the most sympathetic population to the US and then launch an unprovoked war again them, that's the way to combat terrorism!

      Great point using Gaddaffi as a reference too, because Libya is doing absolutely great since then!!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why the hell doesn't the UN condemn these countries? In 1948, the UN general assembly voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document supports freedom of speech and thought, of which Iran's actions are totally contrary to. Why is the UN silent on these matters? The UN has no right to condemn anyone for human rights violations if it is willing to turn its back on its own 1948 declaration.

  • New and better circumvention tools are on the way, but even they can't through an ISP that cuts you off entirely. I hope wireless mesh can get around that problem eventually.

  • Iran can really do this by altering IPv4 within their borders. Define public addresses as private, private addresses as public, and then use that in all their internet communications. Of course, they have to redo their routers. Maybe get Huawei to do it for them

    Do that, and they effectively have an intranet, and foreign packets would go haywire trying to come in.

    • Even with such a system in place, there has to be a way to tunnel out. But the worst blockage is at the ISP. Without them, there is no internet. The internet needs to route around them.

      • That's what they don't want. They want to stop foreign packets from getting to their citizens. So doing what I suggested would preserve traffic within Iran, while excluding traffic outside. That would have the side effect (i.e. benefit to the West) of not being able to spy on the West either. And Iran can extend that to their allies, like Syria, Hizbullah, Iraq, and Shia enclaves in Saudi Arabia, Emirates....
        • That's what they don't want. They want to stop foreign packets from getting to their citizens.

          I understand perfectly. I am only interested in getting around it. If they cut the cables and/or mess with DNS and NAT translation, let's send in a radio signal for them to piggyback. Even at 300 baud, it's better than nothing.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @02:53PM (#51488829)

    Instead of censoring the internet, we use superdelegates [politicususa.com] to fix elections, and let people say whatever they like. After all the opinion of the people are irrelevant so why not?

    • Thanks for taking an interesting topic about a fascinating country and changing the topic to America. Again. Seriously, you people are not always first on the agenda so SHUT THE FUCK UP WHEN ADULTS ARE TALKING ABOUT ADULT TOPICS. Sheesh, it's just embarrassing how single-issue you uneducated people are.
      • I find it interesting to see how Europeans get so testy whenever any other country is mentioned. Seems like you are projecting quite a bit there!

        This post should make you happy since it only talks about Europeans, even only the failings, unlike the ability of Americans to consider a bigger picture.

        Oops! Ha Ha, just did that to goad you further obviously. If you don't want buttons pressed you may not want to wear them on your sleeve.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Is it quite simply a relationship measure ie censorship in Iran vs we do not give a fuck what you say in the US we can ignore you any way, main stream media says so, again and again and again and again an nausea. So they basically censor you internally unless you say what they want to hear versus blocking you from 'hmm' listening to other people they do not want you to listen to.

        For the likes of Iran that means switching from a IP blocking system to an IP allowing system ie all IPs are blocked, until the

  • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @03:01PM (#51488919) Homepage Journal

    Everyone knows that when you want to manipulate elections, you make large anonymous campaign contributions. And to manipulate public sentiment, have a couple guys own all the news media, and you can each do favors for each other. This way everything is legit.

  • By Western standards, Iran is a deeply flawed democracy.

    Yet there is much more antagonism directed against Iran than a great many countries which are not democracies at all.

    And if anything the censorship is proof that the elections are already on their way to bringing change.

If you push the "extra ice" button on the soft drink vending machine, you won't get any ice. If you push the "no ice" button, you'll get ice, but no cup.

Working...