Slashdot Mirror
Iran May Shut Down Internet During Election
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."
This was trimmed from the original submission:
Slashdot readers may recall the assertions, roundly dismissed by undersea cable experts, that the cables were deliberately cut to sever Iran's internet connectivity, which, contrary to popular belief, never occurred.
Many fervently believed the cable "cuts" were a prelude to war; still others insisted they were part of a plot to prevent the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse. Interestingly, no one could explain how cutting only one of several mechanisms of Internet connectivity to Iran would stop the bourse from opening...
Well, there was no secret invasion of Iran, and the Iranian Oil Bourse, after many self-incurred delays, still opened, to little fanfare. The opening of the bourse -- which doesn't deal in US dollars -- was supposed to be the turning point that sent the dollar into a freefall; however, myriad other factors seem to be hurting the dollar just fine on their own.
Why am I mentioning this? Because I think it is incredibly important to take a step back, get some perspective on things, and realize that actual totalitarian regimes are far more dangerous and damaging to individual freedoms and the free flow of information, in a very real and tangible sense, than even the wildest imagined conspiracy theories.
Run uncensored internet to the target country. It wouldn't surprise me if this actually happened.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
Because Iran has money, and these companies are not morally opposed to money.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
I remember listening to the Persian/Canadian blogger who at Wikimania 2005 (Frankfurt) talked about blogging, activism and internet censorship. He mentioned that the Iranian government was pretty lax compared to China and many others, and speculated that it might continue like that. However, they are really picking up speed now sadly. Probably because the iranian blogosphere was so hopeful and full of momentum in 2005.
I certainly don't support this, however I am curious as to what the real rationale is and for HOW LONG the internet is gone. For example, here in Canada we have a media blackout on election results during the day the elections are running... obviously that's not a problem in Iran because the TV is estate controlled, but I can definitely see something like that being used to justify internet closure. I personally don't support any kind of blackout since it sets precedent, but you kind of have to keep in mind that without a constitution and censorship tendencies, legislation like this passes through without a blink.
Wow, nice hate. Iran's leaders may be a bunch of retarded assholes, but that doesn't mean you can't have a little sympathy for the people they're fucking over.
Should I call you an inbred idiot because you're being led by one of them? Didn't think so.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
1. So it will only block private access. Does this mean you can still log on to the net from work?
2. What is this meant to do? I see no real security benefits to blocking the internet.
3. In speculating after what happened in Africa, is this an attempt to block outsiders from knowing what is going on in the country, or to keep outsiders from influencing the country, or to keep their own people unaware of what is going on in their own country? No matter which one, info will come out eventually, so the only thing I can see happening is that people can't tell others what is going on at the polling places before it is too late. But either way it would be too late, because there wouldn't be time for others to come and help out if there is forced voting.
I guess I'm just confused as to how this is supposed to help them out, as it only makes them seem overly secretive, with little to no long term benefit.
...a fundamentalist regime that doesn't much like free thought, free association or free speech. I bet ol' George Bush can't make up his mind whether to bomb them or hug them. And would anybody like to take a bet on whether Yahoo served the bloggers up to Iran's secret police on a platter?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Everyone gets the government they deserve.
The infringement of civil liberties in Iran is being justified to counteract 'American interference', just like the wiretapping is getting justified by 'terrorist plotting'
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Because Hezbollah and Hamas target civilians. Period.
If their attacks restricted themselves to Israeli soldiers, military installations & equipment, and political and military infrastructure, they'd have more sympathy in the West.
Firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas; bombing markets, discos, stores and buses loses them all credibility and plants them firmly in the realm of "terrorist organization". They use the threat and practice of violence against an unarmed civilian population as a weapon.
Considering Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May of 2000, according to U.N. Resolution 425, Hezbollah was to have disarmed. Did they? No. They aren't to be trusted and need to be treated accordingly.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
MAD also gets a little edgy when you're dealing with dictators who are just bat-shit crazy and can't be trusted to act rationally.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Obama's foreign policy guy is Brzezinski, who isn't specifically anti-war. Only when it's a terrible, terrible idea.
Well that largely rules out war against Iran barring an overt act of hostility against us or an ally of ours. Which is more than enough for me.
The scariest moments for me in the last 8 years were when it seemed like Bush was almost serious about trying to push for a preemptive war against Iran. Such a thing would have made Iraq look like Venice Beach. Fortunately even the morons who thought Iraq would in fact be like Venice Beach knew what a bad idea that was so it never got much past the saber rattling stage -- plus Iraq was already going sour so they knew there'd be no support for it.
We're not going to topple the hard-line Iranian government by going to war with it. Our aggressive attitude towards them empowers the hard-liners and weakens the reformers, because regardless of what we'd like to think the Iranian people would rather their government tell them what to do than let our government tell them what to do. Engagement with Iran on the other hand weakens the hard-liners by taking away the threat they claim -- with quite some substantiation -- we represent.
The enemies of Democracy are
Impressively myopic.
Despite what the current administration wants us to believe, current terrorism is about as much of a threat to our security as drug gangs are - they cause a mess of trouble, make life suck for a minority of people, and in general cost us a lot in law enforcement. But they aren't threatening to change our economy, political system, or national borders.
ie, they are not a real national threat to the continuance of most of the US as a decent place to live.
We keep nukes around because a single regional or global hegemony is an inherently unstable state, that will not continue for even the rest of my parent's lifetime, let alone mine. When we fall or another power rises, given the fact that any opponent large enough to pose a real threat to us will have nukes, and will likely have the same MAD level concerns about using them, we'll be quite happy to have kept our place as a nuclear power.
MAD only works when your opponent doesn't want to get blown up. It worked for the cold war because the Soviets, whilst on the other end of the political ideology, didnt want to get annhilated. This whole "lets give everyone nukes to be fair" is insanity. Fanatics, religious or otherwise, have becoming increasing powerful over the centuries in the destruction that they can cause. We need nukes to stay ahead of the curve - don't confuse "fairness" with equality. I'd rather much rather be "fair" for those that don't want death and destruction than to be equal with those that do.