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."

Comments

A few more notes: time for perspective?

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[Captain Splendid]

As was mentioned by more than one person during that time, you missed another possibility: That the cables were cut/damaged in order to provide cover for a splice.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[daveschroeder]

And the hundreds of non-US and non-Western individuals involved on the flotilla of vessels needed for undersea cable repair -- which are constantly roving the world repairing cables -- don't notice this, and/or have all kept it a secret?

We have other means of undersea cable traffic interception and surveillance. And even if the cuts were cover for the insertion of a tap at another location by a vessel like the Carter, there isn't any way to prove that one way or another.

I think the most interesting thing is that people seem to be looking for explanations that somehow involve nefarious US activity -- anything other than a string of coincidental cable failures in one geographic region. That aspect is especially interesting: given the sophistication that would be needed to carry out such an operation undetected from a technical standpoint, we somehow don't have the foresight to make it unnoticeable in other ways?

The "nefarious activity" in relation to Iran's internet connectivity is right under our nose, and it's the draconian restrictions the government imposes on its own people, not that a splice might possibly have been installed somewhere as part of an operation that requires incredible technological sophistication and wherewithal, but can't manage to make cable cuts not appear too "obvious".

The cable operators have numerous mechanisms to detect splices installed in their lines. So unless the cable operators themselves are in on it -- as some have alleged -- I don't think this hypothesis is plausible, either. And if the cable operators are in on it, then we wouldn't have needed to cut undersea cables and install splices, would we?

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[gatzke]

GWI never really was completed. Iraq fired at planes enforcing the no-fly zone many times before GWII.
http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

WMDs were found in Iraq, "although not of a militarily significant capability" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Why invade Iran? There are other options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Someone needs to be in the mideast to oppose the Iran theocracy. Replacing a secular dictator with a pro-US secular democracy would be nice long term, if it works out that way...

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[vertinox]

And the hundreds of non-US and non-Western individuals involved on the flotilla of vessels needed for undersea cable repair -- which are constantly roving the world repairing cables -- don't notice this, and/or have all kept it a secret?

If they wanted a splice, they could have done it a hundred miles away and no one would have noticed before the breach was fixed at the other end. Especially, if they used a submarine team.

Though, there are more efficient ways of doing things so I doubt it, but they could do it without noticing if they wanted to spend a few billion or two.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[ScentCone]

It wants Iran to be and to be perceived as a bunch of all isolated religious fanatics.

No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official. You seem to think that Iran is a reasonable place full of professionals that vote their conscience. If that's true, then the expression of their will is their current leader, and their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists, and cutthroat muderers who send mentally disabled women into markets full of children to blow up bombs. No? That's NOT what the people of Iran want? Then why do they put forth a government that acts in that way, and talks in terms of wiping other countries off the map? Or perhaps you're wrong, and the place IS ruthlessly controlled by militant religious crazies. You can't have it both ways. Either it's NOT a moderate, forward-looking country with a professional middle class that can shape the government - in which case you've been painting the wrong picture and you know it, OR, those people do have liberty to do as they choose, and the government you see there now - and its actions - IS what they choose... in which case you're also painting the wrong picture. Reformers there are shot down at every turn - both literally and figuratively.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[kestasjk]

The US cut the cables for no reason, only to send the world's conspiracy theorists on a wild goose chase while the real preparations for war are made.

It's the only logical conclusion.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[Mongoose Disciple]

To be completely fair, I sure wouldn't want people to judge me or make assumptions about me based on the leader that we (Americans) elected and the actions of the current administration.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[red star hardkore]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction While various leftover weapons components from the 1980s and 1990s have been found, most weapons inspectors now believe that Iraq's chemical weapons program did indeed cease production after 1991.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[ardent99]

You seem particularly incensed that people are considering the idea that the US might be involved. Whether or not that is the case, there are other possible explanations that involve deliberate action and not coincidence. For example, it might be Iran itself. I could easily see Iran doing it in preparation for their elections. If, as the news indicates, Iran is planning to cut off internet access, then it is very possible that they experimented with cutting communications lines, or splicing in equipment to control access. The means of cutting access, whether a cable-cut or router outage, is just a detail. They are very overt about wanting to control communications into and out of the country.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[FishWithAHammer]

The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal"

Need we go over why the United Nations is an unreliable source here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse

How long was it going on? We don't know, but it makes anything the UN says regarding Iraq highly suspect.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[VoidCrow]

Insightful? This is *funny*, unless the moderator is poking sarcastic fun at Slashdot readers. And, I just can't imagine *that*.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[SpecTheIntro]

No, Iran itself wants to be, and wants to be perceived that way. There's no other way to explain it, and the frequently repeated ravings of its top elected official.

You are either completely ignorant of how elections work or you're flamebaiting. Its "top elected official" was one of the only candidates not to be ruled "too liberal" by the Council of Guardians in the 2005 election runoff. This was, in part, a reaction to America's foreign policy. (When your greatest enemy invades the neighboring country, and then completely reneges on its agreements with you, it tends to bolster the reactionary political bloc.) Most Iranians didn't have a choice. And believe it or not, Ahmadinejad does more than sound off crazily--he's actually made quite a bit of headway in Iran to reducing corruption and pollution. As far as presidents go, he's done some good, and some bad. It just so happens the bad he does is almost entirely on the foreign policy side (in addition to his absurd economic policy), but there was never really an alternative to him, as his chief opponent, Rafsanjani, was clearly corrupt. But Ahmadinejad is no more the absolute voice of the Iranian people than George W. Bush (who currently enjoys what, a 15% approval rating?) is the absolute voice for America. How much power do we have, really, over choosing who runs for President? What makes you think it's so different in Iran?

I am sure you hate to hear this, but Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable. There's no shortage of crazies in Iran, this is very true, but a.) being Persian, and b.) having been to Iran numerous times, I can assure you that Iranians are not pleased with the way in which they appear to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel, and those two countries have made it exceedingly difficult for any moderate voices in Iran to be viewed as anything but submissive to what has historically been Western imperialism. It's not like the Iranians have much reason to trust the UN or the US when they say: "just stop your nuclear enrichment and we'll make sure you still get fuel." There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel. Iran suspended its enrichment for years while the UN inspectors twiddled their thumbs. It didn't make any difference: the possibility of a nuclear Iran, however remote, is enough to challenge Israel's hegemony in the region. (And considering that Iranian-trained guerillas have been the only force to successfully achieve military objectives against Israel in the past thirty years, I can imagine how uncomfortable the entire ordeal makes Israeli leadership.) That's just the way it is.

their current program of funding all sorts of extremist militants, terrorists, and cutthroat muderers who send mentally disabled women into markets full of children to blow up bombs.

Get your facts straight. That suicide bombing was attributed to al-Qaeda, and Iran and al-Qaeda don't particularly like one another. Second, Iran has never been linked to a suicide bombing. There has never been a Persian suicide bomber, to my knowledge. That is chiefly an Arab phenomenon, and I don't even think Hezbollah (the extremist militants and terrorists whom Iran funds) condones suicide bombing.

Then why do they put forth a government that acts in that way, and talks in terms of wiping other countries off the map?

Oh God, not this again. Way to buy into the media's sensationalism, hook, line, and sinker. You are aware that the allegation to which you refer is patently false, and that's not what he said? But that's ok; it's easier to believe what you're told.

There's no doubt that Iran is fucked up right now. But we Americans have a very large hand in that--ESPECIALLY in our dealings with Iran post-9/11. Pick up "America's Secret War" by George Friedman if you want to see just how badly we've shot ourselves in the foot, vis-a-vis the Islamic Republic.

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[ScentCone]

But Ahmadinejad is no more the absolute voice of the Iranian people than George W. Bush ... for America.

Or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, etc. But the point is that those people all have constituencies for whom they speak, and they can do it all day long without fear of being jailed for what they say. That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.

There is nothing Iran can do, short of revolution, that will ever pacify the United States or Israel

Um, how about ceasing to fund terrorism-using militant religious extremists? How about stopping shipments of cash and arms over the northern Iraqi border and through Syria to people who use them against civilians, blow up police stations, etc? How about simply recognizing that Israel exists, in the way that, say, Egypt, or Jordan have?

Iran actually has a surprisingly sophisticated political system, and unfortunately an extremely large part of it is held essentially unaccountable

So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs? Stalin's bureaucracy was sophisticated, too. China is very sophisticated, and far more subtle and clever (than Iran) in how they present their repression to the rest of the world. Sophistication has nothing to do with whether or not a citizen can stand up and say what they want to say, or form a political movement that might challenge the militant theocracy that, in practice, runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.

Unfortunately, their country is at war with both the United States and Israel

No. They like to talk that way, to stir up at least some common nationalistic sentiment among their people, the better to gloss over the repressive things they do in running the country. When you have a hugely unemployed population of young males (who are also told what sort of haircuts they're allowed to have, and whether then can use the word "pizza" or not, lest they become corrupted by evil foreign sensibilities and habits like... having what you want for dinner and calling it what the rest of the world calls it), continuing with the ongoing theatrical exercise in describing a state of war that doesn't actually exist is a timeless classic. Actual war would look very different. And you wouldn't have all of Europe just as worried (and voting the same way in the UN) if this was just the US and Israel that finds Iranian behavior to be alarming. Israel isn't lobbing missiles into Iran. But Iranian missles were hitting towns in Israel just yesterday.

Oh God, not this again.

How many times, and how many variations on "they will soon be gone," and "they will disappear from the map," etc., do you need to hear?

Re:A few more notes: time for perspective?

[SpecTheIntro]

That isn't a question of whether Iran's president is or isn't good on foreign policies or his domestic economy... we're talking about a regime that sees fit to shut down the internet during elections.

And the people who make that call aren't up for election. Ahmadinejad is not "the regime"--Khamenei is. Along with the Council of Guardians and Assembly of Experts. And the way in which they are chosen is by direct election.

Um, how about ceasing to fund terrorism-using militant religious extremists? How about stopping shipments of cash and arms over the northern Iraqi border and through Syria to people who use them against civilians, blow up police stations, etc? How about simply recognizing that Israel exists, in the way that, say, Egypt, or Jordan have?

Let me ask you a question. I mean this in sincerity. Do you believe Hezbollah to be more evil than Israel? If so, why? Look at the total number of civilian casualties caused by each side. Look at Israel's involvement in the region, specifically what it has done to Lebanon for the past thirty years. Hezbollah was primarily responsible for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s. I actually happen to think Hezbollah is more evil than Israel, for ideological reasons, but I don't separate them that far from one another. Israel's certainly been the cause of much more death. Iran is playing a politically savvy game, in the same way America has for decades. Iran has quite clearly enumerated what it will take to get it to recognize Israel: elections that involve Palestinians. (He actually says so in the speech where he supposedly called for Israel to be destroyed. Funny, that.) Much of what we allege Iran does (for example, the Syrian examples you quoted) is part of a war of rhetoric. Iran can cite as many examples of the same--for years America supported Mujahideen E-Khal, which carried out terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. America has shot down Iranian planes full of civilians. Why should Iran be the one to cave to American demands? Iran held Americans hostage for a year--a dickish thing to do, but it pales in comparison to the overthrow of their democratically elected government and ensuing exploitation. We had our reasons, but do you think that justifies it, in their eyes? Especially given how much Iran helped us during both World Wars?

So, what good is sophistication when it can't serve the people it governs?

I wasn't saying that it was a good thing. I said it was sophisticated because it is, and as a result you can't look at it like the President is an accurate reflection of the will of the people. It's just not that simple. The political system is surprisingly complex, and in many ways mirrors the American one, in that our higher officials are not necessarily selected by those they govern. In Iran's case, it's essentially two governments in one, with one subservient to the other, and the subservient one includes the electable offices--but who qualifies to be elected is completely determined by the superior government. I agree with you: Iran doesn't do a good job of representing itself on the world stage. But that has a lot to do with who its enemies are. America wages a much better PR campaign, and so does Israel.

runs Iran and is working so hard to prevent its next door neighbors from developing a secular society that actually functions on behalf of its people.

Now you're just being naive. Iran is not the source of the problems in Iraq, nor is it trying to prevent Iraq from becoming stable. A stable Iraq is in Iran's best interests. What it wants, however, is an Iraq free of American influence, much like America wants an Iraq free of Iranian influence. Neither scenario is achievable, and neither player is happy, so each is making the other bleed for it--America through the UN sanctions, Iran through its covert operations in Iraq. But even in light of those operations, the vast m

Technology

[bigdaddy25fb]

So many people in the technology world seem to be worried about censorship of user's rights online, and some must certainly work for the vendors who supplied Iran with the "sophisticated" filtering technology. My question is why are companies supplying countries with a known track record for human rights violations and crimes against people speaking out against the government?

Re:Technology

[KublaiKhan]

Because Iran has money, and these companies are not morally opposed to money.

Re:Technology

[KublaiKhan]

Corporations are not people, and corporations have no morals. The individual people working for a corporation usually have very little say as to the actions of the corporation as a whole--so no matter how much they squall, the only change they're likely to make is to their own employment status.

Re:Technology

[0100010001010011]

Corporations ARE people (legally), but corporations don't have morals.

I would suggest watching the documentary "The Corporation." It's a bit extremist, but interesting none the less.

Absolutely atrocious.

[SchlimpyChicken]

This is typical and not too surprising. The nice thing for them is there's no chance of us going to war with either Hillary or Obama in office. They'd have to bomb the capital building... and even then...

Re:Absolutely atrocious.

[dreamchaser]

http://anangrydakotademocrat.blogspot.com/2007/10/obamas-goal-eliminate-all-nuclear.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html

As well as a speech he made last week that I cannot find online at the moment. He said 'greatly reduce' at first, then alluded that the US should eliminate them to 'lead the way'.

Then again, posting truth gets you modded as Flamebait around here.

The New Psych Ops

[jeramybsmith]

Run uncensored internet to the target country. It wouldn't surprise me if this actually happened.

Re:The New Psych Ops

[kamran1919]

This is the best suggestion I have heard. Put a high power data satellite up there in the Middle East. Flood the market with very inexpensive transceivers and low profile antennas. US will save billions later trying to change the regimes to something the local population does not want.

It's a CONSPIRACY!

[neonmonk]

It's a CONSIPRACY!
Wait... is it still considered a conspiracy if it's out in the open and it's definitely 100% not the US or oil companies? I'm not sure which I prefer, prelude to war or the possibility that the Iranian leadership could become MORE crazy.

Being a naive westerner, it appears to me that the freedom-hugging ideas that float around on the internets don't seem to have an effect on political/religious thinking of countries like Iran.

Does this indicate that it is having an effect?

They are getting the hang of it

[Englabenny]

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.

Before everyone foams at the mouth

[oceaniv]

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.

Re:Before everyone foams at the mouth

[Vexorian]

In many countries there's preemptive lost of rights during elections to ensure order (for example large groups of people cannot be together, and you cannot drink before 2 days, or use a car, etc) So, given that I live in one of those countries, this idea to disable internet during the elections does not sound abnormal or repressive to me. It would be an annoyance if my country decides to copy the idea though, since that would make a boring day...

Re:Good for them

[Captain Splendid]

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.

A few Thoughts

[Cryophallion]

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.

Re:A few Thoughts

[reallocate]

It's an effort to control the information available to Iranians. The regime does not want news and reporting coming in from sources they do not control. That's fundamental for a totalitarian state.

As for assuming " info will come out eventually", that's usually not the case. When the only information available comes from sources operated by the state or vetted by the state, there's little opportunity for information to simply "come out".

Re: Capitalism

[TaoPhoenix]

Can I suggest an upsell?

*License* the rope. Patent the knot design.

Get subscribers to sign up for the feature presentation. Then copyright the video.

Sell advertising slots. Tie in action figures complete with movable rope.

Air a documentary on E!. Stir up the talk show networks with a recorded last message.

Write a computerized algorithm for robots to tie knots. Patent that.

Then no one can die this way again without your estate's permission. Sue them posthumously with previously prepared legal documents.

-1: horseshit

[thegnu]

This is typical and not too surprising. The nice thing for them is there's no chance of us going to war with either Hillary or Obama in office. They'd have to bomb the capital building... and even then...

This is bullshit. Hillary has been prowar, except when campaigning. The Clinton administration had a couple war efforts. Obama's foreign policy guy is Brzezinski, who isn't specifically anti-war. Only when it's a terrible, terrible idea.

Can we not mod up baseless political bullshit from either side? Thanks.

Re:-1: horseshit

[Chris Burke]

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.

US is to Iran, as Osama is to US

[RiotingPacifist]

The infringement of civil liberties in Iran is being justified to counteract 'American interference', just like the wiretapping is getting justified by 'terrorist plotting'

Re:What about Saudi Arabia, the US?

[chill]

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.

Good for him.

[FatSean]

If the US keeps nukes, we should shut the fuck up about anyone else getting nukes. Hell, we should give every nation their own nukes and delivery system. MAD you know. That's the only use for nukes, so you might as well do it right.

Since the US will never do that, I think we should get rid of ours. Seems our real threats are goat-herders with 50-year-old tech and more stomach for the fight than the nation that took it to their homeland.

Don't need nukes for that, we need high tech weapons to pick out the terrorists from civilian populations.

Re:Good for him.

[gnick]

Hell, we should give every nation their own nukes and delivery system. MAD you know. The problem is that the whole MAD thing falls apart when you're dealing with religious fanatics that view martyrdom as a path to glory. It's like threatening to shoot a guy wearing a suicide vest.

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.

Re:Good for him.

[mdarksbane]

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.

Re:Good for him.

[seriesrover]

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.

What's the big deal?

[WH44]

They'll be cutting private internet access for one day, right?

They make contradictory claims about why, but in the end, it is a one day inconvenience for internet users. The most sinister reason I can think of for them wanting to shut it down is to prevent riots caused by posts alleging election improprieties (real or imagined). Really sinister.

Am I missing something? What's the big deal?

Just shut it all down in Iran.

[strredwolf]

Just shut it completely down. Null-route everything in Iran. Nothing in, nothing out, make it a great big echo chamber. If they want to completely screw their population they shouldn't half-ass it. They need to full-ass it.

Re:The US is propping up far worse governments

[LilGuy]

I agree completely. The Colombian government was actually participating with Chavez and France to get those hostages released by the FARC and were making good headway, when out of nowhere the US sent in a delegation to meet with the president. Next thing you know Chavez is kicked out and Ecuador gets bombed. Now there are troops lining up in both Ecuador and Venezuela, and Brazil is calling for public apologies to Ecuador from Colombia. The whole region is now being engulfed in a dispute that seemingly stemmed from US intervention over what appeared to be a large step forward in negotiations with one of the greatest unruly powers in Colombia.

I can't begin to imagine what it is the US has invested in Colombia that would have necessitated Colombia's sudden change of heart.