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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

The New Psych Ops

[jeramybsmith]

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

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.

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: 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.

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.

-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.

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'

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?

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.