Slashdot Mirror
Man Attacked In Ohio For Providing Iran Proxies
David Hume writes "electronicmaji is reporting on the Daily Kos that the individual known as ProtesterHelp (also to be found on twitter) was attacked in Ohio for providing network security for Twitterers in Iran, setting up private networks to provide secure proxies, calling for media networks to remove the Iranians Twitterers' information from their broadcast, and providing counter-intelligence services (including Basiji and Army Locations) within the Twitter community. ProtesterHelp was allegedly attacked by a group of men while walking to class in Ohio. The men, who appeared to ProtesterHelp to be either Iranian or Lebanese, drove up beside him and threw rocks at him while shouting, 'Mousavi Fraud.' ProtesterHelp further reported that his personal information has been leaked, and is currently being spread both online and inside of Iran amongst the government." Relatedly, Wired is also reporting that Google and Facebook have rushed out support for Persian. This move has allowed many pro-democracy groups to connect and translate their message to a broader audience.
A man on US soil gets attacked by agents of a foreign government.
Slashdot response: "It's the US's fault".
Discuss.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Well, not that I mean to be insensitive, but when you're messing with that kind of stuff, you want to be as anonymous as humanly possible.
Like, purchasing hosting somewhere else in the world, with a one-time VISA/MasterCard cash card that you bought at a corner store with cash. You know? Uploading everything from your laptop while you're chilling at a coffee shop well distanced from your home.
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but man, I would not be dealing with this kinda scenario where people are getting killed in the night and shit, unless I was doing it ultra un-traceable style. Because I would absolutely anticipate this kind of harsh backlash from the same crazy fuckers that are doing the same thing in Iran.
I actually considered setting up an anonymous web-form -> twitter gateway, but it was just not worth the hassle to set that kind of thing up with the kind of anonymity I would require to be OK with doing that. :P
if only they allowed concealed carry on campuses, we'd have a few less rock throwers in this country.
Yeah, they should lift the ban on concealing rocks.
. . .provided the fact he has a gun, and knows how to use it of course
Oh. Never mind.
No. This stops now.
I don't have any money, but I am glad to provide a proxy or whatever if anyone is so crazed that they will attack people across international lines just to silence their speech. I don't have family and I'm not afraid of whatever they think they can do. Such people are scum and not worth fearing.
I need help. I don't know the specific systems, steps and processes necessary to support these people. What do I do or where do I go to find out what to do?
For a start Irans shia form of islam means that it will never be seen as a force representing the majority of the muslim world and whilst to an outsider iranians may seem extremely religious they are n't, just look at the youth who are leading this thing.
Islam as the reason for the way things are in Iran is a red herring, the people at the top are basically filthy rich and use the argument of "Gods will" against anyone who they sea as a threat to them, hence the use of the word "devine" by the ayatolla to describe the result.
Yes, Islam is a religion of peace, but that didn't stop some Muslims from flying planes into the WTC, nor does it stop them from strapping on bombs and blowing people up.
Christianity is a religion of peace, but that doesn't stop some from murdering abortion activists. Every group has its extremist nutjobs.
Free Martian Whores!
protesting is considered low-level terrorism now..
a religion of peace
There is no such thing.
...and blamed it on a White man. Al Sharpton even got in on it, and never apologized for it after it was proved false. So then, what was your point?
Is no way to scare people into silence. A suspicious suicide or burglary would still work better.
Quack, quack.
What an interesting world, where misconfiguring a proxy in America gets someone in Iran killed.
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that, apparently, a foreign government identified an American Citizen and had operatives attack that individual? On US Soil? I wonder if there will be hit squads next, or teams of operatives attempting to sabotage servers where proxies are being hosted... This is exactly why free speech is so critical - so that I can, for example, post a comment on Slashdot without worrying about thugs attacking me for it. Flames and trolls are one thing, angry guys throwing rocks at my car? Quite another.
Seriously? Do you really think that the Iranian Govt/Hezbollah tracked down a Twitter user just to have a couple goons throw rocks at him? I find that hard to believe. If they really felt threatened enough to track him down and send people out to him, he'd be dead. At worst, this was the act of a couple mentally challenged Iranian/Lebanese ex-patriots who have bought into the BS that the Supreme Leader and his cronies have been spouting and decided to try to go scare this guy. And I'd be more likely to believe that these guys don't really even care about what's going on but stumbled on his real identity and drunkenly though it'd be "cool to go throw rocks at him and make him thing he's in big danger".
Nothing to see here
It's about democracy for me.
"If Mousavi had won and violent protests had started in the face of electoral fraud, the press would be condemning the protesters as a violent minority clinging to a past order"
And this theory is relevant to what? Mousavi (officialy) lost, and in the (fairly apparent) face of electoral fraud, massive non-violent protests began. Given the good evidence of fraud, the massive scope of the protests, and there generally non-violent nature, it's hardly surprising these are being cast differently than how what you describe might be.
I don't know about anybody else, but Mousavi looks to me to be not enough better than Ahmadinejad be worth getting excited about. They're both pretty horrid from my (not terribly relevant) perspective. If anyone (western) is cheering, not for democracy, but because they like Mousavi, they're not paying attention.
The massed populace of a country demanding that an oppressive regime recognize their democratic will? I'm psyched for that. I don't much care what that will is in the short term. In the long term, the more power the people have vs. the oligarchs/theocracy, the better it will be.
Google et. al. can support pro-democracy movements... when they aren't in important emerging markets like China.
I think it really is for the best for the US president to keep saying nothing.
That being said have got to see if I can set up a proxy to help. At this point I think the credit must go to the Iranian people the best thing we can do is simply helo give them a way to speak.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
No. I had Iranian friends and roommates in grad school starting in the early 2000's. According to them, this is the most blatant the vote rigging has ever been. The guys fresh out of Iran before the last election (not the current one) told me point blank that Ahmadinajan was going to win for domestic economy reasons.
The problem with U.S. support is NOT that the Iranian regime will crack down harder. The problem is that the US government is so unpopular there, that if we support them openly, many influential people will abandon the movement. It happened back in the early 90s with Bush Sr., and it could happen again.
I would argue that a country is not a monolithic entity as you seem to imply. A country is made up of citizens, and the rights of the citizens to voice their opinions, I would argue, is a fundamental human right.
When we invade countries for no reason, I agree with you. But when we facilitate communication among disenfranchised citizenry, I'd say we're not meddling at all. We open the door for the individual humans in Iran trying to get to a representative democracy. They either walk through it, or don't.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The link provided says Iran should do this:
- remove Ahmadinejad
- recognize Mousavi as president
This suggestion is not democracy at all. Ahmadinejad won the election according to the results.
From what I have seen, the Mousavi party is not meeting the legal requirements to protest the results and is instead encouraging people to protest directly through civil disobedience. One would have to guess that this is because Mousavi knows he lost and the correct process would prove that.
As a democratic country the courts should decide where recounts are appropriate and whether fraud may have been committed.
After all... according to this guys logic, we should have had Gore in office 9 years ago instead of Bush. I mean that whole thing went through the US supreme courts and they came to the correct decision (didn't they?)
The problem I see with most opinions on this whole thing is that our opinions are formed on the reports from Euro/America media sources. There is a definite dislike for Ahmadinejad due to the negative and embarassing comments from him about the West. But in my opinion, the majority of what he says (in english at least) is entirely correct. Most of what I hear about Ahmadinejad comes not from his mouth, but from summarize of what others reporters say he said. Then when I hear his point of view... it is entirely different and taken out of context.
I don't know who should be in office over there. But to assume we know what the majority of people in Iran want just because one leader suits our taste more then the other is ignorant. To pretend that you know and act upon it is to support the US propaganda machine.
Additionally: throwing rocks at the car of someone who's political views you do not like... that is not terrorism. Although expanding the scope of 'terrorist' is a fun past-time.
Expressing support and best wishes for the protestors gives them a boost in spirit that they need if they are to succeed.
Yeah, and erodes their support among the people of Iran (and hell, various factions of protestors themselves) by linking them with America, and in particular with American meddling. Yes many Iranians want a more free and open government, yes many of them want better relations with the West in general and US in particular. But they do not want us meddling in their affairs. They have a very bad impression of our meddling.
Right now, the regime is demonstrating their brutality and oppression. Terrible as it is, this works in favor of the reformists. It builds sympathy and support (and practical proof of what they're saying about the government). But you can bet there are Iranians who think the protesters are getting exactly what they deserve, and you can bet that number will increase proportionally to the amount that the U.S. sticks their nose in and makes it sound like they are backing the protesters or are trying to influence them to overthrow the Iranian government. The entire country will solidify around the hard-liners if they see that as the case.
The best thing our government can do right now is keep their nose out of Iranian business.
The enemies of Democracy are
Probably not. Iran had a real reform movement before the US invasion of Iraq, which was largely derailed, with the aid of the propaganda boost given to the hardline elements by the belligerence of the US in the region (and the invective direct at Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil" in particular) during the last administration.
The "Democracy in Iraq" hasn't been considered much of a showpiece for emulation outside of the same group of people in the West who were cheerleaders for the war in the first place.
The problem isn't that Khamenei will try to crack down harder if the US takes sides, the problem is that the US taking sides, rather than merely supporting, generally, an end to violence and fair results, validates Khamenei's propaganda that the West, particularly the US and Britain, are behind the reform movement and that it is not a genuine, broad-based, organic domestic opposition. This could well undermine support for the opposition.
Its not a mistake that the people in the US most vigorously wanting the President to take sides are the same people that openly expressed that either Iranian candidate winning would result in Iran continuing to be an "enemy" of the United States, and even in many cases that it was better if Ahmadinejad won, since that way we'd have a clear and unmistakeable enemy rather than a "reformer" that it might seem we could work with.
I think its pretty insulting to the Iranian opposition, especially given the "spirit" they have demonstrated thus far, to suggest that their morale will crack if they aren't given an explicit and direct endorsement by a foreign leader, particularly the leader of a country that has pointed to their nation as an enemy for decades.
France is not the US, or the UK, so the political dynamic with respect to Iran is different. Franco-Iranian relations have been far more friendly than those of the US or UK with Iran, which means that individual instances of French criticism of Iranian government action don't feed into easy government propaganda narratives about manipulation by longstanding enemies.
If you'd care to compare the number of Christian abortion activists to the number of Muslim car bombers I think you'll find a difference in the number of attacks.
While it's true that all groups have "extremist nutjobs" it's only a partial story. There ARE differences in scope and frequency. Large differences.
By that logic, would the East be morally justified in destroying American nuclear weapons facilities?
No, because the western democracies do not conduct themselves in the same way as the tyrants that run places like Iran and North Korea. Western governments don't make fist-shaking speeches that include discussions about their glorious nuclear programs and also about wiping another country and its people off the map.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think that's a bit glib. At least a significant portion of the Blackwater people, at least the ones actually on the ground, are just former soldiers who traded up to an employer who would give them better body armor.
Now if you're explicitly talking about someone who is willing to fight for anyone who pays enough money, no questions asked, then of course they don't deserve any sympathy. But I don't think there are really that many people like that.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
I'm not sure that Presidential interference would be particularly productive. In fact, it's almost certainly counter-productive.
The main opposition in Iran is doing it's very very hardest to portray itself as again the President, but not against the Supreme Leader or the Islamic Republic itself. All their rivals need is some proof that they're really no-good collaborators with an invasive foreign power, and suddenly the opposition's more moderate supporters back the flip off.
The Western world needs to do it's absolute best to keep the common people or Iran safe and free, but it can't interfere. This is one of those things that'll need to sort itself. If the best thing we can do is keep avenues of communication open to prevent people being locked down and suppressed, that's what needs to be done.
Much kudos, incidentally, goes to Google Translate and Facebook for both rushing out Persian language versions of their respective sites.
If the South still had slavery, would you have been one of the folk saying we just let the South get around to freeing the slaves on their own time?
Sometimes, the folk in power have enough power to ensure the folk who don't (that constitute 99% of the country) won't ever get a chance to change things.
I remember Tiananmen Square, and how very very sad I was that the only thing we seemed to be willing to do was watch.
I'm not saying Iran is in that spot, but I'm sure as hell not going to avoid lending a hand to the ones who want to get the truth out, just because that might cause the world to label us "busibodies".
PS. People hate the US for all sorts of reasons, but the primary still in this day and age isn't because we were busibodies but because we spent 50 years playing puppet masters who were willing to prop up even the most reprehensible leader of a country if that meant that it wasn't friends with the Soviets.
If Mousavi had won and violent protests had started in the face of electoral fraud, ...
Can it not be about both wanting to see a genuine democratic election and wanting to see the slightly-less-evidently-supportive-of-a-fundamentalist-religious-regime guy win?
a religion of peace
There is no such thing.
Yes there is. You just have to remember that the actions of the few do not necessarily represent the beliefs of the many. In the case of radicals, by definitions they do not represent the beliefs of the many.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Well the rest of the world (TM) is pretty used to that coming from your direction so in a perfect world it would be a nice little wake up call to how it feels and that perhaps you should stop doing things like that to the rest of us. Of course it's only the barest of tastes as they didn't kidnap and export him to Syria or Egypt to be imprisoned and tortured for the rest of his life, or better yet simply assassinate him as your country has so often done to people who it doesn't like in other countries.
Not even we who you consider your "allies" are immune from that!
They're obviously amateurs anyway as they didn't even try and assassinate your political leaders or overthrow your government and install a murderous dictator and then supply him with billions of dollars of military hardware and setup and train the most brutal secret police of modern history to keep you inline at your expense - like your government did to them.
Wherever your CIA goes tyranny follows, always.
Unfortunately for Americans like any monster they're turning their attention toward their masters more and more these days.
I just can't stand blanket contempt for any group, self-selecting or not, without regard for the fact that not all people within that group have the same circumstances.
Yes I agree that the use of mercenaries systematically creates bad results. But I hate the idea of assuming that all people who sign into a bad system signed into it for bad reasons.
You could say that I hate misdirected hate. Any form of contempt should be focused as tight as a laser beam, both to avoid any damage to bystanders and to maximize its potential for incinerating the target.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.