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.
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.
If they tried to hide the reasons for doing it, it would completely defeat the purpose.
Attacks like this are never just, or even primarily, to silence the one guy hit. They're to scare all the rest of the people thinking about doing the same thing.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
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
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
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.
On the contrary, my argument says that you have to keep asserting your rights en masse or they'll gradually disappear.
Look at the constant Slashdot stories about warrantless searches, unlawful search & seizure, oppression of free speech, and other denials of rights that are codified, but not respected by those in power. If it weren't for citizens fighting to protect these rights, and bring such infringements to court, they would disappear.
The Constitution is not a magic wand. It won't ensure the perpetual existence of your rights if you don't defend them.
But in countries that don't have such documents, those rights simply don't exist, and they won't until the people are able to convince the government to grant them.
If a supreme ruler can ensure that those selected for the police, the courts, and the army share his beliefs, and maintain the right balance of fear and contentment among the people, it doesn't really matter what rights the powerless believe they have. If that balance is destabilized, however, as may currently be happening in Iran, that's when things change.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net