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
Islam hardliners see current Iran's regime as only force who can stand against 'Western corruption'. They are desperate as they influence around the world shrinks after more moderate US goverment came into power. So it propably wasn't ordered attack, just people who sees current democratical movement with Mousavi as leader as real threat for the regime.
So this fight will echo around the world. If you support those guys in Iran, be ready to take some hits. Let's hope there won't be killings or something, but it will be ugly nevertheless.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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
he's making a difference.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
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?
Anyone remember the nutjob who carved a backwards B into her face and blamed it on a black man?
I'm very skeptical of this without corroboration.
I have been on IRC (where everybody is organizing) constantly for the last 3 days or so watching the chatter on this.
Dear god. Guys, some of the people doing this have got their head fully up their ass. People are going to get banned from their ISP or worse. You've got a bunch of idiots that cannot grok how to launch a DOS window running wide open proxies on their home cable connections.
There are people running dedicated servers right now to ferry information out of the country, but some of these people are seriously going to get themselves into trouble.
If you do not have a working knowledge of routing, pf/iptables, and squid, please do not run a proxy. You are going to get yourself into more trouble than having rocks thrown at you.
Or worse, your misconfiguration is going to get people in Iran killed.
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.
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.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
They are desperate as they influence around the world shrinks after more moderate US goverment came into power.
So Democracy in Iraq, neighbors to Iran, had no influence at all on Iranians *also* wanting real elections?
I'm not saying having a more moderate U.S. president come into power. But let's not heap glory on only one side while forgetting (or trying to bury) the history that made this point possible.
And speaking of moderate administrations, if students here and abroad are willing to take hits, perhaps the President of the U.S. should be as well. And before you repeat the mistaken idea that Iran will crack down harder if the U.S. spoke in support of the protestors, jut what do you think is happening today? Just what do you think is going to happen tomorrow, as Iran ha already warned? Expressing support and best wishes for the protestors gives them a boost in spirit that they need if they are to succeed. Even the president of France has come out strongly in favor of the protestors...
I only want the best for Iranians as well, as one of my friends grew up in Iran. That is why I am so dissatisfied with the lack of upper level support to date.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
The department of homeland security should be all over that soon if they aren't too busy confiscating laptops at the airports......
a religion of peace
There is no such thing.
Google and Facebook are supporting Persian before they release support for Klingon?!? WTF?!? Man, there is one set of geeks with really misplaced priorities!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Time for this guy to get a conceal carry permit, a handgun, and most importantly, the training to know when to use the above. Online we defend ourselves with munitions known as anonymity and encryption. In real life we use body armor and small arms.
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
This isn't about democracy, although many people claim it is.
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. Similarly, if the protest had started in the middle of Ahmadinejad's term, to oust him out, the press and most people living in the west would side with them. This is good, this is healthy. It'd be healthier if people acknowledged that is has nothing to do with democracy. If Mousavi will be less repressive than Ahmadinejad, then he should take his place, regardless of what the polls say.
\u262D = \u5350
Is no way to scare people into silence. A suspicious suicide or burglary would still work better.
Quack, quack.
I was going for "Funny" there. Ahem.
cba to make account, but it's me, can e-mail on ph.on.twitter@gmail.com if you want to confirm
Just wanting to say:
1) I agree that this was not agency work, but nationalists.
2) I had no clue how serious this was when I started, and by the time I took measures of security, it was too late
3) I tried to have my personal info pulled from twitter, but they gave me form letter about deleting my account. Boo @twitter.
4) Want to say thank you to all of the private sector security people who offered to advise/help
5) go to http://iran.whyweprotest.net to see how you can help
6) There are other reports of odd things happening to other prominent Americans. Cars trailing, seen parked outside their homes. I can't confirm these, but just saying, if you are involved in any major way (beyond proxies/tor setup), please be careful.
Given that Iran is operating under an authoritarian government, I would have thought that just shutting everything down would be quite possible. Cut all internet connections from the country save for a few government agencies, done. I can understand the difficulties in providing selective access across the board but I would have thought it would be simple enough for them to pull the plug. The only reason why they aren't must be because they are more reliant on the internet across their entire economy than I previously suspected -- they can't afford to pull the plug.
That even an authoritarian government run by unpleasant people have trouble with this is encouraging; I would hope censorship in western democracies would be even less successful.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Assuming this story is true, I'd be concerned that this is an attempt to draw the US Government into a confrontation that will help the hard-liners in Iran. As for who would want such a thing.
Clearly the hard-liners would like to try, once again, to get people to rally behind them in the face of "the great satan." You'd also have to look at the US Neocons, many of whom would like to remove any sympathy for Iran or Iranians that gets in the way of their long-disgraced axis-of-evil BS. And then there is Israel. At least some in Israel are on the same page as the neocons, though I wouldn't want to suggest that their position is universally held.
Anyway, I'm suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to use this as anything but a reason to get the cops and/or FBI on the case.
Google et. al. can support pro-democracy movements... when they aren't in important emerging markets like China.
I bet all those people who blithely sat on their hands while Iran developed rock-throwing technology must be feeling pretty foolish.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
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.
By George Friedman
Related Link
* The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress
Related Special Topic Page
* The Iranian Presidential Elections
In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.
The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch's modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years -- Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn't speak Farsi all that well.
The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising -- Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn't think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than the those in the first group.
Misreading Sentiment in Iran
Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading -- because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy -- people Americans didn't speak to because they couldn't. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.
Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock 'n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.
There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.
Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to p
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
By that logic, would the East be morally justified in destroying American nuclear weapons facilities?
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
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.
If you think of "authoritarian" and "not-authoritarian" as a binary switch between extremes, and if you assume that an authoritarian government not only is absolutely authoritarian in structure, but also of perfect in loyalty to the leadership and competence, that assumption would be natural.
Reality doesn't quite work that way, and particularly not in the present situation in Iraq. It probably doesn't help the authoritarians that the "opposition" includes people who are former high ranking government officials with lots of contacts in and through the government at all levels, and that some are, in fact, current senior leaders*. Even authoritarian regimes don't have governments that are from top to bottom composed of mindless drones with unquestioning loyalty to the leader.
Mousavi was the last Prime Minister of Iraq before the position was abolished in 1989; among others in the opposition, Mohammad Khatami is the most recent former President of Iran, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is Khatami's predecessor as President and, perhaps more importantly, the current chair of the Assembly of Experts (a body whose official duties include supervising, electing, and dismissing the Supreme Leader), and there are others in positions of power that are either aligned with the opposition or, at the least, not committed to backing Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.
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.
I advise caution in believing this story. ProtesterHelp, earlier today, was spreading false information that Mousavi had been arrested on Twitter. The combination makes me suspect attention whoring in lieu of truth.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
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
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.