Slashdot Mirror
From Slaying Dragons To Dictators
tcd004 writes "In a weekend, programmer Austin Heap transformed from an apathetic MMO player to a world class regime-slayer. When word for Iran's rigged election broke over Twitter, Heap decided to dedicate himself to building a better proxy system for people behind Iran's firewall. Heap's creation, Haystack, conceals someone's real online destinations inside a stream of innocuous traffic. You may be browsing an opposition Web site, but to the censors it will appear you are visiting, say, weather.com. Heap tends to hide users in content that is popular in Tehran, sometimes the regime's own government mouthpieces."
Why is this article being put out now? The Iranian elections were awhile ago
But "looking at porn" wasn't one of the viable alternatives?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Security through obscurity is no security at all.
I strongly doubt that the existence of this system is a mystery to the government of Iran, at least not if it is beyond a certain level of popularity.
Palm trees and 8
Wouldn't they just ban anyone connecting to known proxies or any proxy in general that wasn't set up by the authorities?
~S
I look forward to a 'thinkofthechildren' argument from some congressman in the future about why it should be illegal here.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Well, if the elections are rigged, it's hardly democracy now isn't it....
Iran's government sure loves blaming the US doesn't it.
I read the internet for the articles.
Iran has elections, but doesn't pick the right person, so it's a dictatorship. Same is true for Venezuela and Gaza, and any country over the past sixty years that made the mistake of voting for left-leaning leaders in the Western Hemisphere.
And what about China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc? Well, they make us a shitload of money, or they at least follow our orders, so, you know. It's different.
Bullshit.
Less than a month and many all-nighters later, Heap and a friend had created Haystack. The anti-censorship software is built on a sophisticated mathematical formula that conceals someone's real online destinations inside a stream of innocuous traffic. You may be browsing an opposition Web site, but to the censors it will appear you are visiting, say, weather.com.
This doesn't make sense. It still has to connect to and load the BAD website, too...
Other anti-censorship programs--such as Tor, Psiphon, or Freegate--can successfully hide someone's identity, but censors are able to detect that these programs are being run and then work to disable the communication. With Haystack, the censors aren't even aware the software is in use. "Haystack captures all outgoing connections, encrypts them, and then masquerades the data as something else," explains Heap. "If you want to block Haystack, you are gonna block yourself."
OK, this makes so little sense I can't even figure out how to respond to it.
Heap intends to gradually develop Haystack's presence in the country. He has started to share it with select activists and trusted individuals on an invitation-only basis. They will then be asked to share it with their friends. It is the same model that was originally followed by Google's Gmail. The targeted approach is smarter from a security standpoint. Also, he doesn't want the software to collapse from low-value demand.
SAY WHAT?
Yeah, there's one word for this whole article. BULLSHIT. It stinks.
Given that the regime in question is still very much in control, and that the only slaying that was done was by the regime, I find the term "regime slayer" to be laughable at best and really offensive at worst for those that hoped for better for the Iranian people.
That was an extreme case showing that sometimes, mere communication is not enough to evoke change.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The mullahs are the highest authority in the country, and they are not answerable to elections. They also have their own private army which is not responsible to the voice of the people even in the most abstracted fashion. Hard to claim that's not a dictatorship.
I don't know if I'd consider setting up a good Proxy server as "Slaying a Dictator".
I think that's actually part of a big chain quest so that you can get keyed along with a large group of people to then slay the dictator.
You must first reach exalted with several factions, including "UN" and at least a few of the "U.S. Military" subfactions. Otherwise you can't even zone in.
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
The word you are looking for is oligarchy - unelected men that sit on the top and make the rules.
Kinda like our unelected Supreme Court Oligarchs. (I'm still trying to find the part of the US Constitution that the Court claims allows them to ban obscene material. I swear it's not there, even though they claim it is. Hmmm.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the postelection opposition activity."
Hilarious! Yep, it was 'word of mouth' and not US funding and agents working inside of Iran.
God bless 'teh Iranian People'! We're gonna bring them Wallmart and Baby Jesus!
Go away Grond, your stupid isn't funny or extreme. You're just an unremarkable dumb guy.
Correct in principle, if not in detail (It's the supreme leader, not the guardians of the revolution, who has the power.)
So why does the US get all twisted about what the "president", Ahmadinejad, who has no control over foreign policy says and does?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
> If I want to be an asshole that looks at porn, doesn't go to church, and keeps to himself, I have that right.
It would sound much better if you would replace that 'and' with an 'or'.
Also you have to understand those overly religious societies. They are under considerable stress while surviving in a harsh environment by any means possible (if there is no stress you can create some, i.e. with lacking medical insurance). This creates a situation where even the most basic needs of a human being may remain unfulfilled. Also they have devout followers who procreate madly thereby further reducing the value of a human life. So going back to your moral values and those dictatorships, it has to be obvious to you that while all the fulfillment of basic human needs will continue to be lacking, capable politicians will always be able to find something else to justify their existence with, like chasing after social misfits or other odd people who don't really do any harm.
Sane societies have long discovered that they could invest all those resources more wisely, see the following for an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
Je me souviens.
That kind of sounds like every press release from every security vendor who claims a secret sauce implementation. I don't see how their situation is "a special case."
You're mixing concepts, my friend.
Iran is a dictatorship not because their elections "don't pick the right person", it is a dictatorship because the election process is rigged so that only certain people can be elected, and these need approval from a non-elected body anyways.
Leftness or rightness of leaders has no leaning on the degree of dictatorship.
You can have very left dictatorships, and you can have very right dictatorships (like the US-supported Iran before their revolution, like Pinochet's Chile, like the multiple banana republics supported by US in Latin and South America).
If the authorities can block the software they can determine it's being used. The act of using software to circumvent the filtering is in and of itself a serious crime.
Just because they cant tell what exactly you were doing isn't going to stop them from throwing people in jail or worse.
Everyone else.
Seriously, Americans, your country is unique in the amount of evil it produces. Deal with it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a clue about Iran, Iranian demographics (more specifically age and racial demographics) or the current Iranian government.
Frankly I dont think you used enough made up scare words based around Islam, I'm surprised you didn't slip islamofacsist in there. To be frank, this kind of propaganda is weak, easy to see through and insult the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
But I'll hit you with the cluebat. Iran's population is primarily comprised of Persians, the government is primarily Arab. Due to the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's the 30-50 yr age bracket is severely depleted so the current theocracy has never had to deal with 20 somethings that don't remember the brutality of the Shah.
There are two armed forces in Iran, first the Iranian army which makes up the bulk of the forces and is almost exclusively ethnic Persian. Next is the Republican Guard, which is far smaller and almost exclusively Arab (Palestinian and Lebanese). The Republican Guard is used mainly as a police force. Arabs and Persians only have about 6000 years of recorded racial conflict so if a shooting war actually starts (which it wont) it will be over in a matter of days as the Persian army outnumbers the Republican Guard 10 to 1, has superior equipment and the support of the Persian people. Due to the fact that a large portion of the army will rebel if anyone gives the order to kill civilians en masse the Iranian government will not do this (they are theocratic, not stupid).
Finally we have multiple examples of how non-violent revolutions can be effective and lead to more stable states. India, Philippines (EDSA rebellion), Much of Eastern Europe in 1989 (czech, poland, east germany). New forms of communications have been able to organise non-violent revolutions more effectively then violent ones, SMS's were used during the EDSA II rebellion. Violent revolution often has the effect of not working (Ireland tried for how many hundreds of years) or placing a dictator in power (Palestine, Cambodia, Cuba). Since the end of WWII, more stable democracies have been formed by non-violent means then violent ones. So you're desire to incite violence in the Iranian people is misguided at best but I'd describe it as retarded.
Iran's (the government of Iran) problem is that it's never had to deal with a large population of 20 yr olds, now it does and the 20 yr olds are disaffected. They dont know how bad the Shah was and only know that the current government is oppressive. Violent revolutions often have the opposite effect of what the instigator intends, so if the Iranian youth start fire-bombing government buildings then it has just as much chance of backfiring and forcing people to rally around the government. Take the recent unrest in Thailand. Initially the red shirts were garnering support from much of Thailand and around the world as they were painting themselves as the oppressed, well until they started bombing BTS stations. In the end, people said the Thai government was right to take military actions and that the Thai military was very restrained as only 40 people killed, on the other hand the red shirts torched one of Bangkok's largest shopping centres further eroding support and strengthening the Thai government.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Much better than I feel about the production of child pornography, and much worse than I feel about the viewing of what the Moral Guardians' consider "child pornography".
I'm obviously responding to a troll here, but I'm not a person who hates this country. There are some things I don't like about this country, but I can't say that there's any other country where I'd prefer to live. Well, maybe Switzerland.
If some entity has a long history of doing X, it's pretty damn stupid not to expect them to do X. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's right or wrong, the US has a history of involving itself in foreign politics. There's no need to pass moral judgement on it, but it's a fact that the US has attempted to influence foreign politics with great frequency in the past.
Ever heard someone refer to Internet Explorer as "The Internet"? Does it make your teeth grind? Same principle, I'm afraid. Those of us who understand the meanings of words have a responsibility to use them correctly and lead by example.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
And the amount of evil it has combated. (ie, Nazis, Soviets, etc)
And in the Aid in which is gives
And the amount of technological achievements (Modern Assembly Line, Computers, Synthetic Life?)
I mean really.... Give it a rest.
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
It would be simply fucking glorious!
You're an idiot
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
Everyone else.
Everyone else doesn't have an extensive history of meddling? So Russia, England, Germany, France, and on and on, don't have such histories? Name a big country, there's a good chance they have a history of meddling.
While we have undoubtedly exported some nasty results with our foreign policy, the US is also unique in the amount of good it has produced - you know, little things that better the world like computers, the internet, and a large amount of modern medical technology. Whether that has, overall, outweighed the evil we have produced, I'm just not sure and I doubt anybody can easily answer that question.
And I'm not really sure that the stuff done in the name of fighting communism was truly evil though some of the results were very nasty. Communism and the threat of nuclear war were scary and were perceived as existential threats by many at the time. It sounds completely ludicrous now that we know that the Soviet economy was overextended and straining to keep up during the Cold War era, but it's unfair to judge the past with full knowledge of the outcomes.
And by the same argument, a lead weight is indistinguishable from a light ray, because it's all just energy.
The fact that a key is bits and an (implementation of an) algorithm is bits does not mean that the two are indistinguishable from a security perspective when treated as a secret. I could start by quibbling about the size of the secret, but the more fundamental issue is how widely applicable is the secret (or, somewhat equivalently, how widely distributed is evidence of the secret).
In short, you're conflating the ideas of "secret" and "obscure". Perhaps everything obscure is kept secret, but not everything kept secret can be described as "obscure". Something is obscure if it is widely applicable but not widely known.
In PGP encryption, the algorithms apply universally to every message to and from every user of the system. The fingerprints of the algorithm are on every computer capable of sending and receiving such messages. Trying to keep such a widely-applicable thing secret would be reliance on security through obscurity.
My private key, though, is totally unavailable to almost everyone. The most direct point is, if I start using a new key tomorrow, I can safely say that Evil Hackers, Inc. hasn't spent decades of effort making progress towards knowing what that key is - and even if they crack it, that only compromises the messages I sent using that key, not the entire system, because that particular key is applicable to nothing else.
The lock on my door at home requires a key, and you don't know the corret shape; but if you do a little research, you do have a good guess at the basic mechanics of the lock. To the extent that such knowledge leads to insights about how to defeat my (or anyone's) lock, the design is weak. The fact that having my key in hand would give you access to my house is unrelated to that fact.