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."
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.
It is not a dictatorship.
Misguided, dangerous, theocratic, abusive, yes. But not a dictatorship.
As opposed to the laughably juvenile attempts by Iranian intelligence agencies to spam twitter with pro-Iranian-government messages?
Also, please include citations when you make accusations like that. I pulled up a bunch of articles on the Iranian twitspam with no problem but found it harder to dig up reports of US Agencies doing the same (though I wouldn't be shocked if they had, this seems to go both ways).
Hey pal, I've got bad news for you but you are the one who doesn't know what the term means. You should be laughing at yourself for not understanding a term and then looking down upon others who do understand it. I hope you especially laugh at how incompetent Bruce Schneier is to use the term, because you are no doubt more competent than him (ROTFLMAO).
The term has never implied that you can know the keys and still not get in. It specifically refers to a principle in security engineering, which attempts to use secrecy (of design, implementation, etc.) to provide security - [emphasis added]. In other words if you cannot publish the algorithm without rendering the system vulnerable, then that is security through obscurity.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It must be tricky to hide sensitive data in innocuous data streams. Of course, I'm sure it's possible...
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.
Well, we do have an extensive history of meddling. Okay, it's actually freaking huge. Whether or not we actually did anything or not, I wouldn't blame Iran for believing that the US played some role in the recent turmoil.
As this article in Foreign Policy explains, the Internet, especially Twitter, didn't contribute nearly as much to the protests in Iran as has been reported: Misreading Tehran: The Twitter Devolution. "Word of mouth was by far the most influential medium used to shape the postelection opposition activity." Other major media included text messages and email, which this software wouldn't help much with.
Efforts to counter censorship and intrusive government monitoring should be applauded, but it's a bit premature to call this "world class regime-slaying."
I hate moral dictatorship. It doesn't matter if it's coming from a Muslim government, the Church of Rome, or politicians. Ya know... it's my life. If I want to be an asshole that looks at porn, doesn't go to church, and keeps to himself, I have that right. Stop trying to force me to adopt your moral beliefs.
So this HAYSTACK program. Would it work in the US and EU? It appears the answer is "no" since it was specifically designed for Iraq.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
...owners of a porn video or film risk up to 76 lashings.
In some circles that's considered a bonus feature.
Blank until
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.