Google Releases Software To Iran

eldavojohn writes "After working closely with US officials following the lifting of export restrictions, Google has announced that their Google Earth, Picasa and Chrome are now available for download in Iran. US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions."

Comments

Home of the Free

[elrous0]

I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.

What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.

Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.

Do you still believe that is what the US stands for?

Glorious capitalism still thrives, but the rest is just lip service. You guys are fast sliding into 1984, and have been for quite some time now.

Re:Home of the Free

[Draek]

Well... yeah, it is. Somehow, "it's the law" is not considered a good refutal of a "the law requires you to do $X" statement.

Re:Home of the Free

[Ephemeriis]

I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.

Yup.

And back then things really were pretty free and open... Look at what we're putting up with today. You don't even need to try to vacation in Cuba to get an invasive search at the airport.

What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.

At least with Google Earth I can almost see the logic... It could possibly be used for military planning or something...

Chrome... Umm... Maybe it's got some nice encryption for SSL stuff? Or something? I remember there used to be a problem exporting Netscape back in the day.

Picasa... I'm at a loss. What're they going to do, upload pictures of government office buildings or something? I have a hard time envisioning any way to use Picasa for nefarious purposes.

Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.

I'm sure it is... But that isn't just a problem with the US. Every nation is going to use its exports as a lever to get what they want. And in order to exert that leverage, they're going to make things more complex/difficult for the folks trying to earn a living off those exports.

Re:Home of the Free

[Duradin]

So you don't see any difference between getting pulled over by a cop for a traffic violation and being asked for your license and registration and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?

Re:Home of the Free

[0100010001010011]

Maybe he lives in Arizona.

Where any person must submit papers that they are a legal US citizen. We've joked with the Hindi Indians at work that they better avoid AZ if they drive out west, but it's true. Unless they can produce their green card or SSN card, they could be detained.

Re:Home of the Free

[mjwx]

Libertarian rage! Raaargh! Freedom!

I didn't get that vibe from the OP and I dislike Libertards as much as the next person with half a brain.

The OP pointed out the hypocrisy, trade restrictions can be argued but are generally bad, being forced to show your license is a bit extreme unless you are operating a motor vehicle but travel restrictions just because someone doesn't like your form of government are just plain stupid.

My government (Australia) maintains a list of countries and even provinces and cities within countries where they "strongly advise" me not to travel to. This is normally for good reasons (war, high crime, foreigners getting kidnapped frequently). The only time the government should get a say in where I should go is when A) that place has a credible threat such as an infectious disease. B) we are currently hostile to that nation and by hostile I mean they've closed their borders to us or C) I am a government employee or otherwise subcontracted, employed by, related to or closely associated with a government employee or organisation that could be cause myself to become compromised or unduly targeted.

Here's the travel advice on Cuba and Iran published by the Aussie government.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I also love how poeple try to stand up for governments who are known to stone women to death because they "allowed" themselves to be raped such as Iran and then try to pull out some bizarre moral relativism in order to try to portray the US as equally bad.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

In most states both are perfectly legal since 2001. Refusal is a jailable misdemeanor in most cases as well.

Re:Home of the Free

[royallthefourth]

Considering that there are no other practical modes of transportation in most of the country, purely as a result of government policy, it's exactly like that. There is no choice in the matter.

Re:Home of the Free

[CRCulver]

The US has lost some freedoms, but it has gained others. It is much easier to be openly homosexual, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and one doesn't have to participate in school prayers.

Re:Home of the Free

[Americano]

Then the google guys also need to reconcile the Iranian government's known repressive behavior with their "don't be evil" slogan.

Or have we already forgotten the crackdowns after the last "elections" there?

But then the google guys also found a way to justify censoring results in china in order to keep doing business there! I guess the slogan should be, "Don't be evil (unless it's really profitable for us to be)!"

Your argument that the US is "just as bad" is morally relativistic bullshit. I'm sure it'll garner you a +5 Insightful here, too.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't get that vibe from the OP and I dislike Libertards as much as the next person with half a brain.

Appending "tard" to words that describe people you don't like makes you look like a douche.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing an officer asking for your license after pulling you over for violating traffic law to the "paper, please" meme is an insult to those who actually suffered from the horrible abuse that came from the origin of the meme and to all those that still suffer under true oppression and violations of basic human rights.

It's amazing how so many these days relate sociably responsible laws to, somehow, an infringement on their basic freedoms. There are certainly abuses in the U.S. were laws and regulations are both semi-draconian and idiotic, so take some time, do your research and use of those for your next cry against how horrible it is to live in one of the freest societies the world has ever known (I'm including many of the European countries in this as well).

Re:Home of the Free

[TheGratefulNet]

I can see it now:

"Rajiv Jain, while traveling to Arizona, was detained by the local police. Was deported to Sweden - claims he's not from there."

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

Funny on that travel advice on Cuba... Cuba has one of the world's lowest crime rates.

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Cuba/Common-Crime-in-Cuba/241
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html#crime (granted this one is from the US gov't)
http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/faq.html
http://www.havana-guide.com/caribbean-crime.html

Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

apparently you are either woefully uninformed or have a very selective memory regarding US government behavior.

our government has tortured people to death very recently. some of them we knew to be innocent. we have partnered with governments every bit as hateful as iran to outsource even more torture (Egypt as an example.) take your strawmen elsewhere

Re:Home of the Free

[LordLimecat]

I must have missed the memo where a cop is able to stop you for no reason. Last I checked they have to have a reason to stop you, and "he didnt have his papers" doesnt really cut it.

Re:Home of the Free

[Dunbal]

Except that in order to be able to use a lever, you need some sort of fulcrum to exert the force against. So blocking exports from your country, in an age where pretty much any other country is capable of producing the exact same goods, is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. FINE we'll buy it across the street... The US is no longer the only country that has satellites in orbit, or even a GPS system.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, excuse me sir, but this person is expressing a desire for a smaller government and less regulation. That is clearly conservative rage, sans patriotism.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

so by your (extremely flawed) reasoning it was wrong of our government and the EFF to develop and export TOR to countries with oppressive governments so their people could be more informed and interact with the outside world with less chance of reprisal?

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

But being detained because you are walking down the street and don't have identification on you is. That's extremely common to the point multiple people have told me its illegal to be without ID if you are over 18 in the state I live in.

Re:Home of the Free

[Draek]

There are, but yet they're both still forms of "papers, please", and you pretending one isn't just because you happen to support it won't change that fact.

It's like how downloading an MP3 off the net and selling bootlegs on the street are both forms of copyright infringement: you can argue all you like about whether either should be legal or not based on potential benefits and costs to society and all that, but you can't pretend one of them is somehow *not* a form of copyright infringement.

Re:Home of the Free

[TheCarp]

Sounds about right to me. Actually, I don't see any evidence that all this, and the cost involved, really makes me, or anyone else, any safer. Perhaps they should focus more on fixing the roads themselves. NYS banned handheld phone use while driving... resulted in a 60% drop in observed use... and no change in accident rates.

They sure were quick to point out that this, somehow, magically doesn't mean that the law isn't effective. The last thing we might want to question is that the law does what its intended to do, harms people for no reason, or costs more than its even worth. I am sure all the drivers in NYS who got caught and paid fines and paid money to insurance companies for years later in enhanced premiums all feel that it is well worth it to.... not make the roads one bit safer!

Re:Home of the Free

[L4t3r4lu5]

See, I now go by the logic that if it makes no sense whatsoever, it's probably law.

Judge: "Why did you stop the man?"
Cop: "He had no papers."
Judge: "How did you know he had no papers?"
Cop: "He said he didn't when I stopped him."
Judge: "Sounds reasonable. 6 months!"

Re:Home of the Free

[nbauman]

Refusing to show your ID to a cop who demands it for no discernible reason is a jailable misdemeanor?

Under what law?

I've refused to show my ID to cops, and I've been to lectures where ACLU and other attorneys explained to me what my rights were. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyE6_b_xJY&feature=channel

The lawyers told me that the Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment are clear: A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you, and without that, you have no obligation to cooperate with the cop. They told me to say, "I don't consent to anything" and "Officer, am I free to walk away?"

Driving is a separate issue, since the courts ruled you've made an implied agreement to identify yourself. But parent was referring to sitting in a coffee shop.

Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.

Re:Home of the Free

[Monkeedude1212]

Herpaderp! I missed the joke!

Did he possibly mean that in the context of how Americans would make fun of Russians for something the Americans do themselves?

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he lives in Arizona.

Where any person must submit papers that they are a legal US citizen. We've joked with the Hindi Indians at work that they better avoid AZ if they drive out west, but it's true. Unless they can produce their green card or SSN card, they could be detained.

GOOD!

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny on that travel advice on Cuba... Cuba has one of the world's lowest crime rates.

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Cuba/Common-Crime-in-Cuba/241
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html#crime (granted this one is from the US gov't)
http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/faq.html
http://www.havana-guide.com/caribbean-crime.html

Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?

in soviet Cuba, there is no crime, poverty, prostitutes, gays and drug addicts

Re:Home of the Free

[phoenixwade]

The US has lost some freedoms, but it has gained others. It is much easier to be openly homosexual, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and one doesn't have to participate in school prayers.

It's selfish of me, I know, but I completly disagree with the implied balance of the trade off. I'm a straight, married, middle aged, white male and, while it is a step in the right direction for the Black and Gay communities, my losing personal security, privacy, and the ability to move around the country without being annoyed by whichever LE professional has a chip that day was NOT an acceptable trade off. Nor were any of the other various rights that have been eroded away in the name of "Security". Nor was the laundry list of new corporate rights that not only equal, but exceed my rights as a citizen.

Re:Home of the Free

[ArcherB]

Maybe he lives in Arizona.

Where any person must submit papers that they are a legal US citizen. We've joked with the Hindi Indians at work that they better avoid AZ if they drive out west, but it's true. Unless they can produce their green card or SSN card, they could be detained.

If they are to drive out west as you say, shouldn't they have a drivers license? That is sufficient ID in Arizona, even an out of state license.

Re:Home of the Free

[glwtta]

Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.

Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it. They can detain you (on "reasonable suspicion") or they can arrest you (with "probable cause"); in case of the former, in some states, you have to identify yourself (verbally) if asked, in the case of the latter you never have to do anything (though obviously, depending on the circumstances, things may go smoother with a certain level of cooperation).

Hey, I grew up in a "papers, please" kind of country, some rights still give me the warm fuzzies.

Re:Home of the Free

[Enderandrew]

Technically this is true in all 50 states, but the law doesn't require that you be a US citizen. It requires that you show proof you have a right to be in the country.

My wife immigrated from Canada. She was required to carry her visa with her when she was on a visa, and she was required to carry her greencard (permanent resident card) with her at all times when she was a permanent resident.

Everyone made a stink about Arizona's law, but we're all subject to it currently.

The issue is that we have tons of laws on the books that no one intends to enforce, especially when it comes to immigration.

Re:Home of the Free

[alta]

You list different programs, and it struck me funny.

Made me think of the US running an app store, deciding which countries can get which programs. Not a good use of resources. Personally I'd rather they just say no exports to cuba, and spend that money on the app store doing something productive, like studying the sex habits of slugs after drinking alcohol.

Re:Home of the Free

[klossner]

That law never went into effect.

Re:Home of the Free

[nbauman]

I acknowledge that the U.S. in general has more freedom in most ways than any other country I can think of.

However, There are a lot of exceptions, for members of certain groups, and it doesn't serve the purpose of freedom to deny our flaws.

The U.S. is a whole different world if you're black, especially in a part of the U.S. where cops regularly harass blacks. You can look up the Innocence Project for the names of innocent black people who have been wrongly convicted (I met one guy who was released after 15 years). Funny thing -- only 10% of the population is black, but 50% of the prison population is black.

During the civil rights movement in the 1960s I knew someone who was organizing for the right to vote in the South, was picked up by the cops, released to the local KKK, and killed. Quite a few people were stopped by the cops and killed.

For black people in the South back then, "papers, please" really did have the dangers that were associated with certain unfree countries. Blacks tell me they're uncomfortable today when a cop stops them.

You could say, "Yeah, but that only happened to black people." That argument doesn't offer much consolation to black people.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to name other minority groups who were treated that way in the U.S.

Re:Home of the Free

[jc42]

... It's like how downloading an MP3 off the net and selling bootlegs on the street are both forms of copyright infringement: you can argue all you like about whether either should be legal or not based on potential benefits and costs to society and all that, but you can't pretend one of them is somehow *not* a form of copyright infringement.

So I downloaded a number of MP3 a few weeks ago, from amazon.com where I'd paid for them. I was led to believe this was a legal purchase. Are you telling me that buying them from amazon is legally (or morally) the same as buying bootlegs on the street?

I wonder how amazon is getting away with doing this so openly?

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

I was in some pretty heated arguments over it (my wife is now a retired PO of 14 years) when the laws started going in at the state level. 9/11 opened the doors to "anyone can be suspicious".

One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there. There was not other probable cause than that.

Also, if a PO pulled a car over and asked the passengers for their ID they didn't have to cough it up. That changed at the same time. And quite a few states enacted the same law.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

ArcherB, you ignorant slut, an ARIZONA driver's license is sufficient. A non-Arizona driver's license is not sufficient.

Re:Home of the Free

[HateBreeder]

Maybe you were unlawfully searched, That's up to a judge to decide.

However, if a police officer wearing a uniform and carrying a badge wants your papers - you are required by law to comply. Later on, you can press charges if you feel you have been mistreated.

That's because police officers are entrusted with a certain power that allows them to do things beyond of what an ordinary citizen is allowed to do. Some of them might abuse it... that's human nature, and you should sue them to hold them accountable. I still rather have the cops then not have them at all, given the vast majority of arrests are justified.

Re:Home of the Free

[darkwing_bmf]

I wish I had mod points now.

Re:Home of the Free

[BJ_Covert_Action]

and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?

Funny, I've had this exact thing happen to me in California, except the cop wasn't undercover. I guess as long as they are advertising that they intend to oppress you that makes it okay, right? And before you think I am exaggerating, I am dead serious. My friends and I used to hang out at Denny's after we would go to the movies. We'd swap stories and tell jokes, but never got rowdy enough to cause a fuss in the place. Hell, the waitresses knew us by name and loved us. That never stopped the local police department from walking over to our table, asking us each for a form of I.D. (despite the fact that not all of us had our license at that point). The one time I asked one of the cops why he needed to see our I.D.'s, he responded it was because he was a cop and the law says you have to show your "identification papers" (I remember that part very well) if an officer of the law asks you to. I responded that I understood that, but what was it that we were doing that solicited such attention. His response was that we seemed suspicious, since we were teenagers out past dark (not late, it was only 10 PM).

So there yah go, land of the free. Papers please, you've got shifty looking eyes.

Re:Home of the Free

[physicianintraining]

Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to?

You do know that Palestinian militants admitted to using Google Earth to determine civilian targets for rocket attacks, right? The Mumbai gunmen? Also used Google Earth in preparation for their attack. While Iran has far more resources than either group, it doesn't have it's own set of satellites, and Google Earth may be a great way to determine coordinates for ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads (for instance).

Though the US sanctions aren't likely to do much. Any general can just go home and look up anything they need on his home computer.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html

According to this one, 24 states have "stop and identify" laws. They all require probable cause, but POs can make that up on the fly.

Re:Home of the Free

[molo]

Maybe you haven't heard of the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy? It is clearly unconstitutional, but goes on anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-powell/stopping-stop-and-frisk-i_b_647298.html

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

-molo

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

our government has tortured people to death very recently. some of them we knew to be innocent.

And the Iran government has been doing that constantly for going on 30 years.

we have partnered with governments every bit as hateful as iran to outsource even more torture (Egypt as an example.)

And Iran has partnered with countries even more hateful than anything you can bring up. Hey, if Iran is such a grand place to live, why haven't you moved there? Oh and make sure to tell every how you are gay and see how great it is to live there. That is if you don't get put to death by the government.

take your strawmen elsewhere

You use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. He was trying to claim that the government of Iran was some peaceful, innocent government only being held down by the big, bad US. There is no strawman in pointing out his moral hypocrisy.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

AC parent here,

I totally agree, and those type of laws are the ones that I was referring to in my reply. Though, in this day and age, oppressive laws like this are fewer, they are better examples than being pulled over for a traffic violation. That really was the point of my post, if you must make comparisons, at least use examples on the same level or your argument (anyone's argument) just sounds silly.

Re:Home of the Free

[Desler]

Sure, in opposite land that is what his "extremely flawed" reasoning would conclude. The fact of the matter is that Iran is one of the worst places to live when it comes to human rights and to try to make it that the US is even remotely in the same league truly is a bunch of moral relativism bullshit.

Re:Home of the Free

[digitig]

Appending "tard" to words that describe people you don't like makes you look like a douchetard.

FTFY.

Re:Home of the Free

[misexistentialist]

Police usually don't bother stopping you for "no reason". Being stopped for "looking suspicious" is perfectly in accordance with "stop and identify laws" that allow the detention of any person the officer has "reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime". An officer who stops people to determine their breasts' home address or just out of sadism in general obviously would find it quite easy to come up with an acceptable "reason" after the fact.

Re:Home of the Free

[ArcherB]

apparently you are either woefully uninformed or have a very selective memory regarding US government behavior.

our government has tortured people to death very recently. some of them we knew to be innocent. we have partnered with governments every bit as hateful as iran to outsource even more torture (Egypt as an example.) take your strawmen elsewhere

I'm going to needs some sort of VALID and CREDIBLE citati..... Oh, your name is conspirator57. Never mind. I understand now. I'm sure you are also one of those that believe 9-11 was a series of controlled demolitions, con-trails are a mind control poison by the Illuminati to make you part of the new slave class. No amount of logic or evidence will convince you otherwise.

Got it.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it.

Except in the case of a traffic violation where you are required to show proof that you are licensed to operate a vehicle. In this case you have to show your driver's license (or present it within a certain number of days, depending on state) containing your driver's license number, which also happens to have your personal identification information on it (also linked to the DL# in the DOT database).

In this case you are not being asked to show identification for the sake of identifying yourself. You are being asked to show that you are licensed to operate the vehicle.

Because the state ties your identifying information to your license number and issues a card that can be offered as proof you are a licensed driver, the drivers license is also an accepted form of identification. No one is under any obligation to acquire a driver's license or state issued identification to present to an officer on request (yet). You are required to acquire a driver's license if you wish to operate a motor vehicle.

Re:Home of the Free

[shadowfaxcrx]

"A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you"

Yes, and that's why they all say "OK I'm gonna pat you down for your safety and mine, sir. Do you have anything on you I should know about?"

Their "articulable reason" is "Well you might have a knife and I don't want you to stab me with it. Yeah, that's the ticket." Since anyone wearing any sort of clothing could conceivably conceal a weapon, they never have to think hard to come up with a reason to frisk you.

As for having a reason to stop you in the first place, "I judged him to be acting suspiciously as he glanced at me and then quickly looked away while putting his hand in his pocket."

Did you actually do that? Probably not. and even if you did, it probably wasn't because you're doing something criminal. But it's your word against the cop's. Who do you think the judge is going to side with?

Plus you have to remember that there is such a thing as a "contempt of cop" arrest, where they put you in handcuffs simply because you pissed them off, whether you were breaking the law or not. It's illegal as hell, but they get to lock you up for a few hours (and of course once they arrest you they can paw through all your stuff either on trumped up probable cause or to "inventory it for later return." And most people, once released, won't sue because it takes time and money for a lawsuit that you stand a very good chance of not winning.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously think ANYBODY has nothing wrong that a cop can't stop you? "Your tires are unsafe"... "Your car is riding as if it is overloaded"...

If those are far-fetched... a cop could follow you... eventually you'll do SOMETHING... "You were swerving"... "You didn't signal"... "impeding traffic"... I've personally seen the last one (as a passenger).

I'm not saying all cops do this. Most cops have better things to do, but, if they want to pull you, there is NOTHING you can do except pull over.

Re:Home of the Free

[psm321]

Except in most states you only have to carry the ID if your right to be in the country comes from something other than being a citizen. A US citizen isn't legally required to carry ID proving that fact (except in Arizona). IANAL and I may have accidentally oversimplified things, but that's the basic idea of how the Arizona law is different

Re:Home of the Free

[characterZer0]

He did not mention a vehicle that requires a license and insurance. If you are pulled over on a bicycle, you are required to show ID.

Re:Home of the Free

[HarrySquatter]

But! But! Disregard the fact that Iran stones raped women, puts to death homosexuals, violently oppresses free speech and political demonstrations and has it's law system based on a backwards Middle Age set of moral codes, etc. Teh US has done bad things so it is clearly worse!!

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

he was falsely claiming that the person he was responding to was making that claim. that is a straw man.

i want my country to be better. right now we're not even trying, in fact we're regressing to (and some would claim below) the mean.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

read some glenn greenwald

here's today's news regarding a us citizen who (it would seem) has done nothing wrong but who has been tortured by Kuwaitis and put on the US no-fly list so he can't get home to the US.

for basic recent history i'm afraid the burden of citation is not on the poster reminding us of it, but rather that the lazy like yourself can use this thing called a search engine to find news stories about it.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/17/mohamed/index.html

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

no, it's not clearly worse, mr strawman maker. please remove your words from my mouth.

it is merely false to pretend that the US has some higher footing than other countries. it is also false to pretend that we are not backsliding towards those countries we vilify.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

and so the us should help this situation by making things even worse for iranian citizens? or by blocking products that might make things better?

trade embargoes always punish the average citizen and poor while the ruling class find ways around them.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

-1, Troll

Having one minor hoop to jump through before visiting Cuba (flying through Canada) is not equal to not being able to go from town to town in your own country. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.

Being prohibited from selling sensitive military technology to avowed enemies of your country is not equal to having no personal property rights and having the means of production and trade decisions made by bureaucrats. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.

Placing specific, targeted, narrow restrictions on a very small handful of the most egregiously irresponsible countries on the planet is not equal to "any country we don't like today". If that were the standard, then the Republicans wouldn't have allowed the French to export wine to us. Only a person with zero perspective would say something like that.

Try getting some of that precious perspective, and stop it already with the black-and-white, extremist, ideological false dichotomies.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the google guys also need to reconcile the Iranian government's known repressive behavior with their "don't be evil" slogan.

...

You actually believed that slogan?

A marketing campaign from an ad agency that paints itself in the best possible light? And you BELIEVED it?

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

Citation or you're full of it.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

Two things:

1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
2. Cops are allowed to lie to you

One more thing:

3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop

So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say to you and would like you to leave."

I might prefer to live in a society where cops are only allowed to make contact for cause, and where cops aren't allowed to lie, but that's not our society. The important thing is that you still have the prerogative to assert all the legal rights of which you are aware.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

See my other posts, or actually use google.com your damned self.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

They are supposed to anyway. The Arizona law mirrors existing Federal law. The Feds have failed to enforce those laws, so AZ decided to craft legislation to pick up the slack.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

I have an Indian friend (dot, not feather) who took a bus trip through the south. He said certain people kept trying to speak to him in Spanish, which of course he does not understand. To him it was a medium affront, but to me it was funny: what kind of person can't tell the difference between an Indian and a Mexican? But I guess when you're from a place with tons of Mexicans and exceedingly few Indians, it's easy to assume. Anyway, he is natural-born American, speaks unaccented English, and would stare back blankly and say "Huh? Do you speak English?"

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

Ah, yes, the complaints of the people who used to have more than they deserve, and now are stuck being "equal" to others. That sucks.

I'm also white male straight

Re:Home of the Free

[iivel]

The "identify" portion of the law doesn't allow them to require ID though (unless operating a motor vehicle or some other specific situations). The supreme court has weighed in on this one and has been understood to mean that verbally stating your name/address or other required information is enough. See Hibel v. Sixth Juicial Court of Nevada.

Re:Home of the Free

[iivel]

This decision came down in Terry v. Ohio. Note in the decision that the scope of the "frisk" does not constitute a search and must only be used to find weapons.

"In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that 'we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.' " (392 U.S. 1, at 16, Fn 12, quoting State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, at 130)

Re:Home of the Free

[nbauman]

Those are good links.

I think the bottom line is, the laws vary from state to state, and cops can come up with a justification for stopping you, especially if they lie.

But you're not legally required to identify yourself if you're sitting in a coffee shop with no reason for a cop to be suspicious.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't commit ___ crimes, where I can and can't sell my ___ slaves, who I can and can't ___ rape to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Blah blah blah this is just satire and I don't have the time to edit the rest.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

I did see that one, but that hasn't prevented 24 states from carrying similar laws.

The ruling was that it was ok as long as they had probable cause to detain and ask.

Again it boils down to what the PO decides is probable cause.

Of note: Stevens and Breyer offered their dissent.

“The present case begins where our prior cases left off. Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. Here the Nevada statute is narrower and precise.” The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.

The narrow requirements of Nevada’s stop-and-identify law meant that it did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. “In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Since Terry, it has been clear that a police officer who reasonably suspects that a person is involved in criminal activity may detain a person long enough to dispel that suspicion. Questions related to a person’s identity are a “routine and accepted part of many Terry stops.” Knowing a person’s identity may, of course, help to clear a suspect and divert the attention of the police to another suspect. On the other hand, knowing the suspect’s name may just as quickly confirm to the officer that the person is wanted for another, unrelated crime. In cases such as this, where the police are investigating a domestic dispute, officers “need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.” “The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity.” Balancing the intrusion into the individual’s privacy against the extent to which the stop-and-identify law promotes legitimate government interests, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit Nevada from making it a crime for a person detained under conditions of Terry to refuse to identify himself to a police officer upon request.

Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There was no “articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel’s] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him.” Because Hiibel’s name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it.

Re:Home of the Free

[nbauman]

I was trying to draw a distinction between what cops have a right to do, and what they illegally do.

While most people don't have the resources to sue the police department, a few do, and of course the ACLU takes on the test cases that they think have the best chance of winning and changing policy.

It's pretty bad, but not hopeless.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

I believe you're right on both thoughts there.

One of the things my wife's coworkers liked to say was "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

what about drug and sobriety checkpoints? that's 100% "papers please" because there is no probable cause. you sure seem to have a lot of "rage" of your own.

Re:Home of the Free

[joss]

Its different in the UK. Here, if they ask for papers you can tell them no, at which point they would have to arrest you (and 'not giving papers' doesnt count as grounds for arrest) or they can fuck off. The policeman is not going to get in trouble for asking for your papers, or even for lying about your requirement to hand them over, but if you know your rights you can tell them no and they normally give in at that stage.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Appending "tard" to words that describe people you don't like makes you look like a douchetard.

FTFY.

Douche-Touchétard.

Re:Home of the Free

[Schadrach]

You see, there's an important difference here. If you are an immigrant, you are required to carry proof of your status as such. If you are a native, you are not required by federal law to carry any type of papers on you. Which creates the interesting problem of proving who is or is not an immigrant vs a native, but so be it.

This difference is a big deal if you are Jose, the native born son of Carlos and Juanita, legal immigrants, because by federal law you aren't required to carry proof of citizenship because you are native born. If an AZ cop decides you look suspicious, however, then you are an illegal immigrant.

Re:Home of the Free

[h4rm0ny]

I think the context makes clear that he meant downloading from an agent other than one with the legal right to distribute that MP3. I also think you probably knew that.

Re:Home of the Free

[MightyYar]

Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy.

Good, so you grasped that the world is a complicated place at a very young age.

But I'd point out that in the USSR you couldn't travel ANYWHERE, often including within the borders of the USSR. In the US, you were forbidden from visiting a single country out of hundreds. The difference in degree here is massive. I share your distaste for this restriction, but I also recognize that it is an aberration.

Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.

I'm happy to give my country the power to apply sanctions. It gives diplomatic pressure that, with luck, can avoid war. Wouldn't it be nice if Iranian sanctions worked? Isn't that better than bombing them?

Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran.

I don't know when the last time a declaration of war occurred - Wikipedia says 1942. In any case, they are a historical artifact. If congress authorizes a "declaration of war", or if they authorize a "sanction"... really, what is the difference? Would you be happier if congress entitled the sanctions under some limited war declaration?

Re:Home of the Free

[HarrySquatter]

it is merely false to pretend that the US has some higher footing than other countries.

How does it not have a higher moral footing than Iran? Does the US stone raped women by saying they wanted it to happen and that it's really adultery? Does the US government put to death someone for being gay? Does the US government put to death or chop off the limbs of people for blasphemy? Is the US code of laws based on a backwards set of moral codes from a Middle Aged group of goat herders? Oh wait, it's not so it CLEARLY is better than Iran. Sorry, but your moral relativism stinks of bullshit.

Re:Home of the Free

[HarrySquatter]

trade embargoes always punish the average citizen and poor while the ruling class find ways around them.

The same could be said for almost any punishment that some people will always find ways around them. Does that mean we should never punish anyone for anything?

Re:Home of the Free

[Americano]

Please explain how my logic is extremely flawed?

Your own argument, that the US Government and the EFF "developed and exported TOR to countries with oppressive governments" simply bolsters my point that an assertion that places the US government's "bad behavior" in the same league as the Iranian government's "bad behavior" is slipshod moral relativism at it's finest.

Now, if you'll explain how Chrome, Picasa, and Google Earth function to "keep oppressed people more informed" in Iran, I'll gladly hear about how Google is fighting the good fight for freedom. But I think you're going to have an awful hard time demonstrating that "picture sharing" and "browsing the web" or "looking at maps" is making the people of Iran "more free". Chrome certainly doesn't have TOR built into it just for the Iranian market.

So no, nothing Google is doing is helping the people of Iran be "more informed and interact with the outside world with less chance of reprisal." I do think it's helping Google make money, though!

Re:Home of the Free

[Americano]

Please explain how Picasa, Google Earth, and Chrome will "make things better" (or in fact, make things different in the slightest) for the Iranian citizen?

We're not talking about milk and baby food, you dipshit. Last I checked, those products don't have built in TOR functionality, or any other super-secret "make me totally anonymous and let me get unfiltered news and data from the outside world" features.

So answer two questions:
1) How will these products benefit the Iranian people?
2) How will NOT having these products harm the Iranian people?

Bonus question: How will people using these products in Iran fatten Google's bottom line?

Re:Home of the Free

[jc42]

Well, I expected that, but I didn't actually know it. It's fairly common for people, especially "social commentators", to use "downloading MP3s" to mean "criminal". Like they use "hacker" to mean "criminal".

Yes, this is a nerd/geek forum, where people often use such terms in their technical sense. I've downloaded linux ISOs, as have many of us, but that doesn't change the fact that to most people (including the management of major ISPs), someone who downloads files by the GByte is ipso facto suspected of criminal behavior. Similarly, the "hacker"/"criminal" inference is based on the common idea that anyone with strong computer expertise is assumed to engage in criminal activity.

If you google for phrases like "MP3 download" or "music download", and look at the results, you'll find that almost all of them are talking about illegal downloading, while never actually saying so. This is because they understand "download" and "copyright violation" to be synonyms. In common speech, "illegal" is an automatic qualifier that need not be stated explicitly before "download".

If we want people to approach such things sensibly, it's probably a good idea to call people on such invalid assumptions whenever they (appear to) make them. The passage I replied to seems to make this mistake, and would be read by most non-geeks as referring to illegal downloading, since "downloading", "copyright violation" and "criminal behavior" are synonyms to them. We should be pointing out the error in such comments when we see them, to try to get people to stop making the implicit connection between downloading and criminality.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Mactard. Hehe, this is fun!

Re:Home of the Free

[Enderandrew]

I don't know if it is most states. I know a few states I've lived in (California for example) mandate you have a state issued photo ID on you to show authorities.

Oddly enough I was told in California that my military ID didn't qualify. I needed an additional state issued photo ID.

I don't know off hand how many states are like this.

Re:Home of the Free

[Apocros]

Freedom doesn't have to be zero-sum, does it?

Re:Home of the Free

[iPhr0stByt3]

I disagree. The US DOES have a higher moral footing, as does most of the rest of the world. It's not that we're great, but rather that Iran has some serious issues. What part of this don't you understand.

Re:Home of the Free

[elrous0]

Having one minor hoop to jump through before visiting Cuba (flying through Canada)

Actually, it's illegal for a U.S. citizen to do that. And, as I noted in my original post, the restrictions are FAR from limited to "sensitive military technology."

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

given that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years alone, i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree with you on removing Jim Crow, but how does banning school prayer make us more free? In almost all cases you could just sit there and maintain a respectful silence. If that is not your experience, then our current policy on it still represents a massive overcorrection. Similarly, the push to enforce affirmation of homosexuality is an overcorrection from intolerance, skipping tolerance in favor of forced affirmation.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

1. by allowing them to see countries other than their own. street view alone ought to help humanize the rest of the world in their eyes, along with allowing them some comparison of relative wealth of societies under different kinds of rule. you know, the same sort of thing oppressive regimes generally deny in order to keep their subjects ignorant and believing they have it good. see for reference north korea.

2. how will (not) having these products affect the iranian government? answer: it won't: i'm sure they already have illicitly acquired GIS software and imagery for government use. therefore, the only thing that can come of this decision is neutral or good for the iranian people.

i think that you should answer your own bonus question given that it is illegal for american companies to do business with and receive money from iran. since there is no apparent monetary reward to google, maybe they're actually trying to not be evil. i know. it's a strange concept.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/us-allowed-american-compa_n_800989.html

does google have such an exemption to do business? i haven't seen any evidence of that. please provide some in your answer to your bonus question.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.

So yesterday GE was an asshole for sharing technlogy with China. But today the US Goverment is an asshole for preventing Google from sharing technology with Iran. Confusing.

Re:Home of the Free

[wondafucka]

Libertarian rage! Raaargh! Freedom!

Being required to show that you are a licensed and insured driver while operating a vehicle that requires a license and insurance to legally operate on public roads it just like "papers, please".

Yeah, I hated it the last time I was pulled over for speeding and got carted away to a gas chamber. Or the time I made an exaggerated similitude and they pinned a propeller-beanie to my head.

Re:Home of the Free

[shadowfaxcrx]

"Your honor, I was frisking the individual to determine whether or not he had a dangerous weapon on him as allowed by Terry v. Ohio. On feeling his front right pocket I felt a hard slim object that in my professional judgment could have been a knife. I removed it based on that belief and discovered that it was instead a spoon with charring on the bowl. This gave me probable cause to suspect the use of narcotics, and so I initiated a full search based on the requirements set forth in the Fourth Amendment."

Of course, 9 times out of 10, the cop doesn't have to use such subterfuge. It's amazing how many people give consent to "do you mind if I look inside your car?" (Always. ALWAYS tell them that you do not give consent. Even if you know you don't have anything illegal, say no.)

Plus remember that unless it's a traffic stop with the cop's dash cam rolling, it's again your word against the cop's as to whether or not he searched you legally. He can search you, find contraband, and then claim he saw evidence of it prior to the search, giving him probable cause. And even if there's a dash cam vid that shows this didn't happen, in many departments, by astonishing coincidence the dash cam "fails" right at the moment that your defense attorney is interested in.

In fact in some cases there were multiple squad cars, and all of the cars experienced an amazingly coincidental dash cam failure at the critical moment. Funny how that happens.

( http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/police-dash-cameras-not-operational-during-dj-henry-student-shooting-25-apx-20101103
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=708&sid=1938732
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=428&sid=1116072 )

The bottom line is that (and you can verify this by reading the forums at officer.com) whether you are innocent or not, cops assume you're guilty, and they assume you're lying to them. This then puts them into the mindset of "I'm gonna get that goddamn dirtbag (that is a term they use, and not just in bad movies, also verifiable on officer.com) if it's the last thing I do," and so even some cops who aren't specifically out to harass innocent civilians end up doing so because they don't view us as innocent, and think the ends of getting another dirtbag off the street justify the illegal means of doing it.

Re:Home of the Free

[endymion.nz]

Sorry but the US does not have the high moral ground. The US forces all other nations to comply with its copyright, drug criminalisation and intellectual property laws through trade agreements. Countries that refuse to adopt US policy through the WHO, UN, IMF etc are given economic sanctions to make them comply. All of this is done for the benefit of American companies, making it 'safe' for them to operate overseas. Whatever way you look at it from the outside, the US is the evil rogue nation in the world.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things:

1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
2. Cops are allowed to lie to you

One more thing:

3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop

So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say to you and would like you to leave."

I might prefer to live in a society where cops are only allowed to make contact for cause, and where cops aren't allowed to lie, but that's not our society. The important thing is that you still have the prerogative to assert all the legal rights of which you are aware.

Two things:

1. Peoples are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
2. Peoples are allowed to lie to you

One more thing:

3. You are not required to have a conversation with Peoples

Cops (strictly included in) Peoples

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, so you grasped that the world is a complicated place at a very young age.

But I'd point out that in the USSR you couldn't travel ANYWHERE, often including within the borders of the USSR. In the US, you were forbidden from visiting a single country out of hundreds. The difference in degree here is massive. I share your distaste for this restriction, but I also recognize that it is an aberration.

That simply is not true, in the USSR you had travel restrictions that where anachronistic (military cities etc) but other than that you where free to travel, getting transport more of a practical problem

Re:Home of the Free

[Machtyn]

One doesn't have to participate in school prayers, but Darwin forbid you actually pray in school.

Re:Home of the Free

[gorzek]

I am not aware of any US jurisdiction where police can pull you over "just because." Probable cause is generally required. If they have the PC to pull you over, however, they can certainly ask for your "papers" and detain you if you don't have them.

There are also sobriety checkpoints in some places, but those are not random stops and I believe their Constitutionality has been challenged more than once.

In practice, there are obviously prick cops who will make up any reason to pull you over if they really want to, but that's not so much a problem with the law as it is a problem with law enforcement oversight.

Re:Home of the Free

[h4rm0ny]

A fair point fairly put. I thought you were just being snarky for snark's sake, but I see there is a supportable rationale behind it. And actually I agree. Being someone who purchases a number of digital products, I can relate to what you're saying.

Re:Home of the Free

[LordLucless]

Uh-huh, because not being harassed by law enforcement is "more than they deserve". You certainly merit your handle.

Re:Home of the Free

[orient]

one doesn't have to participate in school prayers.

Just wait a couple of election cycles.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the bit how openly homosexuals could do all the things the parent mentioned as well and now also can't?

Yes we are equal to others. But now EVERYONE is disproportionately worse off for it! Why can't the gay man be gay AND we still have personal security privacy and the ability to move around the country? There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to sacrifice one for the other, and the homosexuals in the past also had the benefits of privacy etc.

Tell me how is being able to do in your own home what you want "more than you deserve"? How is being able to move freely around the country without fear of harrasment and a finger up the rear by the TSA "more than you deserve"?

Re:Home of the Free

[Duradin]

I'm sure you've jaywalked so you don't get to call the US an evil rogue nation you vile, evil jaywalker.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has lost some freedoms, but it has gained others. It is much easier to be openly homosexual, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and one is not allowed to participate in school prayers.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Home of the Free

[sumdumass]

Asking a passenger for ID didn't change around 2001. It had been that way for as long as I can remember and that has been well before 2001.

A cop, as supported by several challenges on the constitutionality of it that went in their favor, can identify anyone in the car, search the immediate area of the driver and any passengers, remove them from the car, frisk and handcuff them while waiting to finish with whatever caused the otherwise legal stop, all in the name of personal safety to the cop. They can't however, open glove boxes or enter locked areas of the car, nor can they take papers or other items that cannot be considered a weapon out of the personal possession under this for their safety exclusion without falling back to a traditional warrant and constitutionally protected search scheme.

A lot of people attempt to blame this all on 911. That's for the most part a fallacy. What happened after 2001 is that people started paying attention and pointing out stuff they were previously oblivious to. Most of the offended people who do this, was just coming of an age at the time in which they became politically aware. A lot of the older people who have already accepted this type of behavior still don't see anything wrong with it until it happens to them.

Re:Home of the Free

[hairyfeet]

For which one? There have been already over a dozen links to the relevant laws up above you, or look up the popular "catch all" here and in many states known as "loitering" which are so damned vague just by the act of breathing you could conceivably be breaking. I had an ex cop tell me loitering is police lingo for "I don't like you" and I'd believe it.

I bet if one was to do a study it would find loitering charges were used more then 98% of the time against blacks, Mexicans, and poor whites. It is the modern version of "uppity". But by using loitering one CAN be hassled pretty much anywhere, including sitting in a coffee shop minding your own business thanks to the purposeful vagueness that is loitering laws.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

Well, I blame it on 911 because shortly after was when the DHS visited my wife's PD to discuss the changes to state laws.

Re:Home of the Free

[sumdumass]

It's basically the same in the US. The courts in the US already defined a valid stop as in what most people call a terry stop. If the cop doesn't have a legitimate reason, or as the Terry v. Ohio case spelled out, "on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest." they cannot demand your papers.

However, if they do have that, and it can be articulated to the judge, then chances are, it's the same as with in the UK, you will get arrested for not showing.

A lot of people watch reality shows in the US and one set of them are particularly dangerous. These are the cop's series of reality TV shows. They will run reruns of cops doing things that the courts have ruled unconstitutional and the only valid reasoning for this that I can think of, is to get the US population used to the idea that the cops can get away with it. In fact, most of their shows are designed in this way where a cop pulls someone over for speeding, someone ends up searching the trunk and finds 10 kilos of cocaine hiding under the spare tire. They do nothing to show how they got probably cause to search the trunk or anything and the only thing I can figure is that it was a set up stunt because they want people to think they can search your bunghole for speeding or not using your turn signal.

That sad part about it is, that people believe they can do this and give in.

Re:Home of the Free

[MightyYar]

in the USSR you had travel restrictions that where anachronistic (military cities etc) but other than that you where free to travel

I presume you mean "free to travel" WITHIN the borders of the USSR? Even then, I was under the impression that it could be difficult to leave your republic - say travel from Georgia to somewhere in Russia proper.

Re:Home of the Free

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I get that, now, back when you are a teenager the whole, assert your rights, thing only tends to become a focus after you've had to put up with X many instances of useless bullshit. I just wanted to illustrate that, while we live in a free society, the powers that be tend to do everything within their power to restrict your freedoms, even if that means lying to you about what your freedoms are. The funny thing is that every time I've gotten lippy with a cop, asserting my rights and such, the interaction tends to get dragged out, wastes more time, and ends up being a lot more of a hassle than if you just act like a good little subject. I realize freedom isn't free. I just wish I lived in a society where I could respect and trust the law, the lawmakers, and the law enforcers. The fact that I, and many that I know, can't anymore just goes to show how low we have let our society slide.

We were always taught in school that policeman are the good guys.

Re:Home of the Free

[Americano]

1. by allowing them to see countries other than their own.

They can do that already without Google Earth, Chrome and Picasa. So the answer is, these products provide no benefit to the Iranian people other than giving them another option to Flickr or Facebook. A mighty blow for freedom, eh?

i think that you should answer your own bonus question given that it is illegal for american companies to do business with and receive money from iran. since there is no apparent monetary reward to google, maybe they're actually trying to not be evil. i know. it's a strange concept.

Did you even read the fucking summary? Google has received approval to allow downloads of their products in Iran, because they have satisfied embargo requirements that the US government put in place.

If they are being ALLOWED BY THE GOVERNMENT to distribute their products to Iranian customers, what part of the answer to "does google have such an exemption to do business there?" is unclear to you?

Re:Home of the Free

[mjwx]

Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?

Yes, a lot more than the paranoid nuts that shout "blearg, Gubbermint baaaaad".

DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) kind of know about what's happening in other countries better then the average person on the street, it's their job. If you bothered to actually read those pages instead of making a kneejerk anti-government reaction you'd know that their advice is based on actual, verifiable events.

The government is not saying "Thou Shalt not go to Columbia", the government is saying "we think you should reconsider going to Colombia" with Colombia being a better example then Iran and North Korea. The best thing about advice is, I don't have to take it if I don't want to.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

it is you who has the comprehension problem. you or i would need a license to export a solitaire game for free to iran. this is a separate license from that required to do business with and exchange money with iranian companies.

so far you've called me a number of names as if that somehow bolsters your argument. since you cannot engage in civil debate i will no longer respond to your pompous, condescending rants.

Re:Home of the Free

[sumdumass]

Your state might have had laws that were different then what they are now. They may have even been changed because of 911. However, the constitutionality of that was already set well before 2001.

It may be a situation here where your state actually forbid that type of behavior and then allowed it. The US constitution only restricts government to what it can do with a few clauses spelling out what it can't do. Your state could have been more restrictive in this sense.

Re:Home of the Free

[cold fjord]

here's today's news regarding a us citizen who (it would seem) has done nothing wrong but who has been tortured by Kuwaitis and put on the US no-fly list so he can't get home to the US.

Hopefully he wasn't on the same tour group as these other Somali men....

Sixth area Somali man is indicted in probe

A 24-year-old local Somali man has been indicted in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis on charges of conspiring to provide support to terrorists.

Omer Abdi Mohamed, an unemployed employment counselor and father of a 2-month-old boy, was indicted on charges of conspiracy to "kill, kidnap, maim or injure" people in foreign countries, according to an indictment filed Tuesday but made public Thursday.

Mohamed, of Minneapolis, is the sixth Somali man with local ties to be charged in connection with a two-year-old federal counterterrorism investigation aimed at finding out who recruited as many as 20 area men of Somali descent to return to their homeland and train and fight with the terrorist group, Al-Shabaab. The probe is considered to be one of the most sweeping international counterterrorism investigations since Sept. 11, 2001.

So, he traveled to Yemen and Somalia to study....... Arabic and Islam? I'm sure it means nothing.

Reports: Al Qaeda's Leaders In Yemen Relocate to Somalia

Re:Home of the Free

[endymion.nz]

Jay walking isn't a crime where I live, douche. :P We don't have quite as many private prisons to fill.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean various government efforts on behalf of the so-called minorities. That is, certain special interest groups achieved some freedoms for its members, at the cost of expanding government oversight of many areas of life. E.g., now the cost of hiring new employees includes the fees or salaries of "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" lawyers. Well done.

I think think you will find that the net result of most of these measures was loss of freedom and money for the absolute majority of Americans.

Re:Home of the Free

[Americano]

it is you who has the comprehension problem. you or i would need a license to export a solitaire game for free to iran. this is a separate license from that required to do business with and exchange money with iranian companies.

And how do you think Google makes money? They're not selling a product intended for consumption by Iranian companies. They're distributing a free product, intended to generate them advertising revenue by driving more people to their sites, resulting in more pageviews and thus more ad impressions and thus more income for Google.

Or did you really think that Google could only make income from Iranian customers by taking money from Iranian companies?

Yes, I've called you a name: dipshit. And as far as I'm concerned, if the shoe fits, wear it. Having a "debate" with you would require you to have read the summary at least, and ideally, the entire article. It's clear you haven't, so it's probably for the best that you just give up trying to flog your tired preconceived notions about Google being a white knight.

Re:Home of the Free

[lwsimon]

Laws have been crafted so that they are not held to an objective standard - and there are so many of them that an individual can't know them all. A cop doesn't have to make something up to stop, detain, or arrest you - there are enough laws on the books that *something* fits.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

kind of know about what's happening in other countries better then the average person on the street,

Really? Even though most people who deal with Cuba directly say differently?

Re:Home of the Free

[HarrySquatter]

i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.

Then you must have a different definition of the word than others use.

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions. Each of them is concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most 'moral' course of action.
Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people.[1] The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".[2]
Normative relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, because there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others - even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[3] Most philosophers find that this position is incoherent, or at least that it is unclear how meta-ethical relativism can lead to 'ought' statements.[3]

I don't fall under any of those positions.

Re:Home of the Free

[conspirator57]

then investigate, gather evidence, and prosecute him? i know, that's too old fashioned.

also, presuming guilt by (especially loose) association is not only repugnant but also a logical fallacy. you brush your teeth regularly. so did the unabomber. ergo you're a terrst also.

Re:Home of the Free

[psm321]

I don't think that's true in California, but I don't claim to know authoritatively. Read this, it's interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes Based on that, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson it looks like the law that California had was struck down as too vague (and if I'm reading correctly only required verbal identification in the first place)

Re:Home of the Free

[psm321]

Also, I realize this could actually be anybody, but a very complete and thorough explanation (that can probably be double checked if you care) by someone claiming to be a CA police officer http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

I think what you heard was probably rumor/urban legend

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens.

Well, you don't actually have to provide identification to a cop if you're a pedestrian, but if you're operating a vehicle and get pulled over, of course you're going to have to produce a valid driver's license and proof of insurance. Do you really see a problem with that? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Re:Home of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

RIGHT ON! I have lived overseas since 1965 and believe me, the country I left and the country I visit now are completely different. Yes, the same Constitutions but different people of different ideology are running our country now. There is NO such thing as freedom anymore. All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others. I get the creeps everytime I have to go through US customs. Big brother is truly watching us.

Re:Home of the Free

[LordLimecat]

No, see thats where your (hopefully competent) lawyer gets the entire case thrown out.

This is whats known as "process", and you have a lawyer to make sure it all goes down properly.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

Yep. That's what I thought. You have to move the goalpost and ask others to make your argument for you, because you can't make it for yourself, because it is wrong.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

I don't know. Is it true that everyone is disproportionately worse off for it? Is it true that a black person is worse off today having to get bodyscanned to get on an airplane, than back when they would have been a slave? Really? Is that really true?

Is it really true that a gay person having to show ID to get on a bus is worse off than when they were legally classified as mentally ill and forced into institutions with shame? Really? Is that really true?

I don't know. I guess I don't agree with that. Things could be better than they are today, but things today are certainly better than they were in the past.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

If you are loitering then that's against the law and the police have legal basis for contact. Loitering is not the same as "sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason". That's the hypothetical: coffee shop, undercover cop, no reason, ID demanded, ID refused, midemeanor.

The specific claim is that refusing to show ID to a cop when the cop has no legal basis for contacting you, is "a jailable misdemeanor in most cases". That is very much contrary to my understanding of the law, and thus I call it bullshit. It's so preposterous that a citation would have to be provided before it could be considered.

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

I just wish I lived in a society where I could respect and trust the law, the lawmakers, and the law enforcers. The fact that I, and many that I know, can't anymore just goes to show how low we have let our society slide.

I share your dream, but not your memory; the world has never been like that, and our society is no lower than it ever has been, in fact it is less bad than ever, I'd say. Still, we have a long way to go.

Re:Home of the Free

[I8TheWorm]

What about "my other post" appears to be asking others to make my argument for me?

Re:Home of the Free

[Myopic]

The part where you don't cite, of course.

I assert that there is no law anywhere in America requiring you to show the police an ID when peacefully sitting in a coffee shop. This has been my understanding since civics class in high school, confirmed by speeches from ACLU lawyers, and bolstered by pretty much everything I've ever learned about American law. If you want to assert that I am wrong, and that a police officer can contact you for no reason, demand and ID, and put you in jail when you politely decline -- well, that assertion is so preposterous that I'm willing to dismiss it without looking it up for myself, because I have already looked it up for myself many times during my life. Thus, cite or you're full of it.

Ummmm ...

[gstoddart]

US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions

So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?

This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?

Re:Ummmm ...

[somersault]

In recent news, the Iranian government have moved to telecommuting until they figure out what a proxy is.

Re:Ummmm ...

[theIncredibleHenk]

Better yet, it just needs ONE IP that is not part of the Iranian 'governmental pool' and a router which can do NAT. Reasonable to imagine the government putting pressure on domestic companies to share their IP with their secret service.

Re:Ummmm ...

[mapkinase]

Yes, indeed. Thus Google fooled the US government. And yes, our government is that easy.

Re:Ummmm ...

[santax]

Couldn't Iran just use a VPN to a server in the US to log into google earth? Come on... it's google earth... there is nothing on there that Iran (and any country for that matter) doesn't have already.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Krneki]

US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions

So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?

This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?

Like they always could?

Or do you think it was magically blocked in Iran?

Re:Ummmm ...

[gstoddart]

Or do you think it was magically blocked in Iran?

I don't think that at all ... I'm just surprised at how easy it is to sidestep the export restrictions.

"OK, we'll give you this super secret stuff, but you have to promise never to push this button, or it becomes dangerous and we aren't allowed to give you something dangerous."

What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons? :-P

Re:Ummmm ...

[Crudely_Indecent]

Maybe they should have reevaluated the situation when the government agreed to the IP restrictions. In giving up so little, they might have given up too much.

"So, you'll accept blocking known Iranian government IP addresses.....interesting.

Would you consider a strongly worded restriction in the EULA instead? Or maybe a graphic on the screen that says Not for Iranian Government Use?"

Re:Ummmm ...

[thePig]

Whoever who could have done anything against the US gov using these applications would already have done this by now. People are talking about proxies etc - can they proxy to a different country?
All they are doing now is to provide these tools to the Iranian citizens - which is a good thing.

Re:Ummmm ...

[corby]

So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?

Maybe, but I imagine that the Iranian government might have some reservations about downloading and running this software anyway. At least until they figure out whether Stuxnet is built into their 'special' version of Chrome, or if it's an optional add-on.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions

So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?

This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?

The US government is just stupid.
Or perhaps the 'special" Google software is now infected with stuxnet. That will fool them.

Re:Ummmm ...

[CharlieHedlin]

I seriously doubt the restrictions were useful anyways. I am sure they could download the software with foreign proxies, or if that failed (it wouldn't) use an agent in another country to forward the program.

So I don't care if we poke holes in the restrictions, they are political and nothing else. If we could make them work that would be great, but realism must be recognized.

Re:Ummmm ...

[TheLink]

Wouldn't the US Gov want the Iran Gov (and their friends) to be using as much of Google's stuff as possible? Heck even better if they use Facebook, but that's another story...

The last I checked Google doesn't produce weapons. The Iran Gov can easily buy maps that are more accurate than google's (I've seen plenty of mislabelled buildings and stuff on Google Maps).

Re:Ummmm ...

[conspirator57]

because international proxies apparently don't exist?

because TOR doesn't exist?

because satellite internet doesn't exist?

from a technical perspective, both the export restrictions and the amelioration made by google are idiotic.

Re:Ummmm ...

[blueg3]

It's not super secret. It's not really secret at all.

It's a fairly reasonable approach, considering that any mechanism that you could use to trick Google's new IP-based system you could have used earlier to simply download and use the software. Have you downloaded Google software before? Did you see where you had to provide documentation that proved that you weren't from Iran?

Anyone with reasonable technical knowhow or decent connections can circumvent export restrictions for downloadable software.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Monkeedude1212]

In other related news, North Korea opens hundreds of Proxy servers for business hoping to get Iran's business.

Re:Ummmm ...

[phoenixwade]

because international proxies apparently don't exist?

because TOR doesn't exist?

because satellite internet doesn't exist?

from a technical perspective, both the export restrictions and the amelioration made by google are idiotic.

in all fairness, they could already use those techniques to download the software.

Re:Ummmm ...

[conspirator57]

sure, but it does rather render moot the point of the guy i replied to. your point just drives home the pointlessness of the GP's faux concern.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Khashishi]

Yeah, but they could already do that, with Google Earth, et al, being available for download in, say, United States.

Re:Ummmm ...

[ArcherB]

In other related news, North Korea opens hundreds of Proxy servers for business hoping to get Iran's business.

Or....

Coffee shops with open wifi near government buildings see surge in Internet traffic.

Re:Ummmm ...

[ArcherB]

What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons? :-P

Those are not gun barrels. Those are rigid hookah pipes with laser sights.

Re:Ummmm ...

[Monkeedude1212]

Keep in mind that Iran is nothing like the United States.

To give a little comparative analysis, I did a Google Maps of Tehran, Capital of Iran, and the first US City I saw, Denver Colorado, and pulled up "Coffee Shop".

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Monkee1212/coffee.gif

It's not just a drive around the corner in Iran.

Re:Ummmm ...

[xnpu]

You obviously haven't used Google services from Iran, or any other non-US country for that matter. They will sooner or later associate your proxy address with the country you're really in. I setup my own US proxies when traveling (VPN actually), and if I stay in a country long enough, gmail will show the US IP address as a address.

I'm sure the clever tricks google employs here to detect your location can also be circumvented, but no, they're not stupid enough to simply rely on IP registries or your off-the-shelf geo database.

Now how they are to distinguish government from the public is a lot more interesting.

Re:Ummmm ...

[somersault]

You obviously haven't used Google services from Iran, or any other non-US country for that matter.

Yes, I obviously don't live in the UK, my whole life is a work of fiction.

Or alternatively, I have no need for proxies. I wonder which it is? (I one time VPNed into our US offices so that I could try out Hulu, but that's about it)

I setup my own US proxies when traveling (VPN actually), and if I stay in a country long enough, gmail will show the US IP address as a address.

If your proxy is in the US then that's exactly how things should be working, isn't it? I'm not sure what you were trying to say there.

As for ways around them detecting your location despite the proxy (which I find odd), if you use something like SSH/VNC/Remote Desktop to a machine on the VPN, there's no way in hell they're going to be able to detect where you really are.

Re:Ummmm ...

[somersault]

(when I say a machine on the VPN, I mean of course one on the same local network as the VPN server, or the VPN server itself.. or just skip VPN altogether and connect in directly)

Re:Ummmm ...

[xnpu]

Don't take my word for it.

Sign up for a VPN or create one yourself, then consistently use Google services over it. Google will eventually tell you your real location, not the proxies location.

I haven't looked into how they do it, but I imagine there is a lot of information leaking which they can use. Browser timezone in the headers, etc.

SSH etc is indeed a better idea, though it may be a bit slow for Google Earth.

Re:Ummmm ...

[somersault]

Disable your WiFi adapter. I wondered if it was something like that. If you are browsing from a phone at least it sounds like you can switch that option off, not sure about from PC though.

Re:Ummmm ...

[ksheff]

Or all Iranian government personnel will now be "working from home".

Re:Ummmm ...

[gstoddart]

Those are not gun barrels. Those are rigid hookah pipes with laser sights.

Do not point hookah at one remaining eye. :-P

Re:Ummmm ...

[Sot32]

This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?

Or maybe just pretty weak export restrictions and sanctions.

Re:Ummmm ...

[sznupi]

Keep in mind that thoroughness of points of interest in Google Maps is lacking for many places. Might be especially poor in a place which couldn't really use them for a long time.

I did the same search for a largish EU city nearby me, the results look much closer to Tehran than to Denver; and not due to lack of coffee shops.

(plus - yes, keep in mind that Iran is nothing like the United States / coffee is pretty much ignored in Iran / they are near the top of tea countries, it's basically sacrosanct there IIRC / who knows how Google Maps approaches this)

Re:Ummmm ...

[sznupi]

Maybe they wanted to do it all along and now finally can? ;) (Gtalk, Gmail Video; possibly the best options on non-stellar connections / I encountered some cases of Iranians wanting to use them ... but no luck)

Re:Ummmm ...

[kevinNCSU]

Or perhaps Google pointed out Iran could already just use a proxy to access/download Google earth without anyone able to stop them currently and our government really is that reasonable?

Re:Ummmm ...

[hierophanta]

and there is no way that Denver is better cataloged than Tehran?

Re:Ummmm ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government really isn't serious about the export restrictions. They know that distributing software is like distributing music: it creates peace of earth. Just imagine if all the software, living under open source yeahhaa, or pirated OSs, hey we all become oneeee.

Re:Ummmm ...

[mapkinase]

This brilliant idea did not enter my head. I have limited imagination.

Because we all know

[zero.kalvin]

That they won't circumnavigate it if they want to! That is the same as in iTunes EULA demanding that you don't use the software in creation of a nuclear device.I understand why they did this, but Sometimes you got to respect the law, even if it's a stupid one!

Re:Because we all know

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes could be used in creating a nuclear device... how??? Is the nuke going to play "It's the End of the World As We Know It" in route to its target? Let's upgrade it to video and play Dr. Strangelove.

Internet censorship sucks

[h00manist]

Internet censorship is growing. Traceable IP numbers have become the ultimate censorship tool. Servers and clients need some universal way around it. Tor, i2p, torrents and similar things aren't cutting it because they can't scale, they depend on traceable, censorable IP.

Uhmm...

[ZDRuX]

Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them

..this is a joke, right? Google single handily crippled and prevented the Iranian government from viewing Cheney's backyard in Google Earth with a simple web browser and a bunch of hard-coded IPs?

Re:Uhmm...

[blueg3]

As much as they were ever prevented from using the service before.

Re:Uhmm...

[Khashishi]

It's no more of a joke than the previous situation of blocking Iranian downloads with a significantly larger list of IPs.

Re:Uhmm...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

No, they actually just sent all Iranian, government IP addresses a real picture of Cheney's actual backyard which is basically the political equivalent of goatse. After that, the Iranian government said they, "didn't want to play anymore." And we wonder why other countries see us Americans as savages and infidels...

Re:Uhmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the world does Google Earth have to do with a web browser?

Re:Uhmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go to youtube and search for '2 girls 1 cup reactions' and then ask yourself why soem people would rather keep their own cultures and ways of life than that espoused by the West (I am not singling out the USA jusy us enlightened westerners in general). Maybe try watching some of the reactions to that nazi beheading in Russia. Yes, a lot of shock but also a lot of laughter and enjoyment of just another 60 second sensory stimulus. Why would you want your people to emulate ro become like a culture that finds entertainment in the eating of someone else's pooh.

So...

[davidwr]

How do you say "proxy" in Persian?

Re:So...

[h00manist]

How do you say "proxy" in Persian?

I think it's something like "traceable"

Re:So...

[conspirator57]

apparently you have not been on teh intarwebs in a while. proxies pop up and disappear all the time and are ergo disposable. and there's this shiny new proxy-like thing called TOR. i hear that's a bit harder to trace connections through.

Petty BS

[TheCarp]

Block all government IPs? Yes, because, as we all know, thats so useful. Clearly nobody in the Iranian Government can figure out how to use a proxy... or... get an IP that isn't registered as owned by their government. Yes... way to go. Very effective.

Seriously, must we be the guy who has a petty argument with his neighbor, and builds 12 foot high ugly fence in retaliation? (and yes, people do that)

So there... take that.... nya nya nya. You don't get to use this cool web browser, unless you jump through some minor hoops to make it work. That will really teach you!

Re:Petty BS

[ScentCone]

Not petty BS. Principle. The government of Iran is a brutal, mysoginstic, thuggish theocracy that jails and kills people because they speak out against it. Google is saying, "Here, people of Iran, use our stuff. Government of Iran? We're taking a symbolic step to point out that we consider you to be illegitimate and evil." What's wrong with that? Nothing.

Re:Petty BS

[jc42]

So there... take that.... nya nya nya. You don't get to use this cool web browser, unless you jump through some minor hoops to make it work. That will really teach you!

In any case, it's probably basically pointless. The Iranian government has apparently followed the lead of most other Middle-Eastern governments and "standardized" on IE6 and MS Windows. So their computers are probably mostly controlled by the competing botnets run from a long list of other countries.

Actually, I'd suspect that the reason the US government has given google a hard time is that google hasn't cooperated with the usual (i.e., Microsoft) practice of accepting US government add-ons to the software for selected clients. But don't anyone tell the Iranian government about this. We wouldn't want them getting all paranoid, y'know.

(My wife, who has studied Arabic for some years, is constantly grumbling about how most of the online stuff for learning or using Arabic, and most Arabic-script web sites, only work with IE. She hates having to install such crappy, malware-infested software just to read news sources in the original language. The same is reported to be true of Farsi, though we haven't personally verified that. ;-)

Re:Petty BS

[TheCarp]

I don't really give a shit what google decides to do with their web browser (which I have never used, and don't even plan to try, firefox works just fine and has noscript and requestpolicy, both of which I consider minimum requirements for browsing the web)

What irks me is that the people stealing my tax dollars have people on staff, being paid with my money, for little more than to enforce these symbolic points.

I make symbolic points all the time... like when I denounce allegiance to the flag, when I reach my arm out and give a police officer a thumbs down for driving around and being the single largest hazard on the road, etc. However, I don't expect other people to pay for me to make symbolic points.

The very idea that software export restrictions are anything but an absolute waste of time and resources, capable of accomplishing nothing but ruining the lives of people who don't follow them.

It stops being a symbolic gesture when someone goes to jail for not playing along with this silly game. It is unconscionable, and goes on the long list of reasons that I want to see my state leave the union.

Re:Petty BS

[ScentCone]

I'm not sure why you're in such a twist about this. Our foreign policy position is that the government of Iran is hostile, murderous, openly supports international terrorism, supplies cash and goods to people who do things like blow up polling places and police cadets and the like in the name of destabilizing representative government and promoting their vision (which includes things like beard police, arresting people who use the word "pizza," and putting people to death for having the wrong opinion about Islam). That's a rational foreign policy. Lending such a government more credibility by treating them in any way like we do governments that don't directly advocate blowing other countries off the map is irrational. One way to express that disapproval is to take a stand on what sort of technology we'll tacitly approve of their acquiring.

I realize that this is falling on deaf ears, since you think police officers are the biggest threat on the road. With a case of mixed premises that bad, little is going to make sense to you.

Re:Petty BS

[TheCarp]

No, I get all that. What I don't get, is all this use of "We". This organization, which you like to think of as your government, and apply the term "we" too, is welcome to have whatever policies it wants, about what it, and the people working for it, do.

I don't see why anyone else should need their 'approval', tacit or explicit, to do anything. If I want to deal with the government of Iran, as if it were some manner of legitimate entity (which given that I see the US government as an illegitimate regime, that is highly unlikely, for many of the reasons that you stated)... than that is my perogative. I don't see where "you" get off telling other people who they can do business with. That isn't foreign policy, thats domestic bullying.

-Steve

Re:Petty BS

[ScentCone]

What country do you live in? US laws in this regard apply to US citizens and the companies in which they participate. If you live in a different country, it's certainly your right to try to talk your government into not caring about any relations with the US, so that you can support the Mullahs in Iran. If you have good enough reasons to support them, I'm sure you can be persuasive, and get enough people in your country to vote in a way that prevents anyone in your government from having a reason to strike international trade agreements with the US. So, start persuading, and have fun with the Mullahs (who would, if you lived there, have you arrested for the sort of conversation you're having right now ... you do understand that, right?).

Re:Petty BS

[TheCarp]

I don't get your point. Because a bunch of thugs that other people have to put up with are worst than the thugs right here where I live (I believe that my statement in the original post about this being on the long list of reasons that I advocate my state leaving the union might be a tip as to where I live), means that, I shouldn't complain?

I know what the "laws" are, and thats precicely why I don't see these thugs as a legitimate government. Some of these laws go beyond the pale and turn them into an organization that I cannot, in good conscience, advocate supporting. I consider 100% of the taxes that I pay to be given under duress. Not because 100% of it is spent on things that I don't support, but, because any of it is....money is fungible after all.

I see the difference between the current regime and the Mullahs to be far smaller than the current regime and something that I could, in good conscience, support. Them being worst has little bearing on it.

Re:Petty BS

[ScentCone]

Sorry, it had been a while since your ealier post about secession, so I'd forgotten about your "us vs. them" take on your fellow citizens.

Like I said: start by being persuasive. So far, by putting "laws" in quotes and calling police the worst danger on the road, you've only convinced me that I shouldn't consider your opinions at all, let alone seriously. Your whole rebel-without-a-clue posture on all taxes because of some spending blah blah blah is all the final info I need on that front.

Re:Petty BS

[TheCarp]

> Sorry, it had been a while since your ealier post about secession, so I'd
> forgotten about your "us vs. them" take on your fellow citizens.

My fellow citizens? You mean all the other peasants? I bear them no ill will.

If you mean the aristocrats who run most levels of government, the corporate execs who buy the laws they want? "Them" is really a pretty small group. Not that everyone agrees with me on this, but, I do wonder why most support this steaming pile of governance.... especially when nearly all of them are, in some way, a "criminal" who could have their life upended at any time.

I would have little to complain about from a government that called my friends and family criminals when they steal and murder, but, when they grow, sell, or smoke dried flowers? That is utterly unacceptable.

Perhaps if the driving related laws made sense and were not used for little more reason than to justify the jobs of police, then maybe I wouldn't have a problem. However, I have personally been abused by police enforcing speed limits on ridiculous stretches of road. 30 MPH zones where nearly every car, all the time, does almost 50 MPH. I have even been to "defensive driving school". Why? Because I had a 2 mph fender bender in heavy traffic, with an asshole who got all pissed off and wouldn't even talk to me until the police showed up and he insisted that they ticket me. Oh... that's only 2 violations. The other 3 were all paperwork when my license and registration expired... after the registry suddenly stopped sending renewal notices out.... yes... after a decade of renewing whenever the little form came in the mail, they got me good.

Frankly, I know a handful of people who have been in really serious car crashes. A handful who knew people who died in such crashes.... yet... nearly everyone I know has been abused to the tune of a few grand, first in taxes, then in fines, and finally by the insurance company... who are usually the ones who push for the enforcement. Why wouldn't they? They are the ones who get to sit back and blame the state safe driver program for the excessively high surcharges.

I am utterly unconvinced that the majority of traffic enforcement does ANYTHING to make the roads safer. As such, how can I call it anything but, the most prevalent road hazard on the roads? Whats worst, it is hard to even find a person who isn't familiar with ridiculously low speed limits, and all the other ridiculous enforcement practices. Less who know that insurance companies pushed for the utterly corrupt system of police compensation that has subjected us to ever more tickets.

Thats before we even get to the endless string of pointless wars that "we" seem to keep getting involved in. Yet we are never supposed to question whether signing up to fight in these wars is actually honorable or in service of anything that anybody should be proud of..... and of course, despite the despicable deeds, soldiers are a ridiculously protected class, who can't be denied jobs for their life choices (unlike the people who were smoking dried flowers... the ones who never murdered anyone for their misplaced sense of patriotism).

I don't expect to be able to convince everyone, more power to you if you feel differently, but I am perfectly happy to leave you and yours to yours, all I really ask, in ANY of this, is not to be forced to support "causes" which I find utterly repugnant, against my will.

Ill gladly pay for roads that I use, police and courts to go after REAL criminals (murders, rapists, thieves, fraudsters), but when it comes down to the use of threats of violent force to change peoples nonviolent life choices? Or to conduct military operations on foreign soil? Please count me out, and don't do it in my name.

Yeah, that'll work

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Anybody with an ounce of technical knowhow would be able to circumvent this. A government body could easily set up a proxy server in a different country and use that to either run the crippled software or to download the uncrippled versions of the software. Gotta love our government bureaucracy at work. Idiots.

Re:Yeah, that'll work

[TheCarp]

Anybody with an ounce of technical knowhow already used a proxy to download it...the day it came out.

The phrase "a day late and a dollar short" comes to mind. As does the Catholic Church's forgiveness of Galileo.

Maybe these sanctions are someone's personal attempt to be nominated to the dipshit hall of fame?

-Steve

The question is...

[Xilver]

... who even wants to Iran? Has anyone in their right mind ever Iraned a day in his life? I don't see why Google would release software to Iran.

Re:The question is...

[dragonhunter21]

I don't want to Iran. I don't even know what that means, and I don't want to do it.

Re:The question is...

[Vectormatic]

Well, i guess somebody accidentally the whole thing.

Re:The question is...

[I8TheWorm]

It does sound suspiciously like exercise, which I vowed to never do again.

Sadly, this side thread has Flock of Seagulls stuck in my head now, and I'm considering removing it with a drill bit.

Re:The question is...

[conspirator57]

it's a new apple product. everyone will want it. it's a pedometer that has gps and tweets your location for you, as well as sanctimonious tweets detailing just how much you've run (even if you actually haven't, though this service is extra).

Re:The question is...

[dragonhunter21]

Wheeeeeeeee goes the drill.

seriously?

[I8TheWorm]

Do we really believe as a country that Iran didn't have access through proxies anyway?

I find the whole "can't export 256 bit encryption" and the very laughable series of questions to download Oracle products comical.

Wow

[rsilvergun]

When did I miss this? I agree the export regs on open source software are kinda silly (Iranians couldn't possible figure out what an Anonymous Proxy is, right?). But I didn't even notice this happening. Our country's rhetoric hasn't changed one bit (they're still the enemy), but here we are dropping export regulations. Our news media really does suck, this shoulda been bigger news. And the papers wonder why no one's buying. What's the point if you're just going to report the (corporate) party line?

US Sanctions once prevented nothing

[digitaldc]

I am sure they didn't prevent anything, people have learned to get around sanctions as a way of life. Like the flow of water, it finds other routes around the sanction dam.

Re:US Sanctions once prevented nothing

[TheCarp]

I have to point out a few of things:

1. They have tried these sorts of software export regulations before, and it failed miserably before. ::cough::RSA::cough::
2. The US government pretty much invented the damned internet, you would think that they would know how it works
3. The insanity of doing the same, ineffective things, over and over again, is generally lost on anyone in government.

Re:US Sanctions once prevented nothing

[jc42]

1. They have tried these sorts of software export regulations before, and it failed miserably before. ::cough::RSA::cough::

I still have my RSA "munitions" t-shirt, with the couple lines of perl that implement the RSA algorithm. I never did get to wear it to the airport for an international flight before they finally gave in and made RSA legal. It probably wouldn't have mattered that much, though, since the few international flights I took after I bought the t-shirt were all on foreign airlines like SAS and Finnair.

2. The US government pretty much invented the damned internet, you would think that they would know how it works
3. The insanity of doing the same, ineffective things, over and over again, is generally lost on anyone in government.

The basic problem with both these is that the US government, like any government, isn't an intelligent, thinking being. It's a collection of several million people, no two quite alike. Some of them understand the Internet quite well. Most are typical office drones or politicians who are interested in other things than being a network geek.

In any case, there's an old observation that the intelligence of a group of people is an inverse function of the number of people in the group. There's dispute about just what the inverse function is, because little actual research has been done on the topic. But it is clear that adding people to a group of humans decreases the group's overall intelligence.

Expecting intelligence from a government made up of millions of people is simply unrealistic. The best that can be done is to develop expertise on specific topics, and defer to those experts when making policy decisions. This was done during the development of the ARPAnet/Internet. But policies like the export controls under discussion here are made by politicians, not the government's network geeks. And most of those politicians got their office (directly or by appointment) via a vote of at least several hundred thousand people. This tells you about all you need to know about the likelihood of intelligence in the making of such policies.

so naive

[pz]

This is either astonishingly naive, or propaganda. I can't quite figure out which.

From the US Government, I would believe naivete, given any of a large collection of equivalent moves that are demonstrably idiotic.

From Google, I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to understand the very many ways that IP-based restrictions can be circumvented by anyone more talented than a sixth -- no, wait -- fourth grader. This is Google we're talking about who have brought us a large number of amazing things that require lots and lots of smarts to implement, and "Hey Muhammed, go to the internet cafe around the corner with this laptop and download Google Earth, please, the US pigs have blocked our government IP address," is something that will occur to the people there. So, Google must be doing this with a wink in order to either further some political agenda, or increase their customer base. Since I am not aware of any political agenda, I'm leaning toward greed. Propaganda either way.

So naivite from the US, and propaganda from Google. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?

Re:so naive

[oodaloop]

I would sooner believe this is just a palatable compromise to some govt officials. Plenty of people in the US govt know about proxies, since we, um, use them ourselves. But perhaps members of congress don't realize how easy it is to circumvent, so it sounds pretty good to them. So we get to look like we're taking a hard line against Iran, without actually having to take a hard line.

Re:so naive

[Krneki]

Bla bla bla bla ..... more non-sense.

Except from IP address, do you know any other way to block someone from accessing your web resources?

Re:so naive

[dragonhunter21]

Maybe Google intended this fix to be useless so the Iranians would be able to get access to this software. Google is a pretty savvy company, and they are pretty good when it comes to freedom on the internet. Create a cheap way to sneak around the export ban, knowing that the ban just adds an extra jump to accessing the software (How was it blocked before? Regional IP blocking from the download sites? Solve that with a VPN or proxy, too).

Re:so naive

[Quantum Jim]

I concur. The export restrictions are frankly ridiculous in this case. If they wanted to, the Iranian government could just send someone to US to download Google's software for free. If Iran can import centrifuges to purify Uranium, they can surely use proxies to download the software directly too (spoofing their country of origin). It's probably a face-saving gesture for he more "senile" members of congress.

Indeed, Google says they worked with US government officials before releasing the software with these restrictions according to TFA. They believe that releasing the software to Iranians will help promote the flow of information and help them exercise more freedom of speech and assembly, as shown in during protests of the 2009 election in Iran. Someone in the US government probably thinks so too.

Re:so naive

[gnieboer]

But how embarrassing is it to how to leave the secure nuclear targeting center facility with cool security, fancy badges, and lots of plasma screen TV's, and have to leave to go to some random coffee stop to get imagery of Tel Aviv...

Re:so naive

[santax]

Do you have evidence of what you are stating? This is very easy: hi this is my personal believe, if you can't disprove it, it must be true. Are you a religious person by any chance?

Re:so naive

[pz]

I would sooner believe this is just a palatable compromise to some govt officials. Plenty of people in the US govt know about proxies, since we, um, use them ourselves. But perhaps members of congress don't realize how easy it is to circumvent, so it sounds pretty good to them. So we get to look like we're taking a hard line against Iran, without actually having to take a hard line.

Proxies are a difficult concept. Taking your laptop to a different location (home, cafe, friend's work) is easy since, I'd wager, most people with laptops already do it. While laptops might not be quite as ubiquitous in Middle Eastern governments than in the US government, I'd expect to see enough of them to effectively neuter this restriction. And that's for the naive politicians who have never heard of a proxy. Motivated IT folks are another matter entirely.

I was in Istanbul (technically not the Middle East, but close enough for the current argument) about ten years ago, and, at the local market there, was able to purchase pre-release versions of all of the latest western-authored software for the equivalent of USD 1 per CD (USD 2 per DVD, if memory serves). Not the current released versions (those were available too), but alpha and beta versions of unreleased packages from Adobe, AutoDesk, Microsoft, etc. This is from young Turkish kids motivated only by pocket money. I'd expect even more from a professional Iranian governmental IT staff motivated by their superiors.

So, now I'm leaning even further away from naivete and toward propaganda.

Re:so naive

[blueg3]

It was already downloadable software. It's roughly as inaccessible to the Iranian government as it was before, but now more accessible to Iranian non-government.

Re:so naive

[Draek]

Propaganda is refusing to spend time and resources on enforcing an idiotic law of the US government, passed only for political reasons?

Good fucking lord, the Google haters around here are becoming as bad as the "M$" crowd.

Re:so naive

[tukang]

Maybe Google and the government are smart enough to realize that blocking Iranian government IPs is just as effective as blocking all Iranian IPs - in other words it's not effective at all.

Do you honestly think that if anyone in the Iranian government wanted access to Google Earth, that they weren't able to get it? There are a ton of responses to this very story about how one could easily use a proxy to circumvent the IP blocking, well guess what, that was also possible before.

If anything the ban was naive.

Re:so naive

[Verunks]

well google obviously doesn't care to implement this restriction properly, and since ip blocking is enough to satisfy the us government why would they waste time doing something else?
also google earth needs to be connected to google server at all the time so just downloading it from an internet cafe won't work

Re:so naive

[oodaloop]

I don't think merely downloading it from somewhere else would work for GE. GE connects back to the Google Earth server, so Google can still block it from being used, as in they have the program but it doesn't do anything. A simple proxy should still work though.

Re:so naive

[Rich0]

Well, Google has to follow the law, and so they are following it. I doubt they really care much either way - if the regulator says that some completely meaningless but simple to implement control is satisfactory, why would Google argue with them over it?

Lots of countries actually have these kinds of laws on the books. They're mostly a matter of national pride or sending a message.

I know a guy who was working for a fortune 500 company and was setting up a plant in asia. They had a budget code for bribes. Why? Simple - the country forbid (on the books) the import of any device containing parts made in japan. They needed to import high-end laboratory equipment with computer controllers. There are probably three vendors making this type of equipment in total, and the number making ones without ANY parts from Japan is zero.

The solution was simple - just bribe the customs official a nominal amount to not check the chips/etc inside.

The local government didn't really care. They were just still upset about WWII, but they certainly cared about jobs and a big foreign plant more than national pride. Forcing companies to stoop to bribes satisfied their need to stick it to their former occupier and insult the Japanese government, and in the end the plant got built with the equipment it needed and employed lots of locals. The bribes were such a token amount that the company didn't care about them either. It was all about saving face, which matters in Asia.

This law is just the US version of the same. Now, in the US bribes are not considered a customary part of doing business. Instead, the process is to make companies go through a lot of hassle and delay and to make them fill out 40,000 forms, and make a few design changes. In the end the deal still goes through, and the insult necessary for national diplomacy was delivered.

Re:so naive

[_Sprocket_]

This is either astonishingly naive, or propaganda. I can't quite figure out which.

Why does it have to be naivety or propaganda?

I'm pretty confident that are any number of levels involved where there are people technically savvy enough to introduced the myriad of ways to get around IP address restrictions. It's possible we have a case of willful ignorance over-riding these knowledgeable people (which wouldn't be the first time in Government or any bureaucracy). But more likely it just isn't an issue - or an issue big enough to warrent concern. So then the question is why the lack of concern. We know the reason for any concern is export restrictions and, by extension, the politics of Iran. It is possible that the applications in question meet the letter of the law but have been determined to not pose the kind of threat that the law is attempting to curtail. In that case, it isn't entirely uncommon for bureaucrats to take token actions to meet the letter of the law to allow otherwise restricted behavior.

Re:so naive

[Fastolfe]

You're misunderstanding what happened here and completely missing the point.

The IP blocking isn't Google's clever solution to circumvent US export controls. The sanctions in question here were lifted by the US government, and the new export controls require this IP blocking. Please read at least something beyond the summary.

Second, the goal here is to get tools for sharing and communication in the hands of the Iranian people, to give them more options the next time their government decides to restrict access to information. Who the fuck cares that the government can find a way to use these apps too? That's not the point.

Re:so naive

[sdh]

Not be to too naive, but how do you think they were previously blocking iranian access?

Most likely the government 4th graders were already using foriegn proxies for whatever ultra secret things the "Axis of Evil" is working on these days. Now they can steal wifi from the coffe shop across the street or the private DSL line installed in their bunker.

If you felt more safe before reading this you're the naive one.

Re:so naive

[MacGyver2210]

Well I'd tend to agree, but the sixth - no fourth graders there don't have Google yet to look up how to use a Proxy.

Don't assume all countries are as technologically savvy and inundated as the US.

Re:so naive

[oodaloop]

Proxies are a difficult concept.

For the Iranian government? Really?

And using a laptop to access it won't do much good. You need to connect to the GE server in order to stream the imagery and various layers. They could theoretically set up their own GE server, but they're not cheap. A proxy for Iranian government employees to access GE from work would be the easiest solution, and well within their capability. This may be "propaganda", but to whom remains the question.

Re:so naive

[jc42]

Bla bla bla bla ..... more non-sense.

Except from IP address, do you know any other way to block someone from accessing your web resources?

Except from IP address, do you know any other way to block someone from accessing your web resources?

Yeah, use cookies. ;-)

No, seriously; 99% of the Web's users have never deleted a cookie, and wouldn't know how to do it.

There are growing problems with IP address as an ID number, and not just because we're running out of them. For the last few years, in the US and Europe at least, most "computer" sales have been portables. First laptops, then smaller versions with slightly different names, then tablets and "smart phones". These move around and change their IP address frequently as a result, sometimes on a minute-by-minute basis. My wife has an iPhone and I have a G1; web testing on both of them quickly showed that successive HTTP requests from them often come from different IP addresses, even when they're sitting still on the desk. So with smart-phones (and probably tablets), the IP address can't even be used short-term to identify a session; it changes on a timescale of seconds. This is using their cell-phone wireless, not wi-fi, of course. But if they use wi-fi, they have the same IP address as the desktop machines in our house. IP address can't be used to distinguish machines behind NAT.

OTOH, my wife has an iMac, on which she has installed virtualization software so she can run MS Windows "for work". The OSX part of her machine accesses the Internet via the above IP address, while the Windows part connects via VPN to work, and has an address from her office's NAT gateway. So that machine has two unrelated IP addresses. This is fairly common in the telecommuting world. It looks and acts like two unrelated machines at two unrelated physical locations. That's what VPN does; it's not a fluke.

There's no chance of any of this changing, until we switch over to IPv6. We should've done this 10 years ago, and it has happened in much of academia, but probably won't happen in the "public" Internet until the business world is dragged kicking and screaming onto IPv6. There's a good chance that nobody alive now will live to see IPv4 phased out.

So cookies are your best bet. I'll let someone else list all the reasons why that doesn't work so well. Any experienced web developer can give you the details.

Re:so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Google have made a deal allowing certain organisations in the US to mine data collected from Iran in exchange for being able to supply their software there. There is the expectation that the Iranian government will get around the ip blocks and useful information will be gathered from their use of Google's product suite.

Re:so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

They (US Govt and Google, and neither are naive) are providing the means to more easily assist the "common" person in the street for "mass uprisings" and "revolutions", at the same time making it less easy for the Iranian Gov't structure to utilize them. The small time gap is all that's needed in the digital age of overnight 'revolutions'. How many of these color revolutions were really organized and funded by the CIA and their NGO fronts...? and the new tools they use now to help facilitate this....social networking, cell phones, and I can only imagine giving the masses access to digital mapping capabilities is just another way to assist mobilizing regime change. Is it easy to work around...? yes I'm sure it is....but not on a scale and in time to stop the US/UK/Israel from organizing the easily manipulated and destabilizing the current system.

That’s the game...strip away all the ideology and rhetoric....whoever can organize (physically, psychologically, and economically) and prevent any others from forming any unity themselves, will always hold a position of power relative to all others....no matter the slogan they are trying to sell us.

This is an ongoing refinement and evolution of earlier social manipulation techniques.....now updated using to the tools of the digital age and moving at much faster rates.

This is from the book 'Full Spectrum Dominance' by F. William Engdahl:

'Washington perfects a method for staging coups'

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections. - Ian Traynor, London Guardian, Nov 26, 2004

In the year 2000, a strange new political phenomenon emerged in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia. Although it appeared seemingly out of the blue, it signaled a change in the course of US covert warfare. On the surface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement'. In reality, it was the product of techniques that had been under study and development in the US for decades. The RAND Corporation's military strategists had been analyzing the patters of successful political protest movements such as the 1968 student uprising in Paris. They characterized the techniques as 'swarming' because they were decentralized but connected, like a swarm of bees.

In Belgrade, several specific organizations were key players: the National Endowment for Democracy and two of its offshoots, the National Republican Institute, tied to the Republican Party, and the National Democratic Institute, tied to the Democrats. While claiming to be private NGO's, they were, in fact, financed by the US Congress and State Department. Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars, they were moved into place to create a synthetic movement for 'non-violent change'.

Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs, provided a first-hand description of what took place in Belgrade.

In a softly lit conference room, American pollster Doug Schoen flashed the results of an in-depth opinion poll of 840 Serbian voters onto an overhead projection screen, sketching a strategy for toppling Europe's last remaining communist-era ruler.

His message, delivered to leaders of Serbia's traditionally fractious opposition, was simple and powerful. Slobadan Milosevic- survivor of four lost wars, two major street uprisings, 78 days of NATO bombing and a decade of international sanctions-was "completely vulnerable" to a well-organized electoral challenge. The key, the poll results showed, was opposition unity......

Dobbs reported that the United States government had 'bought' the removal of Milosevic for $41 million. The operation was run out of the offices of the US ambassador Miles, he reported, with specially trained agents coordinating networks of naive students who were convinced they were fighting for a better world, the 'American way of life'.

Re:so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

They (US Govt and Google, and neither are naive) are providing the means to more easily assist the "common" person in the street for "mass uprisings" and "revolutions", at the same time making it less easy for the Iranian Gov't structure to utilize them. The small time gap is all that's needed in the digital age of overnight 'revolutions'. How many of these color revolutions were really organized and funded by the CIA and their NGO fronts...? and the new tools they use now to help facilitate this....social networking, cell phones, and I can only imagine giving the masses access to digital mapping capabilities is just another way to assist mobilizing regime change. Is it easy to work around...? yes I'm sure it is....but not on a scale and in time to stop the US/UK/Israel from organizing the easily manipulated and destabilizing the current system.

That’s the game...strip away all the ideology and rhetoric....whoever can organize (physically, psychologically, and economically) and prevent any others from forming any unity themselves, will always hold a position of power relative to all others....no matter the slogan they are trying to sell us.

This is an ongoing refinement and evolution of earlier social manipulation techniques.....now updated using to the tools of the digital age and moving at much faster rates.

This is from the book 'Full Spectrum Dominance' by F. William Engdahl:

'Washington perfects a method for staging coups'

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections. - Ian Traynor, London Guardian, Nov 26, 2004

In the year 2000, a strange new political phenomenon emerged in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia. Although it appeared seemingly out of the blue, it signaled a change in the course of US covert warfare. On the surface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement'. In reality, it was the product of techniques that had been under study and development in the US for decades. The RAND Corporation's military strategists had been analyzing the patters of successful political protest movements such as the 1968 student uprising in Paris. They characterized the techniques as 'swarming' because they were decentralized but connected, like a swarm of bees.

In Belgrade, several specific organizations were key players: the National Endowment for Democracy and two of its offshoots, the National Republican Institute, tied to the Republican Party, and the National Democratic Institute, tied to the Democrats. While claiming to be private NGO's, they were, in fact, financed by the US Congress and State Department. Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars, they were moved into place to create a synthetic movement for 'non-violent change'.

Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs, provided a first-hand description of what took place in Belgrade.

In a softly lit conference room, American pollster Doug Schoen flashed the results of an in-depth opinion poll of 840 Serbian voters onto an overhead projection screen, sketching a strategy for toppling Europe's last remaining communist-era ruler.

His message, delivered to leaders of Serbia's traditionally fractious opposition, was simple and powerful. Slobadan Milosevic- survivor of four lost wars, two major street uprisings, 78 days of NATO bombing and a decade of international sanctions-was "completely vulnerable" to a well-organized electoral challenge. The key, the poll results showed, was opposition unity......

Dobbs reported that the United States government had 'bought' the removal of Milosevic for $41 million. The operation was run out of the offices of the US ambassador Miles, he reported, with specially trained agents coordinating networks of naive students who were convinced they were fighting for a better world, the 'American way of life'.

Re:so naive

[jcbk2050]

They (US Govt and Google, and neither are naive) are providing the means to more easily assist the "common" person in the street for "mass uprisings" and "revolutions", at the same time making it less easy for the Iranian Gov't structure to utilize them. The small time gap is all that's needed in the digital age of overnight 'revolutions'. How many of these color revolutions were really organized and funded by the CIA and their NGO fronts...? and the new tools they use now to help facilitate this....social networking, cell phones, and I can only imagine giving the masses access to digital mapping capabilities is just another way to assist mobilizing regime change. Is it easy to work around...? yes I'm sure it is....but not on a scale and in time to stop the US/UK/Israel from organizing the easily manipulated and destabilizing the current system.

That’s the game...strip away all the ideology and rhetoric....whoever can organize (physically, psychologically, and economically) and prevent any others from forming any unity themselves, will always hold a position of power relative to all others....no matter the slogan they are trying to sell us.

This is an ongoing refinement and evolution of earlier social manipulation techniques.....now updated using to the tools of the digital age and moving at much faster rates.

This is from the book 'Full Spectrum Dominance' by F. William Engdahl:

'Washington perfects a method for staging coups'

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections. - Ian Traynor, London Guardian, Nov 26, 2004

In the year 2000, a strange new political phenomenon emerged in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia. Although it appeared seemingly out of the blue, it signaled a change in the course of US covert warfare. On the surface, it seemed to be a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement'. In reality, it was the product of techniques that had been under study and development in the US for decades. The RAND Corporation's military strategists had been analyzing the patters of successful political protest movements such as the 1968 student uprising in Paris. They characterized the techniques as 'swarming' because they were decentralized but connected, like a swarm of bees.

In Belgrade, several specific organizations were key players: the National Endowment for Democracy and two of its offshoots, the National Republican Institute, tied to the Republican Party, and the National Democratic Institute, tied to the Democrats. While claiming to be private NGO's, they were, in fact, financed by the US Congress and State Department. Armed with millions in US taxpayer dollars, they were moved into place to create a synthetic movement for 'non-violent change'.

Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs, provided a first-hand description of what took place in Belgrade.

In a softly lit conference room, American pollster Doug Schoen flashed the results of an in-depth opinion poll of 840 Serbian voters onto an overhead projection screen, sketching a strategy for toppling Europe's last remaining communist-era ruler.

His message, delivered to leaders of Serbia's traditionally fractious opposition, was simple and powerful. Slobadan Milosevic- survivor of four lost wars, two major street uprisings, 78 days of NATO bombing and a decade of international sanctions-was "completely vulnerable" to a well-organized electoral challenge. The key, the poll results showed, was opposition unity......

Dobbs reported that the United States government had 'bought' the removal of Milosevic for $41 million. The operation was run out of the offices of the US ambassador Miles, he reported, with specially trained agents coordinating networks of naive students who were convinced they were fighting for a better world, the 'American way of life'.

impeding company drain from US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually I suppose companies should become so frustrated about US intervention that they simply pack up and leave the USA for greener pastures.

Is Ahmadinejad a good dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

May sound weird, but read up at http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/do-we-have-ahmadinejad-all-wrong/69434/

According to a U.S. diplomatic cable recently published by WikiLeaks, Ahmadinejad, despite all of his tough talk and heated speeches about Iran's right to a nuclear program, fervently supported the Geneva arrangement, which would have left Iran without enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. But, inside the often opaque Tehran government, he was thwarted from pursuing the deal by politicians on both the right and the left who saw the agreement as a "defeat" for the country and who viewed Ahmadinejad as, in the words of Ali Larijani, the conservative Speaker of the Majles, "fooled by the Westerners."

The expression "wipe from the map" means "destroy" in English but not in Farsi. In Farsi, it means not that Israel should be eliminated but that the existing political borders should literally be wiped from a literal map and replaced with those of historic Palestine. That's still not something likely to win him cheers in U.S. policy circles, but the distinction, which has been largely lost from the West's understanding of the Iranian president, is important.

Re:Is Ahmadinejad a good dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw that article too. Very interesting.

Stupid and a waste of money/time.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty good example of how people outside IT get fooled. They don't have a $#!&*^% clue.

now we have a list...

[buanzo]

... of irani government devices and computers. good , iran. your policies are clearly pro-freedom... indirectly! :D

Your sig... ironic, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

And what does calling someone a "libertard" means?

Re:Your sig... ironic, isn't it?

[mjwx]

Alanis Morissette, I didn't know you posted on slashdot.

Here's the definition of irony, there's nothing about hating Libertarians in my post, that is entirely a projection of your own making.

Secondly, I find libertarianism retarded because it doesn't work in reality. It's based on outdated economic models, ignores the fact that power corrupts and tends to centralise (I.E. a perfectly free market will result in the ideal breeding ground for monopolies) and fails to address how it will actually fix a given issue, yet "libertards" propose that removing restrictions that prevent this is the way to fix problems. It seems I'm supposed to put faith into the free market which has a long history of abuses, Libertarians rarely think about the consequences of their ideology.

citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[gnieboer]

Let's make a huge assumptions that this IP restriction actually works...

What must it be like to download and use a piece of software that you can use but your own government isn't allowed to use? Takes a way some of the perception of the gov'ts power I'd imagine. A bit emasculating even. Which of course might be the reason the USG is allowing this to proceed. A sanction that is truly against the government, not the people.

Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.

Re:citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[should_be_linear]

Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.

I see, so the main goal of US government is democracy in Iran... that definitely explains many weird things they do! And begs other questions... like whats wrong with democracy in Israel (with citizens being divided by religion they practice (!) to more and less equal) and/or occupied Palestine, and why it is so uninsteresting for that same US government?

Re:citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[Securityemo]

I assume the government/security forces of Iran uses whatever software they damn well please. Propaganda is for the people, after all, not the "inner party".

Re:citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[Rich0]

As you say, this is basically just an insult to the Iranian government. Nobody really cares if people can use Chrome or Google Earth or whatever - they're pretty harmless apps (or at least so ubiquitous that it makes no difference - like a ban on the sale of BBs or whatever).

No doubt the Iranian government can get their hands on this. However, they have to jump through hoops at the whim of the US State Department, and everybody on the planet knows it.

Re:citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[Fastolfe]

Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.

Probably not directly, but if you recall the protests following the last Iranian election, hopefully you remember the behavior of the Iranian government and how vital the Internet, cell phones, and software for publishing and sharing content were in getting information in the hands of the Iranian people, and giving the rest of the world news about what was happening inside Iran. Software is a critical part of communication when traditional means of doing so are heavily controlled by the government.

Re:citizens can use but the gov't can't...

[monsterinlaw]

Interestingly enough last month that I was back home in Iran, I wanted to install Chrome on my sister's computer and I got the message that it's not possible to download it in Iran. Of course I bypassed this by using a VPN connection. Nevertheless I've always wondered why on earth doesn't the US government comprehend that by doing this, its actually the ordinary Iranian user that is sacrificed here not the Iranian president nor the leader nor the head of IRGC. In fact, my sister was using an old version of IE (you know even if you have the licensed version of Windows the updates are not provided to you for the same stupid reason). and that caused her Facebook account to be hijacked. Thanks to the oil money, our dictator governors have access to the most strategic industrial and military equipments; now the US government thinks by restricting access to Chrome or Gmail they'll be troubled ? What a joke.

Capitalism is essential to democracy

[mangu]

Funny on that travel advice on Cuba... Cuba has one of the world's lowest crime rates.

Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?

So, let me get this straight: you do not believe what the US government says about Cuba, but you do believe what the Cuban government says about themselves?

At least, in the USA if the government says something and someone disagrees he can find a privtely funded paper to publish his version of the facts.

Cuba could have the highest or the lowest crime rate in the world, it doesn't matter since the only version that will be published there is the government's.

You can have a dictatorship with a capitalistic economic system, but no democracy has ever survived very long without capitalism. You cannot have an opposition when the government is the only supplier for everything. Try to publish a paper where you have to buy all your ink, paper, printing presses, everything, from the government.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[I8TheWorm]

Are you honing in on one link? Most of the information is based on other observations of Cuba and crime.

The general consensus is most actual crime there is theft related and not violent.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[icebraining]

you do believe what the Cuban government says about themselves?

Have you read parent's links? From the second:

Official crime statistics are not published by the Cuban government, but reporting by American citizens and other foreign travelers indicates that the majority of incidents are non-violent and theft-related - i.e., pick-pocketing, purse snatching, or the taking of unattended / valuable items.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[gmuslera]

Democracy is essential to democracy, stop. But with high enough numbers of people don't matter if government controls the media or the "interest groups" control both media and government, in both cases the average public opinion will be whatever they say. Maybe the difference between media controlling government and capitalism is that the controlling ones want power in the first case, and all your money in the second, but in neither of them you are truly free, and im not so sure which is the worst.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[mangu]

don't matter if government controls the media or the "interest groups" control both media and government, in both cases the average public opinion will be whatever they say.

What you say is that democracy is impossible because people are so easy to manipulate. It doesn't matter which system you have, there will always be people who are better than others to manipulate opinions, you just have to live with that.

Democracy is not about the government doing what *I* think is right, but what the majority of the people think is right. Public opinion is volatile, that's correct, but this does not mean that everybody who manipulates public opinion is a dictator.

in neither of them you are truly free, and im not so sure which is the worst.

I'm truly free in a libertarian capitalistic system, one where the market is as free as possible. I'm free to do exactly as I want, but my actions might be constrained by other people.

For example, I run Linux in my computer. Microsoft does its best to have no computers in the world running Linux. They succeeded in eliminating Linux from netbooks. Was Microsoft's action against my interests? Certainly. Was Asus' action in eliminating Linux from their computers against my interests? Certainly. Was any of those actions undemocratic in any way? Certainly not.

I'm conscious that my opinion may be different from the majority and I'm ready to live with the consequences of that. It's in the best interest of any major corporation to cater mostly to what the majority of the people are willing to buy, no one is forced to produce something customized to my taste.

A truly free society is not one in which everyone has a different opinion on everything. A truly free society is one in which everyone *may* have a different opinion from anyone else on any topic.

In the end, you either have a legally free system, where everyone can do as they wish, even if they do exactly what everyone else is doing, or you have a legally contrained society, where everyone has to follow rules. In this case, there's an additional contraint in who makes the rules.

I have absolutely no doubt that the free system is infinitely better. You may feel in your smug superiority that the stupid masses are swayed this way or that by the clever manipulators, but in the end if you believe that you don't truly believe in democracy. You are just resentful that you aren't one of the manipulators.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[endymion.nz]

You can have a dictatorship with a capitalistic economic system, but no democracy has ever survived very long without capitalism.

While you're on the subject, you actually can't have a true democracy as long as the political process is open to influence by money.

Re:Capitalism is essential to democracy

[mjwx]

You can have a dictatorship with a capitalistic economic system, but no democracy has ever survived very long without capitalism.

I think you're confusing capitalism with freedom, part of which is economic freedom (I.E. the ability to spend as you see fit). Capitalism is not necessarily required for this goal. Whilst we may be talking semantics, capitalism is definitely the wrong word. There are very successful socialist democracies or democracies that have socialist elements, socialism isn't opposed to economic freedom (that's communism), real world application of socialism just moves a cost from an individual to a community as a whole and for things like health care this reduces cost to the individual, for other things it's completely unsuitable.

Freedom is the essential part to a successful democracy, freedom of information is paramount. You'll notice that dictatorships and bad democracies, be they capitalist, communist or anywhere in between tend to restrict the flow of information long before economic freedoms.

Re:Cop

[TaoPhoenix]

Right, that's the big problem with that rather aggressive video about "don't talk to the cops". If you beeline right for the formalities the cop will get pissed and cite you for something. From what I've seen they wait until they have a backup excuse in hand before pulling you over.

Re:Raaargh

[TaoPhoenix]

Be careful. Someone might have a copyright on that spelling of Raaargh. The Gaelic version might be available though.

GaelicZilla!

Re:Sweden

[TaoPhoenix]

If they don't watch out they could end up in a Gunther video.

Seems like a popular thing to do

[glwtta]

Good thing the export restrictions were lifted, I seem to remember a story from the other day about the US government "releasing software" to Iran.

Message on the roof

[snspdaarf]

When I put new shingles on my roof, I spelled out "Fuck you, Ahmedinejad" (It's a long house). Glad to see this was not a waste of time and effort.

Re:Message on the roof

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling Ahmedinejad from your own roof, now that's real guts. Me being an AC I would have used a proxy roof (probably my old gym teachers)

Yeah, that'll fool 'em...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, all targets of jihadic interest inside the conterminous United States geocode to either a three-hole outhouse in Bumfracked, Nebraska, or to a prairie dog colony near the suburbs of Morwives, Utah.

In related news

[ViperOrel]

New virus infects all government computers in Iran which tried running Google software. (Could this be a clever cover for why Iran Gov. IPs are in the exe's of the software?)

As if the Iranian government

[mysidia]

lacks the resources to circumvent a blacklist of government IP space.

Hell, the Iranian gov't probably can easily circumvent a blacklisting of all Iranian IP space. How? Ever heard of a tunnel or VPN?

Just it time ...

[PPH]

... for them to take one last look at Bushehr with Google Earth before the Israeli air strike.

US Export Control Regulations

[dtmos]

In the US, export control is regulated by the Bureau of Industry and Security, a division of the Department of Commerce. The list of controlled technologies is here; see the relevant "Category" at the bottom of the page.

Note that "export" has a specific definition that includes "technology", and one may violate these regulations by merely telling a foreign national of the "wrong" country about a controlled technology, even if both of you are inside the US: Actual transport of a physical object across a national border is not required to violate these regulations.

DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I am sure the government cannot set up a proxy at a home, or order a DSL, or just tell an ISP to give a proxy.... or just make the whois look like it belonged to a private home ....

Either way, they could have easily done it before if they wanted.

On the other hand, the effort is good in a sense, that it provides a cool and useful service to the people... so I do not mean to flame....

+Funny

[handy_vandal]

Made me laugh!

also for GoogleCode

[Emil_and_the_Detecti]

Does anyone know if that means the GoogleCode is now available to Iran too?

Re:also for GoogleCode

[kavehmz]

No, it is blocked, same situations.

Re:also for GoogleCode

[Emil_and_the_Detecti]

oh those or no good news :( Anyhow I think its ridiculous as people from Iran quite good know how to use software like torproject.org (or any other proxy that makes google think they do not come from Iran).

Another example of...

[Anonymous Coward]

... how US foreign policy in the Middle East fails to fully understand the region:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111167156465567.html

Whew!

[sean.peters]

I'm sure glad we blocked all those Iranian gov't IP addresses from accessing this hideously dangerous military technology. Because Iranian gov't officials would never, I don't know, go home and look at those sites from their home machines, right? RIGHT???

Wow, FCPA

[sean.peters]

Not sure when this occurred, but did the guy ever hear of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977? It specifically outlaws that kind of thing, and penalties can be exceptionally severe.

Re:Wow, FCPA

[Rich0]

No doubt they got a foreign national to do the bribing or whatever. No doubt the senior executives just told their subordinates to "get things done" and "don't bother me with the details" (wink, wink) so that anybody who could be held accountable has plausible deniability.

These kinds of laws are routinely violated and bribes are routinely given in many Asian countries. You simply can't get work done otherwise.

Sure, changing the laws is the "right" thing to do - and you can go ahead and get started on that while your competitors all just pay bribes.

I recall reading in Chemical and Engineering News that a decade ago (and perhaps still today) smuggling was a primary method of commerce in China. We aren't talking about guys stowing boxes in small boats - we're talking about supertankers. As long as you're not doing anything dangerous/etc nobody in government cares as long as you hand the proper bribes to the appropriate officials. If you try to do things the "right" way you'll end up with your cargo in customs for a year just due to red tape.

I do fully support the intent of the FCPA. The problem is that it wasn't really written with some foreign practices in mind. There are a lot of countries out there where laws exist with no real intent to enforce them.

Re:Wow, FCPA

[sean.peters]

No doubt they got a foreign national to do the bribing or whatever.

Still illegal. It absolutely boggles my mind that they have a "charge code for bribes". At least in the defense contracting world, you get audited by the DCAA periodically, and something like that would be like sticking a "please arrest me" sign on your back.

No doubt the senior executives just told their subordinates to "get things done" and "don't bother me with the details" (wink, wink) so that anybody who could be held accountable has plausible deniability.

Dude, when you have a charge code for bribes, plausible deniability ain't so plausible. And once the cops start to make the subordinate sweat, he's going to give up the senior guys pretty easily.

These kinds of laws are routinely violated and bribes are routinely given in many Asian countries.

In my industry, that kind of thing would be detected, reported, and a huge fine and potential disbarment from government contracting would be in the offing. Not sure what business you're in, but it wouldn't fly in mine. And I know it's not just window dressing - our contracts department seriously, seriously sweats compliance with this, and I can't believe they would if enforcement was an empty threat.

Re:Wow, FCPA

[Rich0]

My friend wasn't working for a government contractor, so I doubt they were audited.

And who knows, perhaps the charge code for bribes was labeled "extra pencils" or whatever.

Don't get me wrong - companies shouldn't work this way, and they shouldn't have to work this way. Perhaps they no longer do - I got the impression that this dated back at least a fair bit - the 90s at the latest.

I'm having a hard time with this

[sean.peters]

If you wanted to get the tools into the hands of the Iranian people, and didn't care if the Iranian government also got them; the thing to do would be just to grant Google a waiver, not force them to build a stupid IP block into the software. The fact that they did force them to put in the IP block inescapably leads to the conclusion that the export control authority thought it would work. Which is, in fact, pretty damn naive.

Re:I'm having a hard time with this

[Fastolfe]

Or Google figured it was easier to just add a few lines to a firewall config someplace than attempt to deal with the bureaucracy of getting an export control exemption? You're assuming the path of least resistance is to open the software up to the government of Iran, and I rather suspect it's not.

It depends on the technology

[sean.peters]

"Dual-use" technology - that which has a civilian purpose, but could also be pressed into military service (e.g. the insecticide factory that could also produce nerve gas) - is regulated by Commerce under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Strictly military technology is regulated by State under International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). But yes - simply talking to a foreign national about a military technology, if it's more information than can be publicly obtained, is considered "exporting" technical information. You can get busted for it.

Re:It depends on the technology

[dtmos]

It's not necessary that the technology be a military technology -- even dual-use technologies can land you in the slammer if you tell them to a person of the wrong nationality.

A lot of people (not necessarily you, sean.peters) think that dual-use technologies can be disclosed to anyone, and it's only with the military technologies that one must be careful. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the most innocuous-sounding technologies -- describing how to make microprocessors "rated for operation at an ambient temperature above 398 K (125C) (3A001.a.2.a)," for example -- are a controlled technology.

Why?

[Chicken_Kickers]

This. I find it puzzling why Americans (I assume you are one) have an overwhelming need to personalize their enemy. Don't they know that by doing so, they give power and recognition to the very people they don't like. Ahmedinejad, like your own Presidents is beholden to the real powers behind the curtain. He is there merely as the puppet and spokesperson. This is true in most democratic countries too and ironically, the only time when the head of government can really be said to speak for himself is when he is a tin-pot dictator for life or an absolute monarch. I also don't understand the need for many Americans to have a nemesis. First it was the Communists, then the Russians, then the Iranians, then the Arabs, and now the Chinese. I know the Chinese is now the the enemy du jour because new FPS games now have Chinese armies as the antagonists instead of Arab terrorists.

It's unconstitutional

[mangu]

One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there.

In some places people have always been considered suspicious if they have a flat nose, dark skin, and curly hair. 9/11 or no 9/11, that's against the constitution. A police officer cannot pull a car over if there is no probable cause for it. He cannot ask for your ID without probable cause.

The way police officers routinely act today in the USA is like Osama has won. He has terrorized a whole nation for ten years now. It's time to stop that bullshit. Th only problem is how. Any ideas?

Re:It's unconstitutional

[I8TheWorm]

Just one. We find an abandoned platform mistakenly placed just outside of coastal jurisdiction and call it Sealand.

Crap, it's been done.

This is really absurd...

[monsterinlaw]

Interestingly enough last month that I was back home in Iran, I wanted to install Chrome on my sister's computer and I got the message that it's not possible to download it in Iran. Of course I bypassed this by using a VPN connection. Nevertheless I've always wondered why on earth doesn't the US government comprehend that by doing this, its actually the ordinary Iranian user that is sacrificed here not the Iranian president nor the leader nor the head of IRGC. In fact, my sister was using an old version of IE (you know even if you have the licensed version of Windows the updates are not provided to you for the same stupid reason). and that caused her Facebook account to be hijacked. Thanks to the oil money, our dictator governors have access to the most strategic industrial and military equipments; now the US government thinks by restricting access to Chrome or Gmail they'll be troubled ? What a joke.

Far from bein Evil

[kavehmz]

Google show sign of not being an evil company. I like Google and cheers to them. When I see this, I know their decision for dropping H.264 to support WebM is a pure decision and despite of Suspiciously High number of posts in internet that Google is trying to be evil! They are not.