Saudi Arabia Set To Ban WhatsApp, Skype

Not in the land of the Free by hamvil · 2013-06-16 19:20 · Score: 0, Troll

Of course this could never happen in the land of the free

Re:Not in the land of the Free by kaptink · 2013-06-16 19:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

What is this land you speak of?

--
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by davester666 · 2013-06-16 19:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

Finland.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Not in the land of the Free by hamvil · 2013-06-16 19:45 · Score: 2

Any land where people consider themselves free. Free of governments breaking into their privacy, free of corporations tracking their movements, free of being considered guilty until proven innocent. Fell free to run a filter on this planet's countries and check if there is any match.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by LQ · 2013-06-16 20:30 · Score: 5, Funny

There's a very old joke.
Hijacker: take this plane to a free country.
Pilot: this is a airliner, not a fucking spaceship.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by rasmusbr · 2013-06-16 20:53 · Score: 2

Of course this could never happen in the land of the free
Well, that's true, it couldn't. Freedom is being able to be wiretapped in whichever app or service you chose...
Privacy, by the way, is the right to keep a lawful secret between you and the government.
I'm not the first one to point this out, but sometimes wonder if one way to read the two most famous dystopian novels is to read Brave New World as a prequel to 1984.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by hamvil · 2013-06-16 21:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Privacy, by the way, is the right to keep a lawful secret between you and the government.
No, it is not. Privacy is the right to decide what to expose and to whom to expose it. Governments should find proof of unlawful behavior without having to break into an individual privacy sphere. I'm sure that with 24/7 surveillance we could find a lot of illegal behaviors such as . This does not mean that a gov of a free country should do it.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by CrackedButter · 2013-06-16 22:20 · Score: 1

Iceland.

--
Jonathanjk.com
Re:Not in the land of the Free by jonfr · 2013-06-16 23:16 · Score: 0

No, Finland is not free. They are under Copyright dictatorship.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 01:42 · Score: 1

I believe the parent was speaking ironically in both of his first two lines. Woosh.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-06-17 05:45 · Score: 1

What is this land you speak of?
U \ {Earth} ?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Not in the land of the Free by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-06-17 06:00 · Score: 1

Privacy is the right to decide what to expose and to whom to expose it.
Well, that clashes with obscenity in the general case.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Not in the land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 07:57 · Score: 0

Dictated by whom, exactly?
Re:Not in the land of the Free by jonfr · 2013-06-17 08:10 · Score: 1

I am not sure of the local MPAA/RIAA sock puppet name is in Finland.
Re:Not in the land of the Free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-18 15:07 · Score: 0

how the fuck is this insightful, u fucking troll moderators

kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 19:23 · Score: -1

kill all muslims, exterminate them all

Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-16 20:59 · Score: 1, Troll

I hate Islam as much as anyone who treasures freedom and abhors discrimination, but this is not the answer. There are some people who are only Muslims because leaving Islam is punishable by death, by law in most Islamic countries and in practice by "honour killings" throughout the world. Ideally all Muslims would realise that Islam is just the ravings of a power-mad pedophile war lord and has no place in a civilised world
Re:kill them all by chilvence · 2013-06-16 21:49 · Score: 2

Aside from this basically being what the fucking nazi's were all about, it's an unbelievably retarded point of view to have given that the majority of muslims genuinely AREN'T trying to bother anyone. If they actually were, believe me you would fucking know about it.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 21:51 · Score: -1, Troll

Yeah, cause none of that happens in other religions. No honor killings in Sikhism or Hinduism, certainly no power-mad pedophiles in Christianity. No discrimination, no death penalties, no subjugation in Judaism. Really, all of the Abrahamic faiths can go to the Hell they invented.
Re:kill them all by Nerdfest · 2013-06-16 21:56 · Score: 1

Weren't the Nazis really more about killing or subjugating everyone who was not a Nazi? That actually sounds a lot like Islam as well, according to its 'holy books'.
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-16 21:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Well from Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings:

Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims.

So, yes there are some evil Hindu and Sikhs, but it is not entrenched as a specific commandment in the religion like in Islam
Re:kill them all by 3.5+stripes · 2013-06-16 22:23 · Score: 1

I'd say a good number of the Islamic, Hindu and Sihk honor killings are due to the practitioners living in hugely patriarchal countries, the religion came second.. it would be like looking at the southern US and saying that all Christians are obviously end of times gun nuts.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-16 22:38 · Score: 3, Informative

I'd say a good number of the Islamic, Hindu and Sihk honor killings are due to the practitioners living in hugely patriarchal countries, the religion came second.. it would be like looking at the southern US and saying that all Christians are obviously end of times gun nuts.
You'd be wrong, check the linked article it is frequently carried out second and third generation Islamic immigrants in Western countries.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:48 · Score: 1

And why are those countries so hugely patriarchal? Why are women initially placed on a pedestal of purity, and in a moment dragged down and stabbed to death? Why are the majority of reported honour killings happening among Muslim populations across many countries (including the west).
Christ, the foundations of this practice are enshrined in Sharia when women are treated like chattel and punished for not seeing the world through cloth. Tell men that women must be subservient to them, and that women have little say as to how their bodies are used. Surprised then when some hairy armed unibrow is busy stabbing his sister to death for bring shame upon the family (irony lost upon him).
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 23:30 · Score: 0

if you knew anything about Islam you would know that it has only one "holy book" :)
but there you are - in the land of the free - and totally uninformed :))
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:07 · Score: 0

f you knew anything about Islam you would know that it has only one "holy book" :)

Really ?
What do you call the Hadiths ? Unholy bullshit ?
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:46 · Score: 0

Could it be that the reason why the article is able to point out that they are carried out in western societies, is because;
1) Those western societies are unfamiliar with the practice, and thus find it abhorant enough to make it to the news
2) Said western societies actually have a news organisation to report these matters, instead of them taking place in some backwaters hill village in the middle of nowhere.
You will probably find just as many honour killings occur in the original countries too.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:58 · Score: 0

Tawrat, Zabur, Injil and the Quran. I count 4
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-17 01:06 · Score: 2

Could it be that the reason why the article is able to point out that they are carried out in western societies, is because;
1) Those western societies are unfamiliar with the practice, and thus find it abhorant enough to make it to the news
2) Said western societies actually have a news organisation to report these matters, instead of them taking place in some backwaters hill village in the middle of nowhere.
You will probably find just as many honour killings occur in the original countries too.
Absolutely, honour killings count as normal behaviour in Islamic countries. I was just refuting the assertion that people carried out "honour killings" because they came from backward countries rather than because they were following the teachings of Islam
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 01:33 · Score: 0

Tawrat, Zabur, Injil and the Quran. I count 4
The Quran is the only Holy book... the rest including the Hadith are not.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 01:39 · Score: -1

Absolutely, honour killings count as normal behaviour in Islamic countries. I was just refuting the assertion that people carried out "honour killings" because they came from backward countries rather than because they were following the teachings of Islam
He said "patriarchal countries" shit head not "backward". Just because a bunch of fucked up men twist around their religion, doesnt mean the entire population following it should be condemned nor the religion be disgraced! I dont see how you are any better than they are with regards to tolerance!
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-17 02:11 · Score: 1

Absolutely, honour killings count as normal behaviour in Islamic countries. I was just refuting the assertion that people carried out "honour killings" because they came from backward countries rather than because they were following the teachings of Islam
He said "patriarchal countries" shit head not "backward".
OK, so you don't consider highly patriarchal countries to be backward. I do.

Just because a bunch of fucked up men twist around their religion, doesnt mean the entire population following it should be condemned nor the religion be disgraced!
Yes this is exactly what I said about their being some Hindus and Sikhs. I could also add Christians. However Islam is unique in that it is a command of the religion:
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

I dont see how you are any better than they are with regards to tolerance!
Because I don't advocate subduing those of other faiths, killing people who change faith, killing relatives for honour, etc.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 02:38 · Score: 0

I dont see how you are any better than they are with regards to tolerance!
Because I don't advocate subduing those of other faiths, killing people who change faith, killing relatives for honour, etc.
Of course! You only condemn EVERYBODY following that faith. Sure u r totally not intolerant!
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-17 02:50 · Score: 1

I dont see how you are any better than they are with regards to tolerance!
Because I don't advocate subduing those of other faiths, killing people who change faith, killing relatives for honour, etc.
Of course! You only condemn EVERYBODY following that faith. Sure u r totally not intolerant!
Of course I condemn everybody following a faith that calls for the subjugation and murder of others. I acknowledge that there may be some nominal Muslims who only call themselves that because of the death penalty for leaving, and I don't condemn these.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 02:55 · Score: 0

It is also interesting to see how you have taken an issue regarding a ban on unpaid internet communication (which in the end might as well turn out to be just a business strategy) and turned it into an anti-islamic/religious propaganda just because it comes from an arab country... of course issues like PRISM apparently dont matter! To believe in something is a person's own individual right... taking away their right to privacy and freedom is nobody's right!!! Well developed countries with well educated people- religious or non religious- are no better.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 03:03 · Score: -1

More paper to wipe my ass with your filthy mooslum dogs.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 03:05 · Score: 0

There are also those who understand the religion in its entirety and not use it to their own advantage wrecking other people's lives, yet following it peacefully the way it was meant to be followed. But of course opinionated men like you would not understand that... Just like those other men. And just like them, you choose specific portions of a text to site as examples in order to defend your own opinion/actions- just the way they use it to spread their propaganda. If only people would stop pointing fingers at each other and start practicing tolerance in their own character first, this world would be a lot more peaceful to live in.
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 04:31 · Score: 0

if you knew anything about Islam you would know that it has only one "holy book" :) but there you are - in the land of the free - and totally uninformed :))
And if only you knew what's in that 'holy Quran'
Re:kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 23:36 · Score: 0

Honour killing is not mentioned anywhere in Islam, in fact it is forbidden. It's a cultural issue unfortunatelly.
I challange you to find where it is endorsed in Islam... you won't, because it's not there.
Re:kill them all by Chrisq · 2013-06-18 19:44 · Score: 1

Honour killing is not mentioned anywhere in Islam, in fact it is forbidden. It's a cultural issue unfortunatelly. I challange you to find where it is endorsed in Islam... you won't, because it's not there.
I'll rise to the challenge:
Quran- 4:15
“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Re:kill them all by RockDoctor · 2013-06-18 20:21 · Score: 1

There are some people who are only Muslims because leaving Islam is punishable by death, by law in most Islamic countries
"many" Islamic countries I'd agree with, but I'm much more dubious about "most". And as someone who has gone to a number of such countries in the past, who will do in the future, who has had to declare my religion (atheist) on government documents repeatedly (as well as surrendering my passport before going out to work), I pay reasonably close attention to such issues. Which is part of the reason that I may have to be getting a second passport soon. Or perhaps take out dual-nationality AND getting a second passport.

Ideally all Muslims would realise that Islam is just the ravings of a power-mad pedophile war lord
"power-mad", check ; "war lord", check (so far, so different, for all national leaders of his time) but the paedophile allegation may be true by the standards of our time, but it wasn't even unusual by the power-politics standards of his time (e.g. Henry-8 of England trying to marry his 7-year-old son to the 2 year old Mary Queen of Scots)

has no place in a civilised world
I keep on looking for that. Do you have an address? And a space ship?

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Popularity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 19:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

My roomate is from Saudi and he has mentioned to me on several occasions that WhatsApp is incredibly popular there. Everyone he knows uses it, including older family members. Banning something so popular would upset a lot of people...

Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 19:52 · Score: 0

Like the Saudi "government" care about that....
Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 20:00 · Score: 1

Actually the SA government care very much what people think at the moment, because they don't want the Arab Spring to spread to them. Of course the basket case that is Syria right now is a good reason for most people to be adverse to it.
The biggest users of these apps are the Pakistani migrant workers who can't afford to pay telco prices to contact their families. This will certainly hit them hard.
Re:Popularity by Camembert · 2013-06-16 20:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not exactly a comment on the original story, just saying that Whatsapp is also tremendously popular here in South-East Asia. I use it very often, It is a popular and easy solution to set up group discussions, transfer pictures etc. I had already read in newspapers that telcos here are not so happy about its popularity but luckily there is little that they can do about it.
Re:Popularity by BrokenHalo · 2013-06-16 22:04 · Score: 1

...telcos here are not so happy about its popularity but luckily there is little that they can do about it.
Exactly. I don't really see how they think they can prevent people using Skype or Whatsapp.
Re:Popularity by flyingfsck · 2013-06-16 22:44 · Score: 1

Easy - Saudi already has a national firewall filter thing. They just add Skype and Whatever else to the block list.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Re:Popularity by DougF · 2013-06-17 01:54 · Score: 2

As someone who lives and works in Saudi Arabia...yes to both. The app is very popular and the Saudi government is treading carefully on this. This has been in the local news for several months now, as the government gauges local reaction and gives the app's owners time to decide on whether to cooperate. I use WhatsApp, but I have a backup plan in case access is terminated. I don't use Skype, so that won't affect me, but lots of people do use it. The government is prepping the population for the cutoff with stories about security, terrorists passing messages, etc. The Saudis have two large security problems. First, in the Eastern Province with Shi'as and their backing from Iran. Second, they also have a large illegal worker problem, stemming from two sources: those who overstay their work visas, and those (mostly Africans) who cross the border with Yemen (sound familiar?). In order to get a handle on the issue, the Saudi government is cracking down on phones operated by illegals so they cannot find work or tell others about work. They do this by requiring cell phone owners use a national identity number or authorized foreign worker number whenever activating cell phones or re-charging accounts. Part and parcel are the communication programs such as WhatsApp and Skype used by illegals and Iranian agents so the government cannot track their locations and movements.

--
Impetuous! Homeric!
Re:Popularity by UnknownSoldier · 2013-06-17 03:08 · Score: 1

> I don't really see how they think they can prevent people
That's easy:
Only cowards use censorship.

Surveillance state by vikingpower · 2013-06-16 19:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

When a regime begins using such methods as these in order to keep sitting in the saddle, its days are counted. After the demise of Saudi Arabia's current regime, within a foreseeable time now, the ensuing chaos will be unimaginable.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Re:Surveillance state by SpaghettiPattern · 2013-06-16 21:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't underestimate the Saudi regime. It's not it is new to oppression. They are experienced. These steps make organising by the mass harder.

--

I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Re:Surveillance state by khallow · 2013-06-16 23:53 · Score: 1

After the demise of Saudi Arabia's current regime, within a foreseeable time now, the ensuing chaos will be unimaginable.
I don't really have any trouble imagining the supposedly unimaginable. From the rest of the world's point of view, it'll be a considerable disruption of global oil supply possibly with a bit of domino toppling of neighboring governments over subsequent years. In other words, the mid to late 70s revisited.
Re:Surveillance state by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:20 · Score: 0

>When a regime begins using such methods as these in order to keep sitting in the saddle, its days are counted.
Corn subsidies. Oil subsidies. Legal monopolies for power companies. etc. It turns out that countries don't collapse when the people in power work to keep the rich making money.
Re:Surveillance state by magic+maverick+ · 2013-06-17 00:37 · Score: 1

Meh, it's easy to imagine it. Just look at Arabia between 1900 and 1925. A mess of tribes all vying for control. And sooner or later one will get up and take over.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Re:Surveillance state by rioki · 2013-06-17 02:00 · Score: 2

I am not sure if this is an attempt at censorship. This smells more like a case of the government helping out with corporate interests.
Re:Surveillance state by sociocapitalist · 2013-06-17 04:41 · Score: 2

When a regime begins using such methods as these in order to keep sitting in the saddle, its days are counted. After the demise of Saudi Arabia's current regime, within a foreseeable time now, the ensuing chaos will be unimaginable.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not 'beginning' to use such methods. Repression is the rule there and always has been.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Surveillance state by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-18 15:09 · Score: 0

the people are dumb it is THEIR oil that the sheiks are sitting on with their 100 luxury cars and what not parked in garages, and spending the most in las vegas and what not. shit. they should revolt and take over their country. same with usa.

DON'T CARE by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 19:25 · Score: -1

Fuck saudi arabia...

3rd world shithole will always be a 3rd world shithole...

Why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 19:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't see you yanks spreading freedom in the saudi?

Re:Why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 20:34 · Score: 0

Its probably muslim terrorists. At least thats what we use as excuse for censorship and surveillance.
Re:Why.. by nickmh · 2013-06-16 21:56 · Score: 1

Your kidding. The yanks (in fact the entire so called "Free" world) are coming to realise their freedoms have been white-anted as well. Not long now... tick tick tick
Re:Why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:01 · Score: -1

Uh-huh - and what is your track record? How many oppressed peoples have you freed? You can't even free your head from your boyfriend's shorts to get a breath of fresh air.
Re:Why.. by coolsnowmen · 2013-06-17 01:17 · Score: 1

Consider learning then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations
They let the US build air bases there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Saudi_Arabia)
They public support US, and the US has a good economic relationship with them. You want the US to invade over them threatening to ban an App? after they just sold a 60billion$ arms package to them! The US would lose soldiers to their own weapons, how do you think that would play domestically?!
AC FOR DIMPLIMAT OF THE YEAR- I don't think so.
Re:Why.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 02:29 · Score: 0

Would you Rob the damn petrol(gas) station or whatever you brits call it you buy from on a regular basis????
Re:Why.. by sociocapitalist · 2013-06-17 04:43 · Score: 1

I don't see you yanks spreading freedom in the saudi?
That's because we're too busy suppressing freedom in our own country.
Ah, and because we like Saudi oil.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Why.. by fredgiblet · 2013-06-17 07:57 · Score: 1

We're busy working on a reason to drop "freedom gifts" on Iran and Syria.

tech tax by perryizgr8 · 2013-06-16 19:42 · Score: 1

looks like its time for another payment from Microsoft!

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Isn't WhatsApp owner an ex SPY? by citizenr · 2013-06-16 19:44 · Score: 1

Skype with M$/NSA at the helm is not better.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

Cat & mouse game will continue... by Bearhouse · 2013-06-16 20:03 · Score: 5, Informative

This has been going on for a long time - Skype was banned or crippled in the UAE for a long time, but recently unblocked:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/technology/2013/04/08/Etisalat-unblocks-Skype-website-in-the-UAE.html

At the time, it was more about securing revenue from the lucrative expat market than locking-down protest movements.
Of course, these latter do exist, but less so in Saudi & UAE than, say, Egypt.

I guess this latest move will just drive more interest in alternatives, which are often 'open' and perhaps more secure...

http://www.pidgin.im/

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/fed-up-with-skype-here-are-6-of-the-best-free-alternatives/

Re:Cat & mouse game will continue... by Runaway1956 · 2013-06-16 22:03 · Score: 1

Those subversive open source alternatives! They keep cropping up - regimes around the world are going to have to ban open source!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Cat & mouse game will continue... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:54 · Score: 0

Mumble isn't all that bad either if you just want a voice chat with low bandwidth and low overhead. (Meant for gaming, but who really cares?) You can easily host your own chat server and it's encrypted to some degree by default.
Re:Cat & mouse game will continue... by jma05 · 2013-06-17 03:27 · Score: 1

The problem with the current open source alternatives is that while they cover all desktop platforms, they don't do mobile messaging, much less cross-platform mobile messaging.
Re:Cat & mouse game will continue... by davydagger · 2013-06-17 08:41 · Score: 1

bullshit.

pidgin, and libpurple(the underneath library), are simple multi-IM clients that let you use one, easy to use, powerful IM client on any network, with any protocol.

This is great because it puts you in charge, rather than your instance messaging services and allows for universal plugins and features, like encryption across platforms, both on your computer and services on the internet.

pidgin has been widely ported, and the libpurple(all the functionality, of pidgin without the interface), even more ported.

https://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/GSoC2012/Android

libpurple has an android port. So whatever interface you make, will have all the same back end as pidgin, and all the same features like an OTR plugin.
Re:Cat & mouse game will continue... by jma05 · 2013-06-18 03:46 · Score: 1

Does Pidgin have an iOS implementation or a BlackBerry implementation? I sure can't find a libpurple implementation in AppStore on a quick search (don't have a BlackBerry, so no idea).
> libpurple has an android port. So whatever interface you make, will have all the same back end as pidgin, and all the same features like an OTR plugin.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Libraries are useless for consumers. They want apps. They are not going to make interfaces. Which libpurple based apps can I recommend to my friend in middle east who uses an iOS device and a BlackBerry? He says that the only app he found across all his devices was WhatsApp (and what everyone else uses).
Please let me know which open source implementation covers Android, BlackBerry OS, BlackBerry 10, iOS, Series 40, Symbian (S60), and Windows Phone (from WhatsApp Wikipedia page) on a common network (or a collection of implementations that cover a common network on all devices).
No lectures on benefits on open source benefits please. I have been developing with open source technologies for 12 years and am aware of pidgin, libpurple, jabber, open SIP clients etc.

Free and open source messaging alternatives by trawg · 2013-06-16 20:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Apropos of absolutely nothing, here's some open source alternatives that also offer encryption (YMMV on how robust the encryption is).

- Jitsi (formerly SIP Communicator) is an audio/video and chat communicator that supports protocols such as SIP, XMPP/Jabber as well as a bunch of other protocols. Set up an XMPP server wherever you want and you're done. (I tried to set up Jabber to use with it on a Linux box on the weekend though and hit a few roadblocks, but more tech savvy people can probably power through them.)

- Mumble - voice communications, intended primarily for gaming but will work with anything. Run your own voice servers and clients connect in, a la TeamSpeak/Ventrilo.

- RetroShare - decentralised p2p file sharing and messaging system.

Re:Free and open source messaging alternatives by SuricouRaven · 2013-06-16 23:41 · Score: 1

I've been writing my own. Not because I expect it to be used, but because it's a good way to learn how these things work.
Re:Free and open source messaging alternatives by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-06-17 01:12 · Score: 1

I've been writing my own. Not because I expect it to be used, but because it's a good way to learn how these things work.
And easier than getting Ekiga properly configured.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:Free and open source messaging alternatives by SuricouRaven · 2013-06-17 04:19 · Score: 1

My little project is actually quite fun. The clients authenticate each other via public key (4096-bit RSA), so there is no central authentication or identity server. The control packets are all essentially random if you don't have both the keys (sender's public and recipient's private) to decrypt them with, so even DPI couldn't identify and block the protocol. I need to get a real crypto expert to look through the design and make sure I've not missed anything obvious (Cryptography is an easy thing to do badly), but I've handled things like reply attacks (timestamp!) and bouncing to spoof source address. The protocol is even IPv6-ready.
The bit I'm writing doesn't actually do the IM. It's a distributed address lookup and authentication service. An IM program can then utilise this service to handle the troublesome matter of remaining in contact with people as they move around and their IP changes.
Re:Free and open source messaging alternatives by jonwil · 2013-06-17 14:35 · Score: 1

Now THIS is an idea I have had for a while but lacked the skills (and time) to implement. Basically an IM client which does not log anything to disk by default (so there is nothing for anyone to recover about what was said or who was talking, great if you are in a country where the secret police like to seize the computers of suspected dissidents).
As difficult as possible to detect and block. Full end-to-end encryption with unique session keys (so even having the secret keys of all participants in the conversation AND a full log of the network traffic wont let you recover the data). High strength RSA for client to client authentication with strong protections against a MITM attack by a rogue actor (such as a police or intelligence organization)
And in my idea, it would be 100% open source and open spec and as widely distributed (both in terms of number of copies of the program and its code and in terms of geographical location of those copies) as possible. This ensures that its hosted in enough countries that if, say, the US government says "you can't distribute that, it doesn't have the backdoors to let the FBI listen in on conversations as required by CALEA", the program will continue to be available.

It's all about thought control by Camael · 2013-06-16 20:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Q: Why would Saudi Arabia ban communication tools such as Viber, Whatsapp and Skype?

A: Because they have no control or access to the messages passed with these apps.

According to TFA, Viber was blocked for non-compliance, and that WhatsApp and Skype may be next on the list. What is most interesting is that the regulator issued a directive in March saying tools such as Viber, WhatsApp and Skype broke local laws, without specifying which laws.

What we do know is that in 2010, Blackberry was also banned by Saudi Arabia. The reason behind the ban was because BBM did not allow their customers' exchanges to be monitored by government. The ban was lifted after BB made a deal with the government to share user data.

Skype, Viber and WhatsApp AFAIK do not share their user data (for now).

Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.

Re:It's all about thought control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 21:20 · Score: 1

They may simply be trying to protect their citizens from PRISM. At least some of who may be engaging in activities that would be embarrassing to the Saudis if the US found out...
Re:It's all about thought control by gsslay · 2013-06-16 21:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

QFT. Mod parent up.

Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
All countries involved with PRISM have waved goodbye to any moral high ground they ever had any claim to. They're monitoring private communications exactly like the worse of any repressive regime. And before anyone takes issue; I'm not saying they are as bad as a repressive regime, but that they have given all repressive regimes an easy and justifiable defence for their activities. Why should the US have access to data on their citizens that they don't?
Whether the governments of countries involved in PRISM care that they've lost the moral high ground is another matter. But you'd think their citizens would. Perhaps all governments are fine with the monitoring actions of the others. Universal monitoring would make all their jobs easier.
Re:It's all about thought control by stud9920 · 2013-06-16 21:55 · Score: 1

Q: Why would Saudi Arabia ban communication tools such as Viber, Whatsapp and Skype?
A: They encourage prostitution
Re:It's all about thought control by TWiTfan · 2013-06-17 01:03 · Score: 2

Just because we are citizens of a country whose government commits wrongs doesn't mean we should just ignore every wrong committed by every other government in the world. We can still condemn BOTH, you know.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:It's all about thought control by jaymemaurice · 2013-06-17 01:40 · Score: 1

Just FYI, the main law is being broken is that the VoIP providers are unlicensed telecommunications providers.
In order to be a licensed telecommunications provider, your company must meet certain ownership requirements and comply with government oversight.
Part of the government oversight is the tariffs charged. Part of the ownership requirements ensures profit for the country.
Since the infrastructure to provide the internet is subsidized by international minutes (remember where the content, and where Saudi is) VoIP in its most common form is used as rate/toll bypass telecommunications fraud. Same like reconfiguring someone's voice mail to forward to an international number.
There is no technical reason why VoIP can be cheaper than what the telecommunications providers can provide. They could provide VoIP too or terminate the call through TDMoIP, lower codec quality etc... but this is whole thing is not about the COST of the call. It's about the margins and ownership. The telecommunications companies employ thousands of Saudi nationals. The Saudi nationals do not care about VoIP. This mostly does not effect them, it effects the expatriates. And even then, it only effects the expatriates who came to Saudi on contracts that don't pay them enough to make phone calls.
Skype has been typically allowed to operate in many middle eastern countries but only for PC to PC video calling. Skype-in and Skype-out services as well as access to the website to download and market the client was typically blocked.
Yes, the NSA scandal probably has some impact on the recent re-evaluation of Skype.

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Re:It's all about thought control by hcs_$reboot · 2013-06-17 01:47 · Score: 1

The trend is, more and more, towards secure communications (eg last big change was google search, all https).
After banning some apps, then mobile phones, then tablets, then... from what point people of SA will start to complain?

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:It's all about thought control by sociocapitalist · 2013-06-17 04:50 · Score: 1

Q: Why would Saudi Arabia ban communication tools such as Viber, Whatsapp and Skype?
A: Because they have no control or access to the messages passed with these apps.
According to TFA, Viber was blocked for non-compliance, and that WhatsApp and Skype may be next on the list. What is most interesting is that the regulator issued a directive in March saying tools such as Viber, WhatsApp and Skype broke local laws, without specifying which laws.
What we do know is that in 2010, Blackberry was also banned by Saudi Arabia. The reason behind the ban was because BBM did not allow their customers' exchanges to be monitored by government. The ban was lifted after BB made a deal with the government to share user data.
Skype, Viber and WhatsApp AFAIK do not share their user data (for now).
Why has Saudi Arabia become emboldened to act now? Because the disclosure of the PRISM program makes them immune from international criticism. They can rightly point out that the US government already has access to the data. It shouldn't take long for other countries to follow suit with similar demands.
Or it might be to kill free competition for STC (the incumbent telephone company owned by the government...the government being the Royal family).

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:It's all about thought control by fredgiblet · 2013-06-17 08:00 · Score: 1

According to previous posters this has been in the works for a while and publically discussed.
Re:It's all about thought control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 15:21 · Score: 0

What we do know is that in 2010, Blackberry was also banned by Saudi Arabia. The reason behind the ban was because BBM did not allow their customers' exchanges to be monitored by government. The ban was lifted after BB made a deal with the government to share user data.
That may have been the stated reason, but it's complete bullshit.
BBM is encrypted with 3des, and with a known default key. Here's RIM's documentation about it: http://docs.blackberry.com/en/admin/deliverables/21760/PIN_encryption_keys_for_BBM_1840226_11.jsp
For a government with a multibillion dollar surveillance budget to claim that they can't monitor BBM is ridiculous.
Either the Saudis are incredibly lazy/incompetent, or they're flat out lying.
Re:It's all about thought control by strikethree · 2013-06-17 20:50 · Score: 1

My kingdom for mod points. It is rare that an item needs to be +6 or higher and this is one of them. :(

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

silly by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 20:47 · Score: -1

tribal camel jockeys... they'll get theirs when we stop buying their oil

Is that where.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 20:51 · Score: 0

all those fin-harvested japanese sharks go to retire?

completely ineffective by stenvar · 2013-06-16 21:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

You can chat over any TCP connection. You can chat through HTTP on a web page. Short of banning all Internet connections and all web access, they can't even come up with a legal definition that kills online chatting, let alone police it.

Re:completely ineffective by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-06-16 21:18 · Score: 1

You can chat over any TCP connection. You can chat through HTTP on a web page. Short of banning all Internet connections and all web access, they can't even come up with a legal definition that kills online chatting, let alone police it.
'You' in the generic sense can, 'you' in the 'a given user' sense is much less likely to be able to. 'You' in the sense of 'a given user who is using a locked-down device that he can't even add non-approved software to' is even less likely.
Absolutely effective bans are pretty hard. Breaking things hard enough to keep the clueless from having them is substantially easier.
Re:completely ineffective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 21:31 · Score: 0

...Absolutely effective bans are pretty hard. Breaking things hard enough to keep the clueless from having them is substantially easier....
Er... no. For instance, the OP talked about chatting through HTTP. That's most easily done by using a forum, which is a very common method of chatting for the 'computer clueless'. And it has Private Messaging....
Re:completely ineffective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:26 · Score: 0

There are thousands of web pages that support HTTP-based chat with no software installation at all. And setting up new ones anywhere in the world is cheaper than a Skype subscription.
Re:completely ineffective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:45 · Score: 0

Yeah, but those that do not use SSH are easily filtered. While it may not be the case in Saudi Arabia, and I say may, in some countries being detected as saying something wrong may actually lead to your death.
The reason that they ban them is most likely because they don't have any control over them, thus that the encryption managed to keep them out for now.
There are then still many other possible solutions, but still, you start to get more and more limited. The reason why most other services aren't banned is because they aren't used enough to do anything or because they aren't actually safe enough for you to use, especially in a country that will kill you for doing the wrong things.
Re:completely ineffective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 02:33 · Score: 0

you can also chat over freaking hyperterminal if push came to shove.

There's much more to ban by aglider · 2013-06-16 21:10 · Score: 1

E-mail, facebook messaging, google talk, yahoo messaging ... They have no clue about technology!

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.

Re:There's much more to ban by AHuxley · 2013-06-16 21:42 · Score: 1

Many may not have a huge traction in that part of the world or be interceptable with expensive commercial solutions.
Other companies might have demonstrated how their messages and emails are exchanged and thus encrypted communications are now available to regional security agencies.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Decentralised messenger by ickleberry · 2013-06-16 21:33 · Score: 1

What about a decentralised app that uses end-to-end encryption, packets masquerading as something else and maybe a dose of onion routing for good measure? Would they have a go at blocking that as well? Exactly how Orwellian are these guys?

They are not worried about by purnima · 2013-06-16 21:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

western expats or the Saudi nationals. They are worried about the millions of Asian workers, maids, drivers, cleaners who are treated like slaves. You don't have effective control over slaves if you let them communicate with their family whenever they want. Saudi Arabia is a hell hole for millions of people who have sold themselves into effective slavery, and the US government treats the place like its main ally in the region. Something about American history tells me it's a natural alliance.

So Anyhoodles by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-06-16 22:08 · Score: 2

This impulse, that all money and resources were required to support one state-run system, and so outlawing competition was warranted, was commonly accepted throughout the West for much of the 20th century.

It still exists at the core of the promoters of single-payer medicine and public schools, where some dislike vouchers following students.

So don't lift your noses too quickly into the air.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Portal icon for this article is not quite right by korbulon · 2013-06-16 22:25 · Score: 1

http://imgur.com/lbzhxoE

FTFY.

Skype has point and click NSA surveillance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

We now know that Skype is accessible from PRISM, and thanks to the Senator we know that they don't need a warrant, every analyst can spy on any phone the country on a whim. The same classification for voice intercepts is for VOIP content, and we also know that Skype surveillance is point and click from the PRISM leak.

So NO COUNTRY SHOULD PERMIT SKYPE, any NSA analyst can intercept it simply on a whim with a point and click.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_3.html

There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”

According to a separate “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” that service can be monitored for audio when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of “audio, video, chat, and file transfers” when Skype users connect by computer alone. Google’s offerings include Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive files, photo libraries, and live surveillance of search terms.

Re:Skype has point and click NSA surveillance by RockDoctor · 2013-06-18 20:26 · Score: 1

So NO COUNTRY SHOULD PERMIT SKYPE, any NSA analyst can intercept it simply on a whim with a point and click.
I only use Skype for the communications which I want the NSA to listen into, to mislead them as to what I'm really up to.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Skype is a PRISM surveillance engine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 22:46 · Score: 0

From the PRISM leak we found out that Skype and Facebook has a point and click surveillance interface via PRISM. So of course they're going to ban it, and it will be banned in many many countries, because the leak shows, the NSA can simply spy on it at will.

Facebook apps may face the same fate, since they too were revealed to have a PRISM interface with the data grab features.

"There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”

"According to a separate “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” that service can be monitored for audio when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of “audio, video, chat, and file transfers” when Skype users connect by computer alone. Google’s offerings include Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive files, photo libraries, and live surveillance of search terms."

Is SMS counted as US Metadata? Probably.
Is Email headers counted as US Metadata? Almost certainly.
Is the email header fields that link it to the smartphone's ID, counted as meta data? Almost certainly.

I am SHOCKED by dskoll · 2013-06-16 23:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am shocked that a country that forbids women to drive, kills young girls for fear they may be dressed immodestly, bans Barbie dolls and amputates the hands of thieves would stoop to such barbaric behaviour!

Old vs. Young by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-16 23:53 · Score: 0

Then young terrorists will have to use email just as the old ones.

Re:Old vs. Young by gweihir · 2013-06-17 00:25 · Score: 1

Terrorists don't use email except to misdirect the authorities.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Why..BS Brit Comment Above! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:18 · Score: 0

Well, you Brits caused the messy and deadly situation in the Middle East that we have now. It, as with many other "empire" and "colonial" problems, remain at your doorstep.
The irony is that after destroying the Turkish empire you have become allies with the Turkish government (through NATO and Brit-to-Turk aliances) that is just as bad as the Saudi. You changed Turkey for the worse--and you complain about the US? Hypocrite.
(Disclaimer: I am of UK descendent--only my folks rebelled and won their independence from the atrocity called Britain; I know about your dastardly tactics and strategies.)

Strange for a country with so much cash by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 00:28 · Score: 0

If their telco's lowered the price of calls, then perhaps folks would not mind if Internet calling was less available.

Re:Strange for a country with so much cash by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-06-17 02:23 · Score: 1

If their telco's lowered the price of calls, then perhaps folks would not mind if Internet calling was less available.
The number of people who think this story is really about Saudi Arabia needing the telco income is asymptotic to zero.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Saudi Arabia by intermodal · 2013-06-17 02:13 · Score: 1

This is Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows anything about how that government works should only be surprised that they didn't do this long ago.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Do I Understand This Correctly? by LifesABeach · 2013-06-17 04:43 · Score: 1

A government becomes greater when its people are stronger, smarter, faster.

This is not about protecting SMS revenues by Mubarmij · 2013-06-17 05:43 · Score: 1

I am from the UAE. What the Saudi Government plans to do does not appears to be because they want to protect mobile operators revenues. It is rather because these two applications are quite popular among the Saudis and are difficult to monitor (unlike, say, Twitter). I have seen quite a few messages about corruption in the country being first spread through such applications.

As to those posters who immediately link this to Islam. Grow up please. This is just a dirty old patriarchy and such censorship has nothing to do with the religion.

Torchat by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-17 05:57 · Score: 0

What about Torchat? Have they banned it too? Or is it next on the ban-list?

Saudi expatriates in USA by Y2K+is+bogus · 2013-06-17 07:02 · Score: 1

Perhaps we should actively obstruct their communications to Saudi Arabia? Sounds preposterous doesn't it?

Can we use WebRTC yet? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2013-06-17 07:19 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if WebRTC is working well enough to be a viable alternative?

Because ... by kbahey · 2013-06-17 14:43 · Score: 1

The spice must flow ...

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

What about facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2013-06-18 00:09 · Score: 0

This is all about curbing the freedom of speech but will they be able to also ban apps like facebook or google+ and other social networking apps which in a way also provide the same features as that of whatsapp, skype and others.

http://www.techendeavour.com/mobile-application-development

India is fourth most dangerous place in the world by NewYork · 2013-06-18 17:59 · Score: 1

India is fourth most dangerous place in the world for women
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-is-fourth-most-dangerous-place-in-the-world-for-women-poll/1/141639.html

--
Casteism

Slashdot Mirror

Saudi Arabia Set To Ban WhatsApp, Skype

122 comments