As Elections Approach, Iran Uses "Far More Advanced" Internet Censorship (dailydot.com)

Patrick O'Neill writes: Election time in Iran means increased censorship for the country's tens of millions of Internet users. But this months parliamentary election, experts say, comes with a new level of aggressive censorship from a government notorious for authoritarianism in cyberspace. "What's happening [right now] is far more advanced than anything we've seen before," said Karl Kathuria, CEO of Psiphon Inc., the company behind the widely popular encryption and circumvention tool Psiphon. "It's a lot more concentrated attempt to stop these services from working."

Comments

Nice

[NotInHere]

It helps the iranians remember whom to elect. I really look forward to these votes, the deal with the western world has enabled more liberal candidates to be accredited.

Re:Nice

[DNS-and-BIND]

In the Islamic Republic of Iran (that's the country's name, folks!) the Islamist candidates are legitimately popular with the lower classes. "It helps the iranians remember whom to elect." how utterly snobbish. As if there are right and wrong choices in a free election. There is only "agrees with me" and "doesn't agree". The people of IRI like their government and support it.

Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, these guys sound real awesome. I know! Let's give them $150 billion dollars in order to pretend they're not building nukes for a little while! And then when they break the agreement, we'll just pretend they didn't. Let's also pay them a nice bribe of another billion to return our soldiers they took hostage. But doing that would make our President look incompetent, so we'll still do it but just have our buddies in the media completely ignore the story.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, these Iraqis are awesome. I know! Let's give them weapons and money and pretend they're not a dictatorship for a little while! And then we get moody, we'll just claim they have built weapons of mass destruction, for which we and the Germans delivered components. Also lets ignore other countries sources that that is not reliable intel and start an illegal war against UN recommendations. Let's then burn the place down, kill tens of thousands of innocent people there, abduct some to other countries and then torture some more, claiming they are just not humans. But doing that would make us look like a bully, and citizens of the world will again vote us most dangerous country in the world, asking us to stop burn the world down. But hey, there is another country called Iran that we can make our buddies in the media make look evil. (And let's just forget we took their democracy once.)

Re:Sweet

[geoskd]

Hey, these guys sound real awesome. I know! Let's give them $150 billion dollars in order to pretend they're not building nukes for a little while! And then when they break the agreement, we'll just pretend they didn't. Let's also pay them a nice bribe of another billion to return our soldiers they took hostage. But doing that would make our President look incompetent, so we'll still do it but just have our buddies in the media completely ignore the story.

Lets remember that only one country has ever actually used Nuclear weapons against any target, and was probably not even necessary to end that war.

Let us keep in mind that the US has been killing innocent people by way of drone strikes for more than a decade now. It can easily be argued that the US is the worlds largest exporter of terror weapons. In fact, our terrorist activities dwarf any in the history of mankind. We have become so adept at it that we can detonate bombs from 5000 miles away with accuracy measured in centimeters. We can do that without even risking our own people at all. If the terrorists could do that, The US would be short a few hundred politicians, and the white house would have been target #1.

The thing you have to remember about terrorism is that it takes two sides to fight. As long as we keep bombing them, we keep the cycle of hate going, and they keep bombing us. That sounds suspiciously like the definition of insanity.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real question is what kind of exotic WMD the US possesses that the world doesn't know about. Hell, the only reason that the world knows about nuclear weapons is because we used a couple to end WW2. We could have things like antimatter or exotic matter weapons, kinetic energy weapons from orbit, or various types of phase shifting or invisibility devices, I wouldn't even rule out time travel - at least of inanimate or non-living objects.

People are fucking geniuses when it comes to inventing ways to kill other people.

Re:Sweet

[Jason Levine]

If the terrorists could do that, The US would be short a few hundred politicians

Oh, great. Now I suddenly want to support the terrorists to help get rid of politicians.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, these Iraqis are awesome. I know! Let's give them weapons and money and pretend they're not a dictatorship for a little while! And then we get moody, we'll just claim they have built weapons of mass destruction, for which we and the Germans delivered components. Also lets ignore other countries sources that that is not reliable intel and start an illegal war against UN recommendations. Let's then burn the place down, kill tens of thousands of innocent people there, abduct some to other countries and then torture some more, claiming they are just not humans. But doing that would make us look like a bully, and citizens of the world will again vote us most dangerous country in the world, asking us to stop burn the world down. But hey, there is another country called Iran that we can make our buddies in the media make look evil. (And let's just forget we took their democracy once.)

So you don't like the fact that Obama unilaterally deposed Libya's government either, leaving a failed state that's a breeding ground of Islamic whack jobs?

Re:Sweet

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

How do you think a country like Iran (or NK for that matter) would use drones or atomics compared to the US?

Re:Sweet

[khelms]

Depose the Libyan government or fail to depose the Syrian government. It doesn't seem to work well either way, does it?

Re:Sweet

[gtall]

You are President Truman. You have lost nearly 300,000 servicemen and women, plus many more civilians. You have just helped to defeat a very nasty Germany. The Japanese have defended the near islands (Saipan, Guam, Iwo Jima) to nearly the last man. Those fights were nasty The home islands have been mobilized down to even school children with pitchforks. An unbeaten Japan means you will have to deal with them for years in the future. The American people are damn tired of war. To invade Japan, your military leaders tell you, will take anywhere from nearly all you have lost so far to upwards of 1 million, they cannot be precise. The Russians are establishing their asses in Eastern Europe, Stalin likes to make trouble. They have kicked Japanese butt in Manchuria but have no fleet to assail the home islands.

You have some nukes which may or may not work, and which may or may not cause Japan to capitulate. And you only have 2 or 3 of them. What do you do Mr. President? You must act one way or another. To leave an unbowed Japan means to declare defeat and tell Americans they've wasted all those lives in the Pacific. And you have to tell them there will be a low grade military conflict for the next 10 years which could lead to another war just as bad as the current one.

The U.S. made the correct decision. Attempting to re-write history with all the accumulated facts it took 50 years to uncover and then accuse the U.S. of being negligent in not knowing all them at the time (and I'd dispute that "current" analysis) is just disingenuous.

The U.S was attacked by Muslim nutjobs who declared war on the U.S. The U.S. tries to minimize civilian casualties. To leave the Muslim nutjobs unfought means to hand them the tools to attack the U.S. mainland, which they have pledged to do time and again. You are President Bush or Obama, you must act or watch Americans die at the hands of Muslim nutjobs claiming it would be wrong to fight back. What do you do Mr. President?

The Muslim nutjobs didn't need any reason, and indeed had none, to attack the U.S. They did it because it is a means to political power in attracting recruits. If the West didn't exist, they would need to invent it. Religion is beside the point for them other than it is a very convenient recruiting tool.

Re:Sweet

[youngone]

Hey, these Egyptians are awesome, lets help their military conduct a coup against their elected Government, so we can continue to sell them weapons used to repress the population, despite that being against the laws of the US.

Re:Sweet

[youngone]

While I'm not sure I agree with your Muslim nutjob stuff, you're right about the nuking of Japan

My Father had spent the previous 6 years or so fighting some Germans in France, North Africa and Italy, but was told in about June 1945 he would be sent to Japan.

I can tell you, he thought Truman made the right choice.

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

>globalresearch.ca
linking to a conspiracy/propaganda shithole, no even bothering reading the rest

Re:Sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument has always seemed like rationalization to me. Why would you need to send troops in? Put up a blockade and bomb all of their factories, runways, docks, etc. until they capitulate. If it takes a while so be it.

Re:Sweet

[murdocj]

While we're remembering, let's remember that the use of nuclear weapons ended a war started by Germany and Japan that had killed tens of millions, and the use of those weapons probably saved Japanese lives.

Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

Iranians were in open revolt in 2009

If Obama were a Islamic Manchurian candidate, what more could he have done for radical Islam?

He's allowed ISIS to grow.

He gave nukes and $150 billion to the Iranian mullahs - after leaving them in power in 2009. And leaving the mullahs in power wasn't based on non-interference principles. Just ask Muammar Gaddaffi about that...

Re:Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

He's allowed ISIS to grow.

Everyone who isn't a complete retard realize that ISIS grew because Saddam who held them down was removed.
Guess who removed Saddam. That's right your hero Bush.

Re:Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[quantaman]

Iranians were in open revolt in 2009

If Obama were a Islamic Manchurian candidate, what more could he have done for radical Islam?

Well he could have attacked the Iranian regime with heavy rhetoric and publicly allied himself with the protesters. That would have made it easy for the regime to discredit and kill the reformist movement.

Instead he stayed back and a few years later got a relatively reformist president who's on much better terms with the west.

He's allowed ISIS to grow.

Because a Whabbist Sunni Arab movement is totally relevant to this discussion about a Shia Persian country.

He gave nukes

Yeah, because there's no more effective way to give someone nukes than by having them shut down their nuclear program and undergo a level of inspections generally loved by weapons inspectors.

and $150 billion to the Iranian mullahs

Shame on him for giving Iran back their own money!

And leaving the mullahs in power wasn't based on non-interference principles. Just ask Muammar Gaddaffi about that...

Brilliant idea, take the Muslim country in the middle east with the most sympathetic population to the US and then launch an unprovoked war again them, that's the way to combat terrorism!

Great point using Gaddaffi as a reference too, because Libya is doing absolutely great since then!!

Re:Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Nixon was convinced if he had remained in office, South Vietnam would not have fallen, and he was probably right.

The new president inherits the country as it is, not as he wishes it was.

Re:Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

>after leaving them in power in 2009. And leaving the mullahs in power wasn't based on non-interference principles. Just ask Muammar Gaddaffi about that...
yes it was totally the same situation, in one hand a revolution that turned into a war, with the people asking for help. In the other, no war, people not asking for intervention. But let's not bother with details.
If you want to compare libya with anything, syria is much closer, but again those pesky details (like which countries support the regime) can be kind of important sometimes.

Re:Obama abandoned Iranian people in 2009

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that the iraq war didn't create a huge mess (and don't get me started on Bush).
But who kept the extremists in check in Syria ? Assad. And who removed him ? Oh wait nobody did, and yet it blew out (like in Libya). Actually Assad even liberated islamists, and let isis grow, to protect himself from foreign intervention.
The problem is not the islamists, the problem is the dictators that create political vacuum and who prefer letting the country burn rather than lose power.

Why look at what Iran is doing, when you have SFO

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter capitulated to SJW, ADL and the trannies.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/3295/meet-leftists-who-will-be-censoring-your-twitter-robert-kraychik

UN Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell doesn't the UN condemn these countries? In 1948, the UN general assembly voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document supports freedom of speech and thought, of which Iran's actions are totally contrary to. Why is the UN silent on these matters? The UN has no right to condemn anyone for human rights violations if it is willing to turn its back on its own 1948 declaration.

Not to worry

[fustakrakich]

New and better circumvention tools are on the way, but even they can't through an ISP that cuts you off entirely. I hope wireless mesh can get around that problem eventually.

Suggestion to Iran: flip IPv4

[unixisc]

Iran can really do this by altering IPv4 within their borders. Define public addresses as private, private addresses as public, and then use that in all their internet communications. Of course, they have to redo their routers. Maybe get Huawei to do it for them

Do that, and they effectively have an intranet, and foreign packets would go haywire trying to come in.

Re:Suggestion to Iran: flip IPv4

[fustakrakich]

Even with such a system in place, there has to be a way to tunnel out. But the worst blockage is at the ISP. Without them, there is no internet. The internet needs to route around them.

Re:Suggestion to Iran: flip IPv4

[unixisc]

That's what they don't want. They want to stop foreign packets from getting to their citizens. So doing what I suggested would preserve traffic within Iran, while excluding traffic outside. That would have the side effect (i.e. benefit to the West) of not being able to spy on the West either. And Iran can extend that to their allies, like Syria, Hizbullah, Iraq, and Shia enclaves in Saudi Arabia, Emirates....

Re:Suggestion to Iran: flip IPv4

[fustakrakich]

That's what they don't want. They want to stop foreign packets from getting to their citizens.

I understand perfectly. I am only interested in getting around it. If they cut the cables and/or mess with DNS and NAT translation, let's send in a radio signal for them to piggyback. Even at 300 baud, it's better than nothing.

Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

This "censorship" is a Mossad operation designed to influence the election in Iran with the aim of installing a leader that the Zionists can control.

By Any Means Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta do what you gotta do to get those Rothschilds central banks issuing currency in Iran...

The U.S. is much more civilized

[SuperKendall]

Instead of censoring the internet, we use superdelegates to fix elections, and let people say whatever they like. After all the opinion of the people are irrelevant so why not?

Re:The U.S. is much more civilized

[DNS-and-BIND]

Thanks for taking an interesting topic about a fascinating country and changing the topic to America. Again. Seriously, you people are not always first on the agenda so SHUT THE FUCK UP WHEN ADULTS ARE TALKING ABOUT ADULT TOPICS. Sheesh, it's just embarrassing how single-issue you uneducated people are.

Re:The U.S. is much more civilized

[SuperKendall]

I find it interesting to see how Europeans get so testy whenever any other country is mentioned. Seems like you are projecting quite a bit there!

This post should make you happy since it only talks about Europeans, even only the failings, unlike the ability of Americans to consider a bigger picture.

Oops! Ha Ha, just did that to goad you further obviously. If you don't want buttons pressed you may not want to wear them on your sleeve.

Re:The U.S. is much more civilized

[rtb61]

Is it quite simply a relationship measure ie censorship in Iran vs we do not give a fuck what you say in the US we can ignore you any way, main stream media says so, again and again and again and again an nausea. So they basically censor you internally unless you say what they want to hear versus blocking you from 'hmm' listening to other people they do not want you to listen to.

For the likes of Iran that means switching from a IP blocking system to an IP allowing system ie all IPs are blocked, until they are given permission for access. Than all IPs are monitored for traffic flow to see if those traffic flows are in accordance with expected usage patterns for the particular IP holder, if the exceed that significantly than likely an alternate traffic route for broader traffic.

Of course if you tell people, you are going to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, again and again and well, you get the picture, they are going to get pretty seriously paranoid. Especially when you have idiots, mind you elected idiots, wanting to use nuclear weapons and kill every man, woman, child, grammy, gramps, puppy, kitten and even budgerigar in your home town, well, they are going to be checking every bit of data, every bit of everything they can.

Never to forget, we all know what up tight kind of dicks religious types can be when it comes to blasphemy of any possible interpretive form, from challenging gods chosen the only life in the entire universe (second only to god mind you), evolution is evil and what ever else flat earther nonsense they want to promote (see, hint, hint, there is a comparison to the religious nut USA right(snigger) in there, a secular state trying to become a religious state versus an actual religious state). The idea not being to take away from what one country is but a reminder of what another country is becoming, thanks lead poisoning (may that particular dick rot in the hell of strangling beds, not that I believe in a Hell of that form or pretty much any other beyond what we allow a bunch of greedy psychopaths create right where we are now).

Re:The U.S. is much more civilized

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans get so testy whenever any other country is mentioned.

Any other country? Seriously? lol. Funny how on several occasions I see a comment and think "wow, what a dick" and hey presto, it's SuperKendall. Usually defending Apple to the hilt, but this time defending yanks who only want to talk about yanks, in an article about Iran.

They're doing it wrong

[penguinoid]

Everyone knows that when you want to manipulate elections, you make large anonymous campaign contributions. And to manipulate public sentiment, have a couple guys own all the news media, and you can each do favors for each other. This way everything is legit.

Use the /. downmoderation suppression system!

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a 100 sockpuppet fake /. registered luser accounts to farm karma all day like snivelling weasels to downmod anyone who doesn't fit your hidden agenda that you can't beat with facts! Upmod your main account too! Just like Coren22, gstoddart, amicusnycl, Ash-Fox, omnichad, JustAnotherOldGuy, z00L00k, and all other advertiser webmaster cronies adblock shills and sockpuppets do!

Well what is it then?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary doesn't say, and I'm certainly not clicking on the bait.

It's all relative

[Livius]

By Western standards, Iran is a deeply flawed democracy.

Yet there is much more antagonism directed against Iran than a great many countries which are not democracies at all.

And if anything the censorship is proof that the elections are already on their way to bringing change.