Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Monday, June 6, 2011

France and Online Social Media: Dealing With E-Mail and Other Threats

I live in central Minnesota, and love it here. I'm rather pleased that the pontoon boat was invented by a Minnesota farmer. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 15, 2007)

I have, however, long since resigned myself to the fact that the world does not revolve around Minnesota.

Then there are the folks who run France.

I am Not Making This Up

"French TV, radio programs slapped with social media restriction"
Catherine Clifford and Saskya Vandoorne, CNN (June 6, 2011)

"A decree from the early 1990s, reimplemented by French regulators, is putting an end to French television and radio announcers naming social networking sites on air except for news purposes.

"The decree banned 'clandestine advertising': the promotion of a brand outside the boundaries of recognized publicity avenues.

"The reimplementation of the ruling by France's Superior Audiovisual Council means that French programs will no longer be able to urge their viewers or listeners to follow them on specific sites, such as Twitter, as has become the norm in worldwide broadcasting.

"The controversy began when an unnamed French TV channel approached the council to ask whether, under this decree, they had the right to direct viewers to social sites.

"Christine Kelly, spokeswoman for the council explained: 'Facebook and Twitter are commercial brands like Coca-Cola or L'Oreal or any other. There are many social networking sites on many topics -- cooking, animals -- why should we mention one and not others?'

"From now on news anchors will be able to give only vague instructions as to where to find information online, such as 'follow us on social networking sites.'

"French bloggers have been up in arms on Twitter and some have even composed tongue-in-cheek ways to get round the ban. One suggested: 'find live coverage of the trial on our thread on the platform which spreads messages of 140 characters'

"French commentators have been speculating on the real roots of this regulation. Matthew Fraser, a social networking expert and author of 'Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom,' a book looking at the online social media revolution, believes the ban could be a sign of defiance against Anglo-Saxon cultural domination.

" 'In my mind,' he said, 'if it had been a French social networking site then nobody would have wanted it to be regulated, but because these sites symbolize the United States, regulation is there.'

"This is not the first time anglicized, Internet-related vocabulary has been banned in France. In 2003 the use of the word 'e-mail' was forbidden in all government literature. This was due to the Toubon law, which tries to protect the purity of the French language from anglicized words and phrases.

"This time, however, the Superior Audiovisual Council insists that the ban is in no way linked to language purity...."
(CNN) [emphasis mine]
I like freedom of speech. I'm not at all comfortable when a government wants to control what people say.

And I think that when a country's leaders think they must force citizens to maintain the country's language and culture - it's a sad situation.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Shutting Down Egypt's Internet: A Responsible Act?!!

I've been posting about the meltdown in Egypt in another blog: Apathetic Lemming of the North. That's because this blog is about the war on terror, or whatever we're supposed to call it these days, and not so much about over-age-in-grade permanent presidents. The 'terrorism' angle wasn't as definite as the 'freedom of speech' aspect - and the Lemming is very concerned about freedom of speech. Also interior design, cosmology, and - today - making shiny spheres from dirt. ("Dorodango!" (February 10, 2011)) It's a sort of 'eclectic' blog. Like the inside of my head - and that's yet another topic.

I've also been letting news articles about what's happening in Egypt and elsewhere pile up, until today I've got enough for a post here. Mostly about freedom of speech. Several posts, actually.

I've said this before: I think freedom of speech is important.

Very important.

That's why I was - "impressed" might be the word - by an assertion in this article:
"The Egyptian government shut down most of its country's internet not by phoning ISPs one at a time, but by simply throwing a switch in a crucial data center in Cairo.

"That according to a February presentation to the Department of Homeland Security's Infosec Technology Transition Council, obtained by Wired.com.

"The presentation - made by Bill Woodcock, research director of the Packet Clearing House - argues that the Egyptian Communications Ministry acted quite responsibly in the procedure it used to cut ties from the net, after the shutdown was ordered by Egypt's much-feared intelligence service.

" 'Most of the outage was effected through a breaker flipped in the Ramses exchange, and the rest was phone calls and arm-twisting,' the presentation says. 'Ramses exchange' refers to a central building in Cairo where Egyptian ISPs meet to trade traffic and connect outside of the country, a facility known as an Internet Exchange Point...."

"...Most media, including Wired.com, reported that government officials contacted individual ISPs and told them to shut down their networks, under threat of losing their communications licenses.

"But the document (embedded below) contradicts that narrative, providing new details on the outage - largely laying the blame on Egypt's internal security service, while describing the 'flip-the-switch' shutdown as a 'politically liberal' choice by the Egyptian communications ministry.

"That's because turning off the internet at the center exchange made it very easy to switch it back on, prevented surveillance, made it clear to everyone what had happened, and prevented spyware from being placed on the networks.

"Compare that to Tunisia, where Facebook login pages were manipulated - presumably by the government - to grab the passwords of Tunisian activists in order to delete their accounts and protest pages.

"The presentation suggests the weeklong shutdown had severe effects on Egypt's economy, in the short term from loss of commerce, and in the long term from a likely plummet in tourism, and an exodus of call centers from Egypt...."
(Threat Level, Wired (February 10, 2011))
In my considered opinion - I don't have enough information to have a considered opinion on just how "responsible" shutting Egypt's people off from the Internet was.

Or, rather, trying to shut them off. Google and Twitter came up with a workaround. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 31, 2011)

One thing that seems to be true about the Information Age is that it's not like the 'good old days.' Can't say that I'm sorry about that. That's because I lived during part of the 'good old days.' And have a pretty good memory. McCarthyism? Political correctness? I do not want to go back.

And that isn't another topic.

Finally, on the 'responsibility' displayed by Egypt's ISPs: under the circumstances, maybe letting the establishment cut Egypt's people off from the global community was the best they could do. Looks like it may be a bit rough on Egypt's tourist and tellecommunications industry: but so was having the same president since 1981. In my opinion.

More of today's posts:Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Divisiveness, Cultural Chaos, and the Monkey's Paw

It sounds like at least some major tourist destinations in Egypt are unaffected by what looks to me like the result of decades of resentment and too-tight control blowing off in messy spurts.

Still, the State Department's advice to Americans in Egypt seems prudent. Translated from diplomatese, the advice is: GET OUT NOW!

Remembering the Monkey's Paw

Or, 'Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it.'

There's a cautionary tale ("The Monkey's Paw," W. W. Jacobs (1902)) about a talisman that grants three wishes. It works, but there's a catch: there is a price for each wish. There's a point to the talisman. Written in 1902, the story has an 'and the moral of this story is' statement in it, woven into the plot more artfully than many.

My take on the tale is a little different: 'be careful what you wish for; you might get it.' You've probably heard that idea before. My guess is that it could be traced back to one of the ancient Greek philosophers, the court of an Emperor of China, and the Maurya dynasty; that all of them picked it up from someone working for Nebkha; and that 'be careful what you wish for' was already an ancient bit of wisdom then.

Mubarak's Egypt: A Nice, Tightly-Managed Country

Back to contemporary Egypt. They've got a president these days: Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has had the job since October 14, 1981. ("Egypt," CIA World Factbook (last updated January 13, 2011))

My guess is that President Mubarak would like to keep things pretty much the way they were back in the 'good old days,' before the Information Age.

I don't think that's going to happen.

I also think that what's happening in Egypt is a pretty good example of why it's not a good idea to run a nice, tidy, well-managed country where the masses are told what their social superiors think they need to know - and aren't allowed to compare notes with each other. Not beyond what happens in nice, old-fashioned places like the village square or its local equivalent.

Criticism Hurts; But Listen Anyway

Nobody, in my opinion, likes being criticized. I certainly don't. But, again in my opinion, it's a good idea to listen when somebody comes up with a new idea - or says that one of the old ones don't make sense. The other guy isn't always wrong.

Back in the '60s there were folks in America who seemed convinced that criticizing the president or 'the government' was, quite simply, treason. I can see their point: but I thought they were wrong then, and I still do.

It looks like President Mubarak is a little like the folks in "The Monkey's Paw." It seems like he wished for a nice, orderly, tightly-managed country where folks were allowed to express themselves. As long as they agreed with him.

He got his wish. But now, again in my opinion, it's time to pay for almost three decades of accumulated SNAFUs, and the resentment that's built up because they weren't dealt with adequately.

What's Mubarak's Egypt Got to Do With America?

I'm pretty sure that someone is convinced that Yankee imperialism is responsible for Mubarak's long reign. And that someone else is convinced that American oppressors are responsible for folks not appreciating Mubarak the way he'd like.

Some circles in this country seem to have a simple, one-size-fits-all, explanation for anything they don't like. It's America's fault. Sort of like the communist menace, except coming from another direction.

I don't doubt that America has had some effect on Egypt in recent decades. We live in a highly interconnected world, and America is one of the larger and more active countries.

But I really don't think that what's going on in Egypt is 'some kinda plot.'

I do think that President Mubarak is facing the same challenge that confronts America's old guard. This isn't the '80s any more.

Oh, For the 'Good Old Days?'

When I grew up, America was one of Earth's more prosperous countries: but most of us got our information from the newspapers, magazines, and - particularly after the J. F. Kennedy assassination - television news. And, of course, what we saw in the movies.

If news editors and studio executives decided we didn't need to see something - or that we wouldn't understand - most of us stayed uninformed.

I could get nostalgic about 'the good old days,' but my memory's too good.

Besides, I like knowing what's going on. Even if somebody with a nice title on the door thinks I'd be better off without the knowledge.

Hello, Information Age

America gets a new president every eight years, at least: which I think is a good idea. For one thing, I don't think it's fair to saddle one person with a high-stress job like that for too long; and for another, I think it's a good idea to swap out politicos at regular intervals. Bureaucrats, too. J. Edgar Hoover - and that's another topic.

I've discussed information gatekeepers - the folks who used to control what the masses were allowed to know - before. Also why I think they're a trifle frantic over the way that just about anybody can get at information they used to own.

No wonder some of the old guard are trying to 'protect' us from the wicked, wicked Web.

Related posts:
News and views:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 22, 2010

WikiLeaks: Again, Still

It's in the news: WikiLeaks dumped another few hundred thousand classified documents into its website. I don't think it matters whether the usual newspapers and broadcast news studios re-publish parts of that set of information.

This is the Information Age, and even those folks who still read newspapers are generally able to go online themselves - or know someone who can.

Those 'classified' documents aren't secret any more.

WikiLeaks and the Real World

I've written about WikiLeaks before. (August 13, 2010) I think what they did earlier this year was wrong: Not because 'America can do no wrong,' but because America is trying to protect journalists, the WikiLeaks bunch, and the rest of us from religious crazies who are determined to kill anybody who won't do Islam their way.

And these WikiLeaks stunts don't make that job any easier.

A few American news outlets have mentioned the possibility that bad things will happen to folks in Iraq as a result of what WikiLeaks has done. That's likely enough. And, if Iraqis get killed because they helped free their country from Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda: I'm pretty sure it'll be blamed on America. And/or the Bush administration. Or western imperialism. Or maybe Mickey Mouse.

War is Not Nice

I've made the point before: War is not nice. Things get broken and people get killed. (February 15, 2010)

I think it would be nice if there was no more war.

I think it would also be nice if everybody everywhere would be nice.

That would be: nice.

Problem is, there are not-nice people in the world. Some of them have decided that their particular version of Islam is the only 'real' one - and that anybody who doesn't agree should be killed.

That's not nice.

It would be nice if Al Qaeda and all the rest would come to, say, the Berkeley campus; hug a tree; throw a Frisbee; chat with someone in the political science department about peaceful coexistence: and from that day forward do nothing more violent that carry a sign or burn a flag. An American flag, of course.

My guess is that burning something like a Saudi Arabian flag would be classified as 'hate speech.'

'Everybody Knows' What Those American Soldiers are Like

The word "torture" is already in the news, regarding these WikiLeak documents. I have no doubt that, somewhere in that mass of 400,000 or so docments, there's an account of a soldier doing something wrong.

I remember Abu Gahrib. The dirty picture. The abuse that didn't stop until the commander learned about it. And was being investigated by the time reporters got the story. (January 25, 2009)

That wasn't an Iraqi My Lai, and I rather doubt that there's one in this latest dump.

Motivation and Responsibility

I don't know why whoever's calling the shots at WikiLeaks is putting peoples' lives in danger. I could make some guesses:
  • Money
    • WikiLeaks is getting huge publicity from these data dumps
    • Traffic at the WikiLeaks website should increase
    • Some may now give money to WikiLeaks
  • Idealism
    • 'The people have a right to know!'
    • The vile fiends must be revealed - America's
      • Military
      • Government
      • Imperialism
      • Whatever
  • A desire for
    • Attention
    • Causing strife
    • Something Freudian
I don't know why WikiLeaks is putting the lives of Iraqi patriots on the line. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably idealism. Whoever makes decisions for WikiLeaks may really believe that the outfit is doing the right thing.

Whatever the motive(s), what WikiLeaks has done doesn't surprise me. And I'm pretty sure if there's something unpleasant about an American soldier in those documents, it'll get full press coverage. It's the sort of clueless, irresponsible foolishness that I've come to expect from Western mainstream news media.

And that's another topic.

Related posts:
In the news:
Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 13, 2010

WikiLeaks, Real Journalists, and Common Sense

Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières apparently doesn't think that WikiLeaks should dump tens of thousands of classified documents. Apparently the reporters-rights group realizes that releasing the names of Afghans who cooperated with coalition troops might not sit well with the Taliban and others.

And, what is impressive, Reporters Without Borders realizes that the folks running the Taliban are inclined to kill people they don't approve of. And, that letting these Afghans get killed wouldn't be nice - even though they did help free their country from the Taliban.

Beware Unintended Consequences

Reporters Without Borders also seems concerned over what the American government might do in response to dumping these documents. With, I think, good reason.

On the whole, I prefer living in America and think that this country offers a great deal protection for freedom of expression than, say, North Korea, Sudan, or Somalia. I also think that America's leaders aren't perfect: and can make serious mistakes.

Like clamping heavy controls on what people are allowed to publish and read on the Internet.

I'll admit to having a personal stake in this: I maintain 10 other bogs, besides this one. At this time, I am free to do so. I don't have to pay a government agency for a permit to publish, I don't have to pass a background screening and loyalty test: and I rather hope that continues to be the case.

I like being free to speak - or, rather write - my mind.

Endangering the lives of people who helped free their country from religious crazies - even for the groovy reason of 'ending the Afghan war' - could give the American government reason - or excuse - to take control of what so far has been a free medium of communication.

I don't agree with everything that everyone puts online - but I don't want to be "protected" from folks who don't agree with the administration, either.

Here's that open letter from Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières:
"Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: 'A bad precedent for the Internet's future' "

"Julian Assange
"Founder
"Wikileaks

"Dear Mr. Assange,

"Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article 'Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010' on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

"Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April's publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration's U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

"Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article's publication. We are not convinced that your wish to 'end the war in Afghanistan' will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

"It is true that you said that 'a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports' were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being 'reviewed further' and that some of them would be released 'once it was deemed safe to do so.'

"Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

"Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal 'shield law' protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

"The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

"Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

"We look forward to your reply,

"Sincerely,

"Jean-François Julliard
"Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

"Clothilde Le Coz
"Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC"
(from http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html, used w/o permission)
Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo

This is - interesting.
"Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution? "
Ernest S. Christian & Gary A. Robbins, Perspective, Investors Business Daily blog (July 30, 2010)

"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

"People are asking, 'Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?'

"Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency...."

"...Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily...."
The bloggers' view of America's current administration is somewhat less than favorable: understandably, in a publication devoted in part to the idea that owning private property is okay.

The bulk of the post concerns economic issues which I believe are important, but which fall outside the purview of this blog. The point of interest, for Another War-on-Terror Blog, is in the first paragraph:
"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another...."
(July 30, 2010)
Before writing what I think about the Internet, information gatekeepers, and change, a few points:
  • This is not a political blog
    • I occasionally discuss politics because that's how America selects its leaders
    • I am not "for" or "against" the president
      • Particular policies are another matter
  • I do not call for the overthrow of the American government
    • That would be
      • Illegal
      • Messy
      • Likely to give us something even less acceptable

What are Information Gatekeepers? Why are They So Upset?

I've discussed this before:
...According to Princeton's WordNet, an gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:
"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)
So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information.

Information Gatekeepers in America

For several generations, the traditional information gatekeepers in American culture included
  • Newspaper editors
  • Teachers and organizations of teachers
  • Leaders of colleges and universities
  • Entertainment industry executives
  • Publishers of books and magazines
There are others, like politicians and military leaders - but I'm inclined to think, "...if you will let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who makes its laws...."1

A problem I see with America's traditional information gatekeepers is that, by the 20th century, a very small group of people had a great deal of control over what the rest of us were allowed to know. I don't think this was (entirely) intentional....
(August 14, 2009)
That's the way it was for most of the latter part of the 20th century. Then people started using the Internet, and now we've got blogs - including this one - publishing ideas that haven't been approved by America's traditional information gatekeepers.

I don't mind the way things are, in terms of freedom of speech: but I'm not part of America's established order, either. My ideas are not politically correct: I even think it's okay for people to use dangerous technology like guns, LP gas and computers. (June 27, 2008)

I think America's traditional information gatekeepers are very concerned that people like me are free to share ideas with others.

They should be.

It seems that many folks who are not part of America's power structure now realize that they're not the only ones who are fed up with the status quo.

Back in the 'good old days,' it was possible to convince many - perhaps most - folks who didn't entirely agree with the establishment's way of thinking that their only allies were inarticulate crackpots. (A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010))

Today, not so much. Some bloggers are crackpots. Some aren't - and there isn't any way of making sure that anti-establishment ideas are presented almost exclusively by crackpots.

No wonder folks in the establishment are concerned.

Saving a Spunky Girl Reporter, Retaining Our Freedom

At least, America doesn't have a way of filtering what "the masses" see on the Internet - yet. That may change.

Earlier this week, a attractive ESPN reporter made an emotional appeal for the government to do something about those awful people on the Internet. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010)

She's got a point. What happened to her wasn't right. Stalking is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.

But I'm very concerned that, months before an election, an attractive young woman makes an emotional cry for help - pleading that the government save her from nasty people online.

As I said, she's got a point: existing laws against stalking should be enforced, and perhaps the penalties are insufficient.

But that's not what she asked for.
"...She said, 'If somebody could think of something, I mean, they'd be a hero because, you know, there's just a lot of stuff that needs to be policed; that needs to be looked at. No one's held accountable for what they put on the Internet.'..."
(Erin Andrews, quoted on CNS News, via Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010))
'Will no-one save her?!' My concern that the American Congress will rush to rescue this fair damsel - and set up regulations that will keep unsavory characters away from the American public.

Unsavory characters like stalkers, terrorists, and Ron Paul supporters.

Related posts:Baqckground:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, July 19, 2010

Blogetery Shutdown, WordPress, Al Qaeda, the FBI, and C3PO

It made a memorable line in a famous movie:
"No! Shut them all down! Hurry!"
(C3PO, Star Wars Episode IV, via entertonement.com)
And, in context, C3PO's instructions to R2D2 were appropriate.

Ordering someone to 'shut them all down' isn't always a good idea, though.

Last Friday, I read about 73,000 WordPress blogs hosted by Blogetery going silent. I was - concerned. Particularly since, hyperventilating Tweets and blog posts notwithstanding: all those blogs apparently had been silenced.The least-unlikely explanation I ran into was that Blogetery had been involved in some sort of intellectual property rights infringement.

I wasn't going to suggest that terrorism was involved, one way or the other: there were enough wild rumors flying around as it was. So I missed my chance to write 'told you so.' Which is okay.

Earlier today, I read that the FBI had called for Blogetery's shutdown because one (1) blog hosted on their servers had terrorist-related materials on it.

So the feds shut down all 73,000?! That seemed - excessively zealous. Unless law enforcement had reason to suspect that someone on the Blogetery staff was the one who had planted the terrorist-related data - in which case the only safe thing to do would be to shut everything in Blogetery down, until technicians could go through the code and equipment.

Check Facts, THEN Issue Orders

Apparently, some hapless employee - misinterpreted? - what the FBI, or someone, had said, and told both Blogetery and the media that the FBI had said 'shut them all down.'
"...But [Burst.net chief technology officer Joe] Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own...."
(CNET)
What still isn't clear is why old-school news media in America hadn't reported on the Blogetery shutdown. I suspect that my father's advice may apply here: "Never ascribe to malice, what can be explained by stupidity."

Or, in the case of old-school media, institutional inertia and a monumental level of cluelessness about Information-Age issues.

Conspiracy? I Rather Doubt It

The 'addled employee' explanation could be part of some sort of plot to silence somebody or other. Or to prove that America's federal government can silence critics, or to keep people from knowing the the mothership finally came for Elvis.

But I don't think so.

I also don't think that we know everything there is to know, about what happened to Blogetery. But I'm not as concerned as I was on Friday. The explanation first given on CNET is plausible, given how excitable people can get when the FBI, blogs, and terrorists are involved.

My guess is that somebody, somewhere along the line, overreacted - big time - and caused a whole lot of unnecessary excitement.

Or maybe not-so-unnecessary.

Cloud Computing and Solid Realities

I've briefly discussed cloud computing in another blog. I think the idea is attractive: and somewhere between impractical and dangerous right now.

The Blogetery shutdown shows, I think, how vulnerable data stored on someone else's server is.

About Blogetery and the missing blogs: I suggest reading that CNET article. Of the published reports I've read, it seems to be the best-researched and calm discussion of what we know to date.

Do I Trust America? The FBI?

I've made the point that, in my opinion, America isn't perfect. I am convinced that this country is run by human beings. Mistakes happen, and sometimes bad things are done on purpose.

But, on the whole, I think that America is a pretty good place to live. And, yes: I 'trust the government.' To the extent that I must assume that, on average, its institutions act in accord with a set of laws that are intended to prevent officials from doing serious harm to American citizens.

The CNET account describes what appears to be a legal operation of the FBI, done with judicial approval: in which some yahoo overreacted and added fodder for a new crop of conspiracy theories.

The FBIPressOffice, on Twitter, linked to the FBI's 'top 10 of the week' lists on Friday, July 16, and hasn't mentioned anything about the Blogetery situation since then.

Which I don't find too surprising, since the (real) issue is probably still under investigation.

I've put excerpts from four news articles after the links, interspersed with brief comments.

Related posts, aboutIn the news:
Excerpts:
"Blogging platform Blogetery.com was cut off by its hosting company last week after the authorities said al-Qaeda 'terrorist material' was found on one of its servers, its web host, BurstNET Technologies said Monday.

"Blogetery, a platform for some 70,000 blogs, was taken down by BurstNET after the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked BurstNET 'to provide information regarding ownership' of the server hosting Blogetery.com, BurstNET said in a statement.

"BurstNET shuttered Blogetery at its own discretion after concluding it was violating its 'Acceptable Use Policy.'..."
(Threat Level, Wired)
This is the most recently-published article I read today. The 'AUP' violation explanation makes sense, particularly since there seems to have been a pattern of bad behavior. Still: 73,000 blogs?
"The blogosphere and online message boards have been buzzing with speculation as to why blogging website Blogetery.com, which claims to have hosted more than 70,000 bloggers, was suddenly shut down last week.

"Was the site a haven for terrorists? Packed with how-to advice for bomb builders? Rife with child porn? And did the FBI really order the blogging site's host BurstNET to pull the plug?

"BurstNET officials on Monday attempted to set the record straight by issuing the following statement:

" 'On the evening of July 9, 2010, BurstNET received a notice of a critical nature from law enforcement officials, and was asked to provide information regarding ownership of the server hosting Blogetery.com. It was revealed that a link to terrorist material, including bomb-making instructions and an al-Qaeda "hit list", had been posted to the site. Upon review, BurstNET determined that the posted material, in addition to potentially inciting dangerous activities, specifically violated the BurstNET Acceptable Use Policy. This policy strictly prohibits the posting of 'terrorist propaganda, racist material, or bomb/weapon instructions". Due to this violation and the fact that the site had a history of previous abuse, BurstNET elected to immediately disable the system.'..."
(PCWorld)
That "was the site a haven" style reminds me of some of the more colorful journalism of the late 19th and 20th centuries - and that's another topic.

I'm presenting these excerpts in reverse chronological order, by the way: most recent to earliest.
"A popular website that hosted more than 70,000 bloggers was shut down suddenly last week after the FBI informed its chief technology officer that the site contained hit lists, bomb-making documents and links to Al Qaeda materials, it was reported on Monday.

"When the WordPress platform Blogetery.com went dead, the initial explanation from the site's host, Burst.net, was that 'a law-enforcement agency' had ordered it to shut down, citing a 'history of abuse.' The explanation caused a wave of conspiracy theories in the blogosphere.

"But according to a report on CNET Monday, Burst.net shut down Blogetery.com when it became spooked by a letter from the FBI, in which the bureau detailed the presence of terrorist materials among the blog posts...."
(FOXNews)
"Spooked" isn't quite the sort of stuffy prose that a more literary outlet might employ - but I think it fits what we know, to date.

Finally, what I regard as the must-read article, from CNET. There's more detail, after this excerpt:
"More details are surfacing about why Blogetery.com, a blogging platform that claimed to service more than 70,000 blogs, was mysteriously booted from the Internet by its Web-hosting company.

"The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of Burst.net, Blogetery's Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery's servers, Joe Marr, chief technology officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.

"But Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own.

"This past weekend, reports surfaced that Blogetery was shut down by the federal government and suggested that it was likely due to copyright violations. On Sunday, CNET reported that the shutdown had nothing to do with copyright violations and that a similar service, Ipbfree.com, a platform for message boards, was shuttered within days of Blogetery. It is still unclear why Ipbfree was cut off...."
(CNET)
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

There's an op-ed piece in today's online Telegraph that deals with Iran, those people over there who use Twitter, and - in my opinion - notions of propriety.

From the second and third paragraphs:
"...For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
I've put a more extensive excerpt at the end of this post1, but as usual I recommend reading the entire op-ed piece.

The author has a point, which he makes later rather deeper in the opinion piece: that people in Iran who disapprove of the Ayatollah's government, and say so, put their lives in danger. Including people in Iran who use Twitter or other online resources.

"There has been no revolution in Iran."

There has been no successful revolution in Iran. I'm quite sure that the Ayatollahs and their followers would be only too happy to agree that Iran's people are completely behind their Islamic republic - and that all the fuss is the work of outside agitators and CIA stooges.

The continuing protests are not, perhaps, quite a revolution in the sense of being a well-defined set of military operations conducted with the stated purpose of replacing Iran's current government with something else.

On the other hand, it's hard to shake the impression that quite a number of people in Iran are quite sincerely put out with their leaders and/or their leaders' actions.

Perhaps it isn't, quite, a revolution. But popular support for Iran's Ayatollahs is far from solid.

"Chubby Fingertips" and That Webby Award

Twitter is big these days: and to blame for quite a bit, if you believe everything you hear. ("Inbound Link Dead! Twitter Did It! (maybe so, maybe not)," Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 22, 2009)) What is quite certain is that Twitter is
  • New
  • Big
  • Growing
    • Fast
'Obviously,' from some points of view, that means that there's something improper about Twitter. I don't see it that way, but being an early adapter runs in the family. One of my forebears, Arba Zeri Campbell, had the first telephone in his part of the world. He waited a long time for his first call.

I'll admit to having a personal bias when it comes to Twitter. I'm one of those people with "chubby fingertips" who use Twitter.

Right now, though, I'm using my "chubby fingertips" to opine about being proper, what's going on in Iran, and responsibility.

The author of that Telegraph op-ed, perhaps magnanimously, says:
"...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
The "illegal activity" he's referring to could be either disagreeing with the Ayatollahs, or participating in some of the more violent anti-government demonstrations. The basic idea, though - that confronting a dictatorship has an ethical dimension - is valid.

Just before that, he wrote:
"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
I'm not an internet user in Britain. I live on the other side of the Atlantic. The same principle applies, though, I think.

There's been quite a lot written about the false sense of anonymity which many people seem to have when their online, and the equally false sense of immunity from consequences.

It's quite possible that some people who use Twitter - or other online social media - don't realize how profoundly non-anonymous they are when they're online. Even if you're not logged into Twitter or some other website, it's very easy to trace which server you're using - and just about exactly where you are.

I've written before, about how vulnerable the Internet is - particularly in some parts of the world - and how easy it is for repressive regimes to control and track online activity. (December 7, 2009)

Which is one of the reasons why I am so very concerned when I read that someone wants to 'protect' me or my family from the wicked, wicked Web. Remember when the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority tried to censor what Americans were allowed to read online? I do. (March 9, 2008)
That Webby Award
The Webby Awards have been around for quite a while, and are more prestigious than many, probably most, Web awards. That said, I'm neither impressed nor appalled that Twitter won a Webby. Since it's well on its way to being one of the Internet's 800-pound gorillas, it would be odd if the Webbys didn't recognize Twitter.

Politely Looking the Other Way

The idea that 'proper persons don't talk about that' isn't a uniquely British notion. I've run into the same idea here in America.

Back in the sixties, the more unreflective conservative types were passionately convinced that nobody, but nobody, should criticize the government. It's not the sixties any more, and there's a new set of taboo topics - but that's another topic.

Politely looking the other way while Iran's Ayatollahs deal with counter-revolutionaries does not seem to be what this op-ed is about: "...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran...." Although I had to look for that (disclaimer?)

Natives and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

What struck me, reading "Iran and Twitter: the fatal folly of the online revolutionaries," was what may be an underlying assumption. Repeating an excerpt I quoted before:
"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
Factually, there's nothing to quibble about here. It is important to remember that someone living in a country which allows some degree of free expression does not face the same dangers as someone who does not. And people at the 'free' end of a conversation should remember that.

However, it's hard for me to shake the impression that the responsibility is seen as being at the British end. After all, people living in Iran are, by and large, Iranian. They're simply not British.

I think it's laudable that the author be concerned with the well-being of people in a foreign land. But isn't it reasonable to assume some level of personal responsibility at the non-British end of these communications? The words "native" and "white man's burden" don't appear in the Telegraph piece.

But I still can't shake the feeling that there's something of the old condescension that people in "advanced" countries were apt to show toward those in "primitive" lands: although terms like "third world" are more commonly used these days.

Related posts: Views:
1 Excerpt from today's op-ed in the Telegraph:
"As young men and women took to the streets of Tehran on Sunday to confront the Revolutionary Guard, another very different protest sprang to life all over the world. This one didn't face tear-gas or gunfire. And its participants didn't risk prison, torture or death. It took place on 2009's most trendy website: Twitter.com.

"For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election. Meanwhile, protests continue to be violently suppressed by government forces and unregulated militias, with human rights groups saying that at least 400 demonstrators have been killed since June. Dozens of those arrested remain unaccounted for, and many of those set free tell of rape and vicious beatings in Iran's most notorious prisons...."

"...As a result, the crackdown in Iran has been easier than ever before. Once the Revolutionary Guard intercept a suspect message, they are able to pinpoint the location of a guilty protester using their computer's IP address. Then it's just a question of knocking on doors – and confiscating laptops and PCs for hard evidence.

"Sadly, when this happens, those outside Iran cannot always absolve themselves of responsibility. If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger.

"There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension. It's equally foolish, of course, to kid yourself that you're on the front line...."
(Telegraph op-ed)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, December 7, 2009

How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them

Turns out, it's fairly easy to block people from the Internet. In some parts of the world. I ran into an article that describes how Iran was able to "shut down the 'net" today. Not the whole Internet, of course: just the parts in areas where the Ayatollahs' enforcers were doing something that involved tear gas and bullets.

Just exactly what happened isn't entirely clear: but Iran's leaders didn't let another "Neda" video get out.
"How to Shut Down the 'Net: A Guide for Repressive Regimes"
FOXNews (December 7, 2009)

" Facing student protests ahead of today's National Students Day — the anniversary of three student deaths in Tehran in 1953 — the state-owned Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) slowed or blocked completely access to the Internet for most of the state

"The Internet may be a worldwide superhighway, but it's all to easy to shut it down. Governments aiming to squelch free speech in don't even have to work hard to do so: It's all too easy to restrict the Internet and keep their people in the dark...."
The rest of the article is, I think, worth reading. But then, I'm one of those people who read articles in The New York Times, Reuters, Xinhua News Agency, and even - FOXNews.

There are quite a few ways of reacting to the article, including (adapted from another blog's post):
  1. Denial:
    • The article is on the FOXNews website, so it must be a lie
      • And probably some kind of conspiracy
  2. Defense:
    • Iran's leaders, as non-Western rulers with citizens who aren't unswervingly loyal
      • Has very understandable reasons for stamping out criticism
      • Shouldn't be judged harshly
        • If at all
      • Is simply reacting to Yankee imperialism
        • Which, in some circles, excuses almost anything
  3. Resignation:
    • That's just the way things are
      • And it's never going to change
  4. Interest:
    • So that's how it's done
Considering the myriad ways of the human mind, I'm sure there are many more alternative reactions.

Me? I go with the fourth alternative. I don't approve of the Ayatollah's government: even though it is a democracy, in the sense that they have elections: and replaced a monarchy. I grew up in America, a republic with a 'strong democratic tradition,' and think that a democracy is a workable form of government. But I don't think it's the only way that a country can be run - or even the only 'good' way to manage national affairs. (November 15, 2009, December 29, 2008) But I'm getting off-topic.

The point is, because of the way information technology is set up in Iran, and the sort of power the government has - legally - it's fairly easy for the Ayatollahs to black out parts of their domain.

Quite a few countries don't have the bewildering array of Internet Service Providers that America has - which simplifies the process of choosing an ISP - and which really helps the government, when the Supreme Leader, or whatever the big kahuna's title is, wants to lean on the local and regional ISPs.

From a technical point of view, filtering unwanted information is a fairly straightforward affair.
"...Keyword blocking prevents people from searching for such obviously dangerous words as 'freedom' and 'democracy.' Custom black lists also server to block content that specifically rankles the government. Is it unions, student protests or something else?

"When the government catches someone searching for these terms, they can automatically turn off their access for a period of time. "If a user happens upon a site or search result that has been flagged unacceptable, that user’s connection to the Internet can be dropped altogether for a specified period of time," notes PCMag.com's Lynn...."
The article is, I think, a fairly quick way to learn just how easy it is to control what people are allowed to read and see. Information technology like the Internet makes it possible for people around the world to communicate - but only as long as national leaders are willing to put up with the occasional embarrassments that go along with that sort of transparency.

I think that America enjoys a remarkable degree of freedom, and I'm one of those people who's willing to put up with the messy side of open communication. I don't like it, but that - again - is another topic. (See "Frosty the Pornman....," in another blog)

A history of (relatively) free exchange of ideas is no guarantee that Americans will be allowed to express themselves in the future. It hasn't been all that long, since a strange alliance of very serious people tried to "protect" Americans from the Internet. (March 9, 2008) Yes, it can happen here - and almost did.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs

Iran is in the news again today. If the reports resemble the sort of reporting we used to get from distant lands, back in pre-Internet days, there's a reason.

'Noted and recorded' excepts from the news are at the end of this post.

Briefly,
  • Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that Iran has - right now - the parts and tools it takes to build one nuclear fission bomb. And vehicles that could send such a bomb to Israel.
  • Netanyahu also says that Iran's leadership is losing respect - and legitimacy.
  • Today is National Students Day in Iran, and there are protests.
    • Against the June "election."
  • Iran's police are using tear gas - and live bullets - against the protesters.
People on the same page, more or less, as Iran's Ayatollahs, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, can ignore the first two news items - or use them as more "proof" of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy.

Me? I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has a fairly well-defined point of view. And, in all probability, would just as soon not have a nuclear bomb go off over his country. Well, everybody has biases of some sort.

I also think that anti-Semetism is alive and well, but nowhere near as popular as it was after the 1940s and places like Dachau and Auschwitz were liberated. Chancellor Hitler did no favors for either the traditional practice of blaming the Jews or eugenics. But that's another topic. (September 29, 2009, for starters)

"Death to the Dictator" - With a Twist

Back in the "good old days," news of a demonstration somewhere and chants of "death to the dictator" could be counted on to be of the reassuringly familiar anti-American sort. After all, 'everybody knows' that the American Empire (which doesn't show up on the map, oddly enough), and/or the military-industrial complex was the focus of animosity. After all, as 'everybody knows,' America is pretty much all icky and oppresses people something fierce.

Today, at a University in Iran, people are protesting the dubiously-legitimate election in June.
"...Police in Tehran shot tear-gas canisters at demonstrators, who chanted, 'Death to the dictator' and set garbage bins afire. Hundreds of security forces in riot gear stood alongside streets, witnesses said...."
In context, it's fairly clear that the "dictator" is the Ayatollahs' pick in the June election, who just happened to win. In a statistically-improbable way.

The LA Times deserves credit for pointing out what Iran's "National Students Day" is about:
"...National Students Day marks a violent crackdown on a 1953 protest against a visit by then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon following a U.S.-backed coup d'etat that ousted the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and restored the absolute rule of the monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.Since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, the day has traditionally been an occasion for high school and college students take to the streets and chant anti-American slogans...."

"...On Sunday night, loud cries of 'Allah akbar,' or 'God is great,' could be heard being shouted in Tehran neighborhoods and campuses in what has become a regular protest ritual since the disputed vote...."

"...'They ask us to forget about the election results as if the problem is only the elections,' [opposition leader Mir Hossein] Mousavi said in a recent statement published on the Internet. 'The problem of our people is not who the head of the government is or who is not. The problem is that this few are bolstering their egos to the shame of a great nation.'

"He added, 'You fight people on the streets, but you are constantly losing your dignity in people's minds.'..."
(Los Angeles Times)

America isn't Perfect, and Never Has Been

I don't think America is perfect, and have written about this lack before: On the other hand, although I don't have the fashionable anti-American attitude, I also don't think that a bicameral legislature and strong democratic traditions are the one and only 'right' way to run a country. (November 15, 2009, December 29, 2008)

Moving along.

"Allah Akbar" - That's Anti-American, Right?

Wrong. In my opinion, anyway. That bit, "loud cries of 'Allah akbar,' or 'God is great,' " isn't something that you're likely to hear in America, but that doesn't make something anti-American.

The 'default' religion in American is a sort of Protestant Christianity. (April 16, 2008) And, for several decades now, the more intelligent and sophisticated and tolerant (just ask them) Americans "know" that citing Christian beliefs in public is just like the KKK burning crosses back in the fifties or sixties. You can't argue with logic like that. (August 5, 2008)

Besides, I've gotten the impression that quite a few Americans don't take their religious beliefs all that seriously - or think religion is a "private" thing, and doesn't have any place in the workplace or in public discussion. Which is a topic for another blog.

In sharp contrast, quite a few people in countries where Islam is a common faith aren't ashamed of their faith, give a rip about what they say they believe, and aren't embarrassed or ashamed to apply their faith to what an American might call "real life."

Hence, "Allah Akbar" or "Allahu Akbar" being part of public demonstrations.

And remember, it looks like this time it's part of a strongly-held belief that the Ayatollahs' government isn't acting well. At all.

Anti-American? Doesn't look like it. Something you aren't likely to hear in carefully secular America? Yeah, I think so.

The Ayatollahs Learned Something From That Neda Thing

Remember Neda Agha-Soltan? (Persian: ندا آقا سلطان - Nedā Āġā Soltān; 1982 – June 20, 2009 (Wikipedia))

Looks like the Ayatollahs do, too:
"...Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia had warned the opposition not to use the rally to revive protests against the clerical establishment after the June vote.

""Internet and mobile phone connections were also affected by an official clampdown. "The network in central Tehran and near Tehran university is completely down," said one website...."
(Telegraph.co.uk)
I think that (attempted) Internet and telecommunications blackout are a response to the embarrassment of the non-shooting undeath of Neda: who at at one point hadn't been killed, and anyway the CIA did it or foreigners or something like that.

Embarrassing.

It looks like Iran's leaders learned something from the Neda fiasco. And, tried to control the flow of information this time.
It Can't Happen Here?
Remember, I said I don't think American has ever been perfect? I don't think it will be, either. Which is why I very emphatically do not want 'the government' to 'protect' me and my family from the big, bad Internet, the Wicked, Wicked Web, impertinent bloggers, or anyone else with opinions that may not meet with official approval. (March 9, 2008)

Nuclear War? Not Impossible

I sincerely hope that people in Iran who don't agree with the Ayatollah's peculiar take on Islam get control of the country - before the Supreme Leader decides to start a nuclear war.

The way Iran is going now, I think it's possible that Russia may actually fire the first shot. The current Russian government has declared a first-strike policy for using nuclear weapons. (January 19, 2008)

It's not hard to imagine, if things get tense enough, that Russian leaders decide that, all things considered, they'd rather have Tehran disappear with a bright flash, than have the same thing happen to Moscow.

I hope that doesn't happen: but the Supreme Leader may decide that Allah's telling him to destroy the infidel bear.

Related posts: In the news: Background:
Noted and recorded:
" 'Iran can now produce nuclear bomb' "
Jerusalem Post (December 7, 2009)

"Iran now has the technical capability to build a nuclear bomb and the only thing separating it from the bomb is the decision to go ahead and build one, said Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of Military Intelligence's research division, on Monday.

"Speaking at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Baidatz said Iran had successfully enriched 1,800 kilograms of uranium, enough to build over one bomb...."

"Netanyahu Says Iranian Leaders Losing Support"
Reuters, via The New York Times (December 7, 2009)

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel had benefited from what he called the Iranian government's loss of legitimacy, both among other states and with its own people.

"Speaking to a closed session of the parliamentary defence committee, as quoted by an official, Netanyahu repeated his view that Israel must prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but gave no indication of if or when Israel might use military force -- an option his government has refused to rule out...."

"Violent clashes erupt in Iran as protesters renew outcry over June presidential election"
Los Angeles Times (December 7, 2009)
"Police, protesters clash in Tehran on National Students Day. The event marks a 1953 crackdown on protests after a U.S.-backed coup, but activists use the occasion for anti-government demonstrations."

"Reporting from Beirut - Anti-government protests surged in Iran this afternoon as college students in several cities clashed with security forces armed with clubs in the latest round of confrontations over the nation's disputed presidential elections."

"Police in Tehran shot tear-gas canisters at demonstrators, who chanted, "Death to the dictator" and set garbage bins afire. Hundreds of security forces in riot gear stood alongside streets, witnesses said...."

"Iranian police shoot at unarmed protesters during Tehran demonstrations"
Telegraph.co.uk (December 7, 2009)
"Iranian police fired tear gas and live bullets as they fought back thousands of unarmed protesters on the streets of Tehran."

"There were bloody clashes as young people launched a fresh wave of anti-government protests on the country's official Students Day.

"Police used warning shots, baton charges and gas but failed to stop rallies, sit-ins and campus marches across the capital...."

"...Earlier in the day, the authorities detained 23 members of a protest group of grieving mothers. They included the mother of Neda Agha-Soltan, known as the "Angel of Freedom", who was shot by pro-government militia at the height of demonstrations against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election in June...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.