As unrest grows, Iran restricts access to Instagram, WhatsApp(reuters.com)
reuters.com
As unrest grows, Iran restricts access to Instagram, WhatsApp
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-restricts-access-instagram-netblocks-2022-09-21/
260 comments
I'm an Iranian living in Italy and have an Italian phone/WhatsApp number. Couldn't call anyone or receive WhatsApp calls to/from Iranian and non-Iranian numbers yesterday afternoon when the internet blocking started in Iran. It was like all numbers somehow in touch with Iranian contacts were blocked from completing calls. As soon as either side of the call would answer, the call would end with a message like you are connected via a network that has blocked WhatsApp or something similar.
How is it possible for two non-Iranians (in a geographic/telecom sense, not ethnic sense) to lose the connection on WhatsApp due to Iranian government? Surely the blocklist isn't implemented inside Facebook, it must be based on cellphone carrier.
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32937782 links to claims that the Iranian government hacked WhatsApp or one of its networking providers.
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32937782 links to claims that the Iranian government hacked WhatsApp or one of its networking providers.
Normally the government (in this case Iran) contacts the service provider (in this case FB/Whatsapp)and lets them know that unless they self-block their service, the government will do blocking at the network level and might issue fines.
Normally, that makes the service provider implement blocks on their end, because then at least they can present the user with a sensible error message, and other services that the government isn't trying to block are not impacted (eg. services hosted on the same servers - for example Whatsapp voice calls might be banned, but text chat not banned).
Normally, that makes the service provider implement blocks on their end, because then at least they can present the user with a sensible error message, and other services that the government isn't trying to block are not impacted (eg. services hosted on the same servers - for example Whatsapp voice calls might be banned, but text chat not banned).
It is illegal in USA for Meta to pay fines to Iran government.
The government is blocking at network level anyway.
The app provider should detect the network outage and provide a good UI, not proactively block users who aren't using the affected network at all.
The government is blocking at network level anyway.
The app provider should detect the network outage and provide a good UI, not proactively block users who aren't using the affected network at all.
> The app provider should detect the network outage and provide a good UI,
Can the blocking be adequately distinguished from packet loss? If not it seems like it would be embarrassing for the app to declare Government blockage when it's not really the case.
Can the blocking be adequately distinguished from packet loss? If not it seems like it would be embarrassing for the app to declare Government blockage when it's not really the case.
It’s probably validated by a human before the message is deployed.
Sure, but if Meta/Facebook/Whatsapp would react to such an order from _Iran_ they'd be in very big trouble _very_ quickly. That's violating US sanctions level stuff.
Ignoring the Iranian government might make them loose some users. Trying to ignore the US government will make some people go to prison. If that's what happens.. someone made a _very_ bad decision
Ignoring the Iranian government might make them loose some users. Trying to ignore the US government will make some people go to prison. If that's what happens.. someone made a _very_ bad decision
There is zero chance that FB/Meta is complicit in this. The occam's razor answer is that the Iranian government has figured out an attack, and a bunch of FB employees are frantically trying to mitigate it instead of reading HN.
I doubt Iran needs to go to the extent of hacking Meta to block a few random users in Italy? They've achieved their main aim of quelling protests by simply blocking at the network level. I'm skeptical about the original bug report.
To my knowledge, Iranian government doesn't have power to dictate FB's actions outside Iran. So FB could block by the IPs, but blocking everywhere by the nationality makes no sense (at least by the standards of a normal person).
I can only send email 500 miles and my nationality seems to impact my cell service
Github once managed to ban accounts of Iranians, even students in the US. Afaik shortly after that GH went to the US government and convinced them that sanctioning every Iranian even outside Iran was technically and politically dubious, which resulted in the sanctions being relaxed in some way.
Facebook is working with the Iranian government, of course.
I noticed this issue last night while trying to call WhatsApp numbers in India from the UK (no Iranian numbers involved). I got the same error message: "Couldn't place call because your device is connected to a Wi-Fi network that prevents WhatsApp calls. Connect to a different network or turn Wi-Fi off." I wonder if that was collateral damage from the Iranian block.
I have friends here in the US who use WhatsApp and they are originally from Iran. I wonder, if it's been many years since they lived in Iran if they're still considered "Iranian" for the purposes of this blockage?
I’ve seen many tweets from people in Germany, USA, Turkey etc. that they can’t access their WhatsApp account. Seems to be both Iranian government and Meta.
Edit: can be a compromised CDN. See https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46...
Edit 2: Videos are being removed too https://twitter.com/youranonstory/status/1572747450368290816...
Edit 3: from Cloudflare: https://blog.cloudflare.com/protests-internet-disruption-ir/
Edit: can be a compromised CDN. See https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46...
Edit 2: Videos are being removed too https://twitter.com/youranonstory/status/1572747450368290816...
Edit 3: from Cloudflare: https://blog.cloudflare.com/protests-internet-disruption-ir/
I’m in Turkey currently and my father works in Moscow as an expat, yesterday we were not able to do video calls on Whatsapp and assumed it’s the Russians blocking it because the error message that Whatsapp gave was something like the operator of the person you call doesn’t support video calls. Tried Wi-Fi and mobile internet, the result was the same.
Voice calls and text worked just fine.
Voice calls and text worked just fine.
(I've moved your comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32937709 to the merged thread because it's a good comment and I don't want it to get stuck where no one will see it.)
Thanks!
> Edit: can be a compromised CDN
I don't see mention of a CDN in the link or the conversation around it, the closest being "artifact of its infrastructure". Was it the correct link?
I'm not seeing how a CDN exploit would result in Instagram replying with "your post has been removed". That said I'm only inferring how Meta uses its CDNs (e.g storing static user posted video/image assets)
I don't see mention of a CDN in the link or the conversation around it, the closest being "artifact of its infrastructure". Was it the correct link?
I'm not seeing how a CDN exploit would result in Instagram replying with "your post has been removed". That said I'm only inferring how Meta uses its CDNs (e.g storing static user posted video/image assets)
Oppressive governments must be thankful to all BigTechs able to consolidate userbase and services around a handful of apps. It makes it really easy to switch things on/off when needed. The original purpose of the Internet as being a resilient p2p network for the people has been completely defeated in some nations.
You drastically underestimate power that those oppressive governments have in real world that some fancy decentralized solution would solve. They just take down the internet.
> They just take down the internet.
Or kill a lot of people if they rebel. Which is what Iran did just before the pandemic, and which the media only briefly covered. They machine-gunned people in the streets by the thousands and the West barely batted an eye.
It was as bad as Tiananmen Square in 1989, but you'd never know it going by the media coverage then or since.
Or kill a lot of people if they rebel. Which is what Iran did just before the pandemic, and which the media only briefly covered. They machine-gunned people in the streets by the thousands and the West barely batted an eye.
It was as bad as Tiananmen Square in 1989, but you'd never know it going by the media coverage then or since.
The only way to win is the point when police and army joins your side. That's only how those are won.
Of course, Iran has parallel structures with IRGC specifically made for those situation.
Of course, Iran has parallel structures with IRGC specifically made for those situation.
Building a resilient p2p service on the internet doesn't just require not using big name SaaS, it means building that service to not need the WebCAs or even DNS, two core services that are anything but p2p. I honestly don't know of any applications that require neither.
You can distribute DNS data over any transport, p2p or not. Ans with DNSSEC, you can trust the contents you get from any transport.
Are you concerned with countries forcefully removing entries? Because there are a lot of other country TLDs where you can add your entries if you want.
Are you concerned with countries forcefully removing entries? Because there are a lot of other country TLDs where you can add your entries if you want.
Virtually everyone relies on ISP DNS servers, which can trivially bypass DNSSEC (DNSSEC collapses down to a single bit in the header on the last hop from server to stub resolver). If all you're trying to do is resist DNS censorship, you can get almost everything you need from using an out-of-country name and DoH, which is universally available, very much unlike DNSSEC.
DNS without DNSSEC is pretty much vulnerable to the kind of censorship that won't even let you know you are being censored... Any name system without something equivalent to DNSSEC is.
With DNSSEC it is still vulnerable, but only to the kinds that you will know you are being censored, so you can try to get it from another country or another channel.
If your ISP denies DNSSEC for you, you already know you are being attacked, and can get it through some other channel. DoH is a cool channel, just make sure it has DNSSEC.
With DNSSEC it is still vulnerable, but only to the kinds that you will know you are being censored, so you can try to get it from another country or another channel.
If your ISP denies DNSSEC for you, you already know you are being attacked, and can get it through some other channel. DoH is a cool channel, just make sure it has DNSSEC.
For the vast majority of DNSSEC-enabled end user systems, the user's device is not doing its own DNSSEC validations. It's using a DNSSEC-enabled resolver and trusting the bit set on the DNS query response where the recursive resolver says "yup, I confirm that DNSSEC is good here". Given that these resolvers are generally provided by the user's ISP, if the ISP wants to lie about DNSSEC, they can just fudge the results and set that bit to "yup, we're good".
The only way around this is for local systems to do their own recursive resolution, which isn't the default configuration on any OS or distribution that I'm aware of.
The only way around this is for local systems to do their own recursive resolution, which isn't the default configuration on any OS or distribution that I'm aware of.
Honestly, this is something I shouldn't have to say. But getting a DNS response with a flag saying "yep, trust me, it's valid" is not DNSSEC.
What is it with DNSSEC that people have to pollute discussions saying that stupid stuff that isn't DNSSEC isn't secure?
What is it with DNSSEC that people have to pollute discussions saying that stupid stuff that isn't DNSSEC isn't secure?
Are there any operating systems or distributions that actually ship with DNSSEC validation via local recursive resolution?
The reason I'm describing local stub resolvers that check the dnssec bit of their upstream recursive resolver is because that's how DNSSEC is implemented in every OS/distro I'm aware of. So that configuration is what actually matters when we talk about users being protected (or not) by DNSSEC.
The reason I'm describing local stub resolvers that check the dnssec bit of their upstream recursive resolver is because that's how DNSSEC is implemented in every OS/distro I'm aware of. So that configuration is what actually matters when we talk about users being protected (or not) by DNSSEC.
It's an interesting flavor of "No True Scotsman" when you've managed to argue that every resolver on every OS in the world is "stupid stuff that isn't DNSSEC". If DNSSEC only works if you're using a custom fully-recursing resolver, not present on any mainstream operating system or built into a single piece of software you install on your machine, what exactly is the point of signing a zone? So far as you're concerned, nothing is doing DNSSEC validation in the first place.
DNSSEC has a very clear specification a few widespread implementations. What you are talking about fit to those?
Are you really making FUD about it, by claiming unrelated logical fallacies in a non-boolean discussion? How does a "no true Scotsman" even applies to something that has a published standard?
I know you don't like it, yet, I have never seen any proposal that brings you the assurances DNSSEC brings. AFAIK, your favorites all wither solve different problems (relevant problems, yes, but not the same) or have strictly lower assurances (AKA, they are subject to the exact same flaws, and are either worse or not better of for each one of them).
Are you really making FUD about it, by claiming unrelated logical fallacies in a non-boolean discussion? How does a "no true Scotsman" even applies to something that has a published standard?
I know you don't like it, yet, I have never seen any proposal that brings you the assurances DNSSEC brings. AFAIK, your favorites all wither solve different problems (relevant problems, yes, but not the same) or have strictly lower assurances (AKA, they are subject to the exact same flaws, and are either worse or not better of for each one of them).
It feels like you're not as familiar with the spec as you think you are.
DNSSEC defines stub resolvers, both validating and non-validating. Validating stub resolvers do their own supplemental recursive lookups to confirm DNSSEC validation. Non-validating stub resolvers do not: they strictly determine DNSSEC trust by checking for the "ad" header bit in the response from their upstream recursive resolver.
Every operating system, Linux distribution, and application that I'm aware of defaults to having a non-validating stub resolver (if it enables DNSSEC validation at all). This renders DNSSEC validation as performed by the overwhelming majority of systems vulnerable to the risk we're flagging here.
DNSSEC defines stub resolvers, both validating and non-validating. Validating stub resolvers do their own supplemental recursive lookups to confirm DNSSEC validation. Non-validating stub resolvers do not: they strictly determine DNSSEC trust by checking for the "ad" header bit in the response from their upstream recursive resolver.
Every operating system, Linux distribution, and application that I'm aware of defaults to having a non-validating stub resolver (if it enables DNSSEC validation at all). This renders DNSSEC validation as performed by the overwhelming majority of systems vulnerable to the risk we're flagging here.
Until the ISP or government just blocks all the popular DNS servers by IP.....
That's pretty tough to do, since any IP can run a DoH cache.
True but in practice developers are not that creative (yet) and there are even people who are regularly creating and updating lists with all of these IPs. I manually entered them but you can also run a firewall on your mobile devices (android) as well and combined with a opnsense / pfsense at home you are pretty much set. There may come a day when a provider starts to generate tons of different DoH providers on the fly but I do not think we have seen that yet.
Probably I should figure out a way to have my pfsense box though dynamically generate the blocked IP's based on one of these dynamically updated lists...
Probably I should figure out a way to have my pfsense box though dynamically generate the blocked IP's based on one of these dynamically updated lists...
Wouldnt any service that could be used by just manually entering IP addresses be workable? No DNS involved.
It's not like ordinary people were running their own mail servers or other p2p tech in the pre-Big-Tech days, nor would it have been considerably harder for the government to disrupt email traffic than it is for them to block Facebook/etc. This isn't a pro-Big-Tech or pro-centralization message, only that we never actually lived in a golden age of ubiquitous decentralized communication that was robust against state actor censorship.
this just sounds like whataboutism and is skirting the issue. there is an enormous amount of censorship power within BigTech right now. given the “value” their core businesses provide, which is funded by manipulating your attention to get ad impressions, they should be broken up. why does facebook get to run whatsapp when it’s an ad business?
Not really that distributed given that everything is controlled by 'hubs/isps' which are within arms reach for any government within their borders.
The internet was built for fail-over to maintain communicatoin during a nuclear event.
The internet is less concerned about being a p2p network, which it clearly is not. A totally ad-hoc p2p network would be interesting, and more resiliant in some ways and lossy in others. It probably makes sense to entertain such a model. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Totally agree with you though. It's a big problem with the _increased amount of centralization_ in traffic flow / routing. That and BGP is wack.
The internet was built for fail-over to maintain communicatoin during a nuclear event.
The internet is less concerned about being a p2p network, which it clearly is not. A totally ad-hoc p2p network would be interesting, and more resiliant in some ways and lossy in others. It probably makes sense to entertain such a model. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Totally agree with you though. It's a big problem with the _increased amount of centralization_ in traffic flow / routing. That and BGP is wack.
To me, the idea of shutting down Internet via ISPs or international backbones is similar to blowing up your own house with TNT when a robber breaks into it. You stop the robbery, but your family pays the price as well.
Shutting down the Internet will disrupt not only people's communications but also systems' communications at various levels, including the systems of interest of the oppressive, of his/her family or political allies.
It would be so much easier and safer to the group in power to just "maneuver" bigtech instead. I remember when Facebook's general manager in the country I live was arrested[1], then blackmailed, to provide authorities means for them to access WhatsApp messages without confiscating the actual phones. Fast forward today, they are confiscating phones whenever they feel like reading private messages from anyone[2].
I liked how other folks reacted to my original comment posting their technical view. I didn't know DNS was such a weak link and a clear point of failure to the Internet. I wonder if protocols like BitTorrent could survive DNS restrictions, allowing people to communicate via shared text files thrown within a folder. My guess is that since it has survived the copyright crisis back then, it could be used for other crisis as well. Frankly, I'm just suspecting.
[1] https://jornaldebrasilia.com.br/noticias/brasil/executivo-do... [2] https://jc.ne10.uol.com.br/colunas/jamildo/2022/08/15065135-...
Shutting down the Internet will disrupt not only people's communications but also systems' communications at various levels, including the systems of interest of the oppressive, of his/her family or political allies.
It would be so much easier and safer to the group in power to just "maneuver" bigtech instead. I remember when Facebook's general manager in the country I live was arrested[1], then blackmailed, to provide authorities means for them to access WhatsApp messages without confiscating the actual phones. Fast forward today, they are confiscating phones whenever they feel like reading private messages from anyone[2].
I liked how other folks reacted to my original comment posting their technical view. I didn't know DNS was such a weak link and a clear point of failure to the Internet. I wonder if protocols like BitTorrent could survive DNS restrictions, allowing people to communicate via shared text files thrown within a folder. My guess is that since it has survived the copyright crisis back then, it could be used for other crisis as well. Frankly, I'm just suspecting.
[1] https://jornaldebrasilia.com.br/noticias/brasil/executivo-do... [2] https://jc.ne10.uol.com.br/colunas/jamildo/2022/08/15065135-...
Yeah. People love the convenience of Big Tech and never think about the abuses their enable. Even if someone built a perfectly resilient uncensorable mesh network and E2E encrypted messaging service, what is the point if nobody uses it?
That includes our own government in US. If you have not noticed, there has been a constant pestering from Congress to censor big tech and “severe consequences” otherwise. And not to say the clear as daylight funding they provide to people in power as part of the lobbying effort. Oh and the same people in media and big tech then decide what is misinformation and not.
This protest is very different from previous protests. Look it up. Women in Iran are just tired of being oppressed and their movement is an embodiment of feminism. I'm an Iranian and unfortunately this protest hasn't received world wide attention in the news. This is a first time women taking the lead in protesting against this tyrannical regime.
>this protest hasn't received world wide attention in the news
? Its on every news page I have looked up.
? Its on every news page I have looked up.
It’s on every pro-Ukrainian telegram channel I read (and I’m reading way too many), mostly in the context of comparing Iranian boldness to feeble Russian protests against the war.
It’s been in the news here (w-europe) a lot and in conversations with colleagues! I also think it’s a worldwide struggle for self determination for women, especially in countries that are run or dominated by men.
It's been on the BBC front page about a woman lead protest since a few days ago
Welcome news, for sure. It seems that Iranians are fierce people who are not afraid of protesting their government. Why do protests usually stall, though? Is it the virulence of the repression machine?
A legacy of social mistrust. USSR had the same exact feature. A variation on 'Everyone was dissatisfied, but no one trusted anyone else'. This is what keeps any regime in power even when the general population doesn't like them: fear of betrayals at personal and movement levels (in places reinforced by recent historic examples).
>This protest hasn't received world wide attention in the news
I'm in faraway Nigeria, and I'm seeing this stuff on the news much against my wishes even.
I'm in faraway Nigeria, and I'm seeing this stuff on the news much against my wishes even.
There have been daily reports on the Guardian website.
Iran is geographically two countries away from Israel, the country that clandestinely fomented similar riots/insurrections in 10+ other countries that border Israel during the Arab Spring. Furthermore, Israel has been greatly outspoken in its hatred of Iran and Iran's nuclear program, going so far as to deploy the most sophisticated cyberattack in history[1]. It would hardly be a conspiracy theory to pin this on Israel rather than women suddenly waking up and deciding to riot after thousands of years of oppression.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
How many major protests have happened in Iran over the past ten years? That's actually a serious question. I remember big ones in 2019. Smaller ones since in the time before the current uprising. Some before 2019 as well. There's tremendous anger beneath the surface in Iran and it's not caused by Mossad.
Iran banned abortion in 1979. There's been a baby boom since. The country is lopsided towards young people. People who don't want the repressive government. They want women to live freely. Many of them want the gay people of their country treated equally. It's an insult to them to say this revolt isn't grassroots. There's so much anger from people who just want to live quiet, normal lives in freedom. Without the rule of clerics and morality police.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a Mossad and/or CIA agent on the ground in Tehran is providing some assistance. That's what they do in times of unrest in an unfriendly country. But "some assistance" is a far cry from fomenting. This is mainly an Iranian effort.
Iran banned abortion in 1979. There's been a baby boom since. The country is lopsided towards young people. People who don't want the repressive government. They want women to live freely. Many of them want the gay people of their country treated equally. It's an insult to them to say this revolt isn't grassroots. There's so much anger from people who just want to live quiet, normal lives in freedom. Without the rule of clerics and morality police.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a Mossad and/or CIA agent on the ground in Tehran is providing some assistance. That's what they do in times of unrest in an unfriendly country. But "some assistance" is a far cry from fomenting. This is mainly an Iranian effort.
Edit: Missed the gay part. It’s more complicated than it looks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Iran . But while I agree there’s official repression, I heard an argument once that a gay person who keeps it private is capable of natural reproduction in iran, whereas in the modern western gay family, they have to go through surrogacy, which is not cheap and outprices some men, not sure if even common. So in this sense the percentage of gays in the US will shrink over time but they have good gay rights. The other is the Iranian government repression rarely comes into action. if a male is known to be gay by those around him, good chance he won’t get reported to government since the punishment is too extreme for anyone to bear it on their conscious, even if the person is truly religious, they prefer to be wrong, and if they are correct, government and the muslim law requires witnesses or conclusive evidence, otherwise defamation. Muslim law bans gays, it "happens" to ban defamation but not sure what is the punishment of the latter. So in this climate the way of loudly claiming gay rights on streets not only embarrasses one’s acquaintances since defiance of norms, it is actually self-sentencing. This is a tight bound, but there’s no law in iran or anywhere else I assume that forces men to marry anyone throughout their lives.
There’s formal repression, less rights, but reality is also important.
At mild risk of getting downvoted.
At least in the last 10 years, the protests has been motivated by economic situation. people don’t like the government but they also remember how bad the last revolution was, iraq-iran war after it on top.
Iran’s banning of abortion matters far less than gov successfully promoting lower number of children through the 90s. Matters far less because numbers, easy to verify.
At least in the last 10 years, the protests has been motivated by economic situation. people don’t like the government but they also remember how bad the last revolution was, iraq-iran war after it on top.
Iran’s banning of abortion matters far less than gov successfully promoting lower number of children through the 90s. Matters far less because numbers, easy to verify.
To add the economic situation is consequence of trump pulling out of the nuclear agreement, sanctioning, and democratic administration keeping the status quo.
@dang my other comment is dead. Flagged or not according to guidelines?
@dang my other comment is dead. Flagged or not according to guidelines?
> It would hardly be a conspiracy theory to pin this on Israel rather than women suddenly waking up and deciding to riot after thousands of years of oppression.
Or, you know, it could be that Iranian women just want that freedom back that was taken from them some 40 years ago. It's not like they've had to cover their hair and follow islamist rules for all of history. If you have any trust in pictures left, go look it up. You'll find plenty of photos of Iranians looking very much like Westerners 70 years ago.
I understand the love for conspiracy theories, but this one is just lacking any effort.
Or, you know, it could be that Iranian women just want that freedom back that was taken from them some 40 years ago. It's not like they've had to cover their hair and follow islamist rules for all of history. If you have any trust in pictures left, go look it up. You'll find plenty of photos of Iranians looking very much like Westerners 70 years ago.
I understand the love for conspiracy theories, but this one is just lacking any effort.
Agreed. People are just tired.
Miriam Webster
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
You have no evidence that this is likely to be Israel. Just speculation. This is conspiracy theory by definition.
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
You have no evidence that this is likely to be Israel. Just speculation. This is conspiracy theory by definition.
People are taking my comment out of context. I'm not saying that Israel is 100% for sure behind this. I'm offering an equally likely explanation in response to the individual above who concluded that this was definitely because women randomly decided that they'd had enough.
Was it actually Israel? Was it just angry women? Nobody truly knows, least of all me or GP.
Was it actually Israel? Was it just angry women? Nobody truly knows, least of all me or GP.
There's been a gradual relaxing of adherance to the hijab in Iran for decades, and this year a woman was murdered because of her 'lax' hijab. You are entertaining the idea that this _could_ be an israeli plot, which you don't have evidence for, alongside the idea it's just "angry women". So yes, even _with_ the context, it sounds a lot like you're spouting conspiracy theories behind a veil of "but I'm just asking _'what if'_?"
This has been going on for many years in the Middle East:
https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/the-new-middle-east-and-...
https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/the-new-middle-east-and-...
"Randomly", after a woman died after being taken into custody by the moral police. But sure, it's "equally likely" that Israel somehow sprinkled the rebellion-seeds over Iran and now the women are rising up. Totally just as likely.
caeril(3)
This highlights the problem of communications metadata still being available to an outside observer or manipulator. A messaging network where source and destination identifiers can't be linked to real-world identifying information, such as phone numbers, would have been resistant to such censorship.
If they can't target some particular group then they just shut down the whole thing. This more highlights the problem of systems with a single point of control.
Multiple providers who federate would still not be enough. With some effort one could block every XMPP server, Jami (or Tor) node out there. You would need something like Briar which does mesh networking via Bluetooth.
With "some effort" you can block anything. Encryption is better than open, federated and encrypted is better than centralized and encrypted, federation over a mesh network is better than just federation.
Just a reminder that Signal supports both censorship circumvention and independently hosted proxies (e.g. Search Twitter, etc. for proxy links using the #IRanASignalProxy hashtag.)
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360056052052-Pr...
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360056052052-Pr...
Does Signal support signup without a phone number yet? Otherwise Iranian telcos could easily eat Signal's SMSs to block signups.
Signing up is a one time thing though.
I believe Telegram is the private messaging app of choice within Iran.
Iran has blocked Telegram in 2017 and 2018. Presumably they could be doing that as well soon which is why I was highlighting some Signal features to help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_in_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_in_Iran
It's blocked but it's still working with MTProxies. VPNs aren't working in Iran (a friend told me) and he's surprised Telegram is the only app that's working fine.
Fortunately Telegram is still up. People are using MTProxy to use Telegram even on blocked internet and it's made it possible for people to organize protests and spread information quickly.
Three cheers for Telegram!
I think this may be implemented at the government level:
https://twitter.com/KianSharifi/status/1572885353551339521?t...
https://twitter.com/KianSharifi/status/1572885353551339521?t...
Slight OT: When I was in Monaco recently the Monaco Telecom network prevented me making or receiving WhatsApp calls. I could message, but no calling. Presumably therefore it is something that the network provider can interfere with effectively.
Yes, Dubai in particular is notorious for this.
https://www.cloudwards.net/whatsapp-ban-in-dubai/
https://www.cloudwards.net/whatsapp-ban-in-dubai/
Could it be that WhatsApp has a mechanism for ISP and telcos to block calls to prevent unnecessary competition? Like Apple has one to prevent using Apple's VPN?
It's not hard nor does it require WhatsApp's cooperation. It's fairly easy to figure out something is an (even encrypted) video call (for example by the consistency of throughput of "wanting to upload") and certainly pretty easy to use a simple algorithm to deduce what that traffic looks like.
Hiding video traffic with other traffic is hard since it's easy to assume "long persistent video-like upload with consistent throughput over something like srtp" is video and get a few false positives and no false negatives.
Hiding video traffic with other traffic is hard since it's easy to assume "long persistent video-like upload with consistent throughput over something like srtp" is video and get a few false positives and no false negatives.
Does anyone know how this works in Iran? All the way from the decision making to the question of: who do you call? What commands do they execute? I would naively start with physical ingress points and add routing rules that stop traffic to service IP blocks (obtained by examining DNS records). Depending on how DNS is deployed (like, is there a national law to only use government run name servers?) you could freeze DNS records from updating.
That would be MY back-of-the-envelope approach to doing internet censorship in a totalitarian dictatorship. But I'm not convinced it's the best way.
That would be MY back-of-the-envelope approach to doing internet censorship in a totalitarian dictatorship. But I'm not convinced it's the best way.
I imagine SNI too - which is in cleartext. There is encrypted SNI but I don't know how far that is along in terms of deployment.
But really for a company like FB you could just blackhole their entire IP range(s) and/or AS (AS32934?) which would take everything offline very quickly.
But really for a company like FB you could just blackhole their entire IP range(s) and/or AS (AS32934?) which would take everything offline very quickly.
Cloudflare supports ESNI. AFAIK none of the mainstream browsers support ESNI by default. I believe the latest build of Firefox [1] may have an option in about:config to enable it. One could check if a website supports ESNI with [2] ESNICheck. Support for ESNI is still subject to change. [3]
[1] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypt-that-sni-firefox-edition...
[2] - https://esnicheck.com/
[3] - https://serverfault.com/questions/976377/how-can-i-set-up-en...
[1] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypt-that-sni-firefox-edition...
[2] - https://esnicheck.com/
[3] - https://serverfault.com/questions/976377/how-can-i-set-up-en...
ESNI is useless. Nobody cares that it's secret - they care that they don't know what you're doing.
It removes plausible deniability, which means no more domain fronting bypasses.
It's not enough to be "secure", you need to be able to hide in plain sight.
It removes plausible deniability, which means no more domain fronting bypasses.
It's not enough to be "secure", you need to be able to hide in plain sight.
I'm a little surprised Whatsapp even works (worked) in Iran, given the US sanctions against the country.
Iran seems to think Whatsapp & Instagram are destabilizing such that turning them off can help quell domestic unrest.
A couple of takeaways. First, holy shit. Communications software is powerful enough to put fear in the hearts of political rulers! Second, insofar as sanctions are designed as punitive measures against a government who's actions our government doesn't support, it makes no sense to restrict their access to goods and services their government finds disruptive. In fact, we'd probably want to give them extra.
A couple of takeaways. First, holy shit. Communications software is powerful enough to put fear in the hearts of political rulers! Second, insofar as sanctions are designed as punitive measures against a government who's actions our government doesn't support, it makes no sense to restrict their access to goods and services their government finds disruptive. In fact, we'd probably want to give them extra.
> Communications software is powerful enough to put fear in the hearts of political rulers!
Well, yes, is this a surprise? Did you miss the "Arab Spring?" Or the Rohingya massacres?
It's a double-edged sword. It can give you a revolution whether you need it or not or whether it's justified or not.
Well, yes, is this a surprise? Did you miss the "Arab Spring?" Or the Rohingya massacres?
It's a double-edged sword. It can give you a revolution whether you need it or not or whether it's justified or not.
The internet is the digital equivalent of Guthenberg's press in Europe: on one hand, it ended the cultural primacy of the Catholic Church; on the other hand, it opened the door to hundreds of years of violence over who could reclaim that primacy.
Eventually we will find a new equilibrium, but right now we're in choppy waters.
Eventually we will find a new equilibrium, but right now we're in choppy waters.
The Arab Spring was about a decade ago. The poster could have been 8 years old at the time. HN's age range is pretty large.
https://xkcd.com/1053/
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Communication networks are the first thing to disable or compromise in any conflict. Whether it's banning African slaves from having Talking Drums or cracking the Enigma during WWII, it's always a feature.
> Communications software is powerful enough to put fear in the hearts of political rulers!
Of course it is. No government wants people to get falseful information from unapproved sources.
Of course it is. No government wants people to get falseful information from unapproved sources.
> Communications software is powerful enough to put fear in the hearts of political rulers!
Yes. Encryption software can also defeat courts, judges, governments, militaries.
Yes. Encryption software can also defeat courts, judges, governments, militaries.
The US government can issue licences to operate in Iran. Perhaps Meta secured one?
GitHub has: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
GitHub has: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
Perhaps it is because the sanctions are financial and WhatsApp does not charge users?
Communications software and services are generally exempt from those sorts of sanctions.
For anyone confused, the HN title has been changed to "As unrest grows, Iran restricts access to Instagram, WhatsApp (reuters.com)"
before it was, [Social Media] banning Iranian users.
before it was, [Social Media] banning Iranian users.
Wouldn't this be proof that Meta is dealing with the Iranian government directly and thus violating US sanctions against Iran?
(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934936, which originally had a title implying that.)
Do we have any proof it's Meta doing this, as opposed to the Iranian government blocking Whatsapp within its borders?
https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46...
| As a former WhatsApp engineer, I don't think WhatsApp even has any mechanism to do such a thing. It's probably an unintended artifact of its infrastructure that the Iranian government has exploited, and knowing the WhatsApp team, they are probably already working on a fix.
| As a former WhatsApp engineer, I don't think WhatsApp even has any mechanism to do such a thing. It's probably an unintended artifact of its infrastructure that the Iranian government has exploited, and knowing the WhatsApp team, they are probably already working on a fix.
It's done at an application level?
(As much as I dislike Meta —) applying foreign laws to foreign users isn't "dealing" with the Iranian government. "Dealing" in the legal sense generally requires a two-way exchange. If Iran unidirectionally imposes a regulation, that's not a deal; Meta has made no decision to enter into it.
(Reference/entry point for legal aspects about this: contracts are also invalid if they're purely unidirectional. If I remember correctly there's a LegalEagle YT video about this, but you can probably dig this up elsewhere too.)
(Reference/entry point for legal aspects about this: contracts are also invalid if they're purely unidirectional. If I remember correctly there's a LegalEagle YT video about this, but you can probably dig this up elsewhere too.)
Possibly. Sanctions law is a hot mess of sometimes contradictory exceptions. In this case, the exceptions regarding "informational materials" may apply.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions...
The Berman Amendment protects transferring information to/from Iran. Blocking information seems quite the opposite.
Which mesh networking app works on iOs?
Bridgefy was never able to find my Android device and vice-versa.
Bridgefy was never able to find my Android device and vice-versa.
Does anything like Briar/Bridgefy exist for Linux? Something that relays messages/packets through a pure P2P meshnet using any connection available (ethernet, wifi, bluetooth), without any intermediate, special purpose routing hardware?
Let's hope the prosters are successful this time.
-crosses fingers…. again-
Unfortunately, they won’t be. China has been exporting some really amazing surveillance tools to Iran, NK, Russia that make revolutions basically impossible now.
When was the last successful overthrow of a despot in a middle income country? Euromaiden 2014?
When was the last successful overthrow of a despot in a middle income country? Euromaiden 2014?
Euromaidan 2014 overthrew a democratically elected president.
It's not clear that he was "democratically elected"--there were many allegations of election fraud and voter intimidation. Moreover, he wasn't "overthrown", parliament voted to remove him (because he ordered the police to shoot protesters en masse). The courts also convicted him of treason, and he was even disavowed by his own party.
Allegations? I thought one had to provide evidence in order to invalidate election results. It's funny how allegations are enough when it's useful to one's own side, but hard evidence is needed for the rest.
> "Yesterday's vote was an impressive display of democratic elections," said João Soares, the president of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly and Special Coordinator for OSCE short- term observers.
It seems election were pretty democratic unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Also, parliament voted his removal without reaching the needed majority, according to Ukraine's own constitution, so the removal itself was unconstitutional.
> "Yesterday's vote was an impressive display of democratic elections," said João Soares, the president of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly and Special Coordinator for OSCE short- term observers.
It seems election were pretty democratic unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Also, parliament voted his removal without reaching the needed majority, according to Ukraine's own constitution, so the removal itself was unconstitutional.
If that had been a democratically elected regime, Ukraine wouldn't be making the stand it is today vs Russia. Ukraine would have immediately folded under popular domestic pressure to give in to / join up with Russia.
The elections have been internationally recognized as democratic. Please refer to the quote from the head of the OSCE observers mission I just posted in the parent thread.
That's the only thing that counts, not your assumption on how Ukraine would behave, especially 12 years after said elections.
That's the only thing that counts, not your assumption on how Ukraine would behave, especially 12 years after said elections.
Iranian software engineer here, AMA
On one hand I don't want to ruin this thread with what is a common topic of disagreement; at the same time your kind offer provides a unique opportunity.
There is a fairly, if not pervasive let's call it vocal technical sentiment that blockchain and related crypto technologies, in some form, are government/oppression-proof; that it provides financial and communication paths and channels that are so firm they withstand attempts by government to shut them down and infiltrate. And that therefore they would "solve a lot of problems" in an oppressive / troubled society.
I come from a country that suffered a civil war, and I've always felt that was naive... Blockchain feels like a complex stack with myriad potential points of failure and accidental reveal for a normal citizen. More to the point, I feel many people are underestimating just how totalitarian and ruthless a government CAN get - a) in locking down through technological means by owning and monitoring infra and coming down immediately to anybody downloading/using/sending software/hardware/protocol/tokens/packets/dns/whatever that is even remotely suspicious, and b) their ability and willingness to apply violence quickly and mercilessly on mere suspicion, happily just as an example and upon a potentially innocent person, and therefore its quick and chilling effect on populace. Or to put it other way - there are places on this Earth where I would not personally dare install some software or send some data, and I'm reasonably technically competent; the risk and impact are just too high.
What's your and your friends' perspective? Are there bullet-proof / safe technological means? What's the risk ratio and success for subverting government whether via blockchain or VPN or Signal etc?
Thx for any thoughts you might contribute :)
There is a fairly, if not pervasive let's call it vocal technical sentiment that blockchain and related crypto technologies, in some form, are government/oppression-proof; that it provides financial and communication paths and channels that are so firm they withstand attempts by government to shut them down and infiltrate. And that therefore they would "solve a lot of problems" in an oppressive / troubled society.
I come from a country that suffered a civil war, and I've always felt that was naive... Blockchain feels like a complex stack with myriad potential points of failure and accidental reveal for a normal citizen. More to the point, I feel many people are underestimating just how totalitarian and ruthless a government CAN get - a) in locking down through technological means by owning and monitoring infra and coming down immediately to anybody downloading/using/sending software/hardware/protocol/tokens/packets/dns/whatever that is even remotely suspicious, and b) their ability and willingness to apply violence quickly and mercilessly on mere suspicion, happily just as an example and upon a potentially innocent person, and therefore its quick and chilling effect on populace. Or to put it other way - there are places on this Earth where I would not personally dare install some software or send some data, and I'm reasonably technically competent; the risk and impact are just too high.
What's your and your friends' perspective? Are there bullet-proof / safe technological means? What's the risk ratio and success for subverting government whether via blockchain or VPN or Signal etc?
Thx for any thoughts you might contribute :)
> many people are underestimating just how totalitarian and ruthless a government CAN get
Well said. I read your comment and I know immediately that it comes from first hand experience :(
I'm not aware of any technological solution to censorship by a government that's persistent enough and has firm control on everything. Unfortunately, there is also no way to overthrow a government that's ready to kill citizens, not without foreign aid.
Iranian government has the ability to inspect all packages. Of course the contents of the ones that are encrypted cannot be read, but they can do lots of analyses based on everything else and aggressively block anything they don't trust. When they are at this level, no network technology can have a large impact, because if it does, they just shut down everything like they did before.
Technologies like Starlink are harder to control, but the equipment has to be imported and doing that in scale with all the control they have is not feasible.
Well said. I read your comment and I know immediately that it comes from first hand experience :(
I'm not aware of any technological solution to censorship by a government that's persistent enough and has firm control on everything. Unfortunately, there is also no way to overthrow a government that's ready to kill citizens, not without foreign aid.
Iranian government has the ability to inspect all packages. Of course the contents of the ones that are encrypted cannot be read, but they can do lots of analyses based on everything else and aggressively block anything they don't trust. When they are at this level, no network technology can have a large impact, because if it does, they just shut down everything like they did before.
Technologies like Starlink are harder to control, but the equipment has to be imported and doing that in scale with all the control they have is not feasible.
Why do protests in Iran always seem to lose steam before any change is made?
Rust or Zig?
Another Iranian SWE here.
IMO they don't in the big picture. I agree with the points made in the adjacent comment (reality), but if you look at the frequency in which these protests happen, it's increasing and with each occurrence they are gaining wider support. Not only that, but in the recent protests, even smaller cities with more conservative population are now joining the fight. They wanted reform initially, now they have become more radical in nature. It's only a matter of time.
Or, I don't know, maybe it's because of the numerous memory safety issues we encounter. Perhaps we should use a borrow checker in our revolution compiler ;)
IMO they don't in the big picture. I agree with the points made in the adjacent comment (reality), but if you look at the frequency in which these protests happen, it's increasing and with each occurrence they are gaining wider support. Not only that, but in the recent protests, even smaller cities with more conservative population are now joining the fight. They wanted reform initially, now they have become more radical in nature. It's only a matter of time.
Or, I don't know, maybe it's because of the numerous memory safety issues we encounter. Perhaps we should use a borrow checker in our revolution compiler ;)
There are several factors.
One is the government's violence. They shoot people with rifles, arrest them and kill them in the prison, do everything they can to scare people off.
Another is government's total control over communication. In 2009 they shut down the internet and SMS for a week. They did that again recently. When people cannot communicate, they can't organize.
Another is a lack of leadership. The government has successfully removed (killed or imprisoned) anyone people trusted. Intolerance plagues cooperation of opposition groups. Maybe that's because of the history of Iran, maybe part of that is fueled by the government (it maintains an army of supporters in cyber space, spreading misinformation, hatred, and everything else they can do to prevent a large scale movement, some times masquerading as opposition)
One is the government's violence. They shoot people with rifles, arrest them and kill them in the prison, do everything they can to scare people off.
Another is government's total control over communication. In 2009 they shut down the internet and SMS for a week. They did that again recently. When people cannot communicate, they can't organize.
Another is a lack of leadership. The government has successfully removed (killed or imprisoned) anyone people trusted. Intolerance plagues cooperation of opposition groups. Maybe that's because of the history of Iran, maybe part of that is fueled by the government (it maintains an army of supporters in cyber space, spreading misinformation, hatred, and everything else they can do to prevent a large scale movement, some times masquerading as opposition)
The internet really shouldn't be something that can be shut down
Unfortunately, when dealing with an authoritarian government, there is not much that can be done. In Iran, the government invests heavily on censorship infrastructure.
The country's entire internet traffic passes through an organization controlled by the government.
The telecom companies were sold to the military (we have two military branches, one is made to support the government, to to defend the country) and they control all communication, shutting down the service when necessary. They can even shut down specific regions when a riot is happening there.
The government sends EM noise in urban regions to block satellite TVs. This cannot be done easily to block something like Starlink due to spread spectrum modulation, but as the government controls official import gateways, there is no simple way to buy the equipment. Also, anyone with such a connection should take extreme measures to stay under radar. For most of them it's not easy for a normal person to even know they are revealing their identity, as many domestic service providers (food delivery, ride hailing, etc) have servers inside Iran and should cooperate with the government to share user data with them.
The country's entire internet traffic passes through an organization controlled by the government.
The telecom companies were sold to the military (we have two military branches, one is made to support the government, to to defend the country) and they control all communication, shutting down the service when necessary. They can even shut down specific regions when a riot is happening there.
The government sends EM noise in urban regions to block satellite TVs. This cannot be done easily to block something like Starlink due to spread spectrum modulation, but as the government controls official import gateways, there is no simple way to buy the equipment. Also, anyone with such a connection should take extreme measures to stay under radar. For most of them it's not easy for a normal person to even know they are revealing their identity, as many domestic service providers (food delivery, ride hailing, etc) have servers inside Iran and should cooperate with the government to share user data with them.
I wonder if something as simple as a Garmin inReach would still work?
Super low bandwith (literally just text messages) but it goes direct to iridium satellites. Plans arent super cheap but I imagine you could afford one for example if you really needed it.
Super low bandwith (literally just text messages) but it goes direct to iridium satellites. Plans arent super cheap but I imagine you could afford one for example if you really needed it.
How are the protests going where you are?
How are the sanctions impacting you as a SWE?
Why HN?
How was your summer, do anything fun?
How are the sanctions impacting you as a SWE?
Why HN?
How was your summer, do anything fun?
I'm no longer living in Iran for a few years, so this is based on my close friends' observations, not mine.
People are doing their best and the riots are intensifying. But the riot police is using warfare to scatter them and when it does not work, they fire directly into the crowd, killing and wounding many. People have no way to fight back.
Sanctions are a serious problem for a SWE who lives in Iran. It's almost impossible to work for a foreign company. 40+ years of 40%+ inflation has hurt the economy so bad that more and more people are going down the Maslow's hierarchy. Lots of internet services (youtube, facebook, twitter, telegram, to name a few) are blocked by the government. Many others block requests from Iran because of sanctions. You cannot download java from the official source, you can guess the rest. Any paid service is out of question, as the country is shut off from international money transfer. Even after migrating to a western country, I still cannot work for any of the big American companies, until I become a PR of this new country. While I was working in another country, banks were afraid of opening an account for me and eventually gave me an account with no internet banking and no credit card.
I've been checking out HN for many years. It's the only remaining social network of like minded people, that has managed to stay clean of what infects others.
When I was in Iran (and while it's just a few years ago, things were much better at that time), I would go hiking, camping, biking, played tennis, much like what I do now.
People are doing their best and the riots are intensifying. But the riot police is using warfare to scatter them and when it does not work, they fire directly into the crowd, killing and wounding many. People have no way to fight back.
Sanctions are a serious problem for a SWE who lives in Iran. It's almost impossible to work for a foreign company. 40+ years of 40%+ inflation has hurt the economy so bad that more and more people are going down the Maslow's hierarchy. Lots of internet services (youtube, facebook, twitter, telegram, to name a few) are blocked by the government. Many others block requests from Iran because of sanctions. You cannot download java from the official source, you can guess the rest. Any paid service is out of question, as the country is shut off from international money transfer. Even after migrating to a western country, I still cannot work for any of the big American companies, until I become a PR of this new country. While I was working in another country, banks were afraid of opening an account for me and eventually gave me an account with no internet banking and no credit card.
I've been checking out HN for many years. It's the only remaining social network of like minded people, that has managed to stay clean of what infects others.
When I was in Iran (and while it's just a few years ago, things were much better at that time), I would go hiking, camping, biking, played tennis, much like what I do now.
>While I was working in another country, banks were afraid of opening an account for me and eventually gave me an account with no internet banking and no credit card.
This is something that gets to me about sanctions. It seems they prevent everyday citizens just wanting to work and live from doing so, while the government elites still get to enjoy themselves because they can easily find ways to circumvent it. What's then the point?
This is something that gets to me about sanctions. It seems they prevent everyday citizens just wanting to work and live from doing so, while the government elites still get to enjoy themselves because they can easily find ways to circumvent it. What's then the point?
> What's then the point?
It eventually makes things hard enough for the normal people that they revolt and (hopefully) replace the government.
It eventually makes things hard enough for the normal people that they revolt and (hopefully) replace the government.
That may be the intention, but that's not the reality of sanctioned countries. Iran, North Korea, Cuba et al are still rolling with their old rich leaders in pleasure, but an agonizing populace. It's really sad-- some countries are just unlucky :(
We can argue that it's not even the intention. If a government shoots civilians, there is little hope to overthrow them by riots alone. Things can change if police, army and riot police start to disobey order. Also when there is foreign aid to arm people.
FWIW, I believe that sanctions serve to
1- Limit the reach of a regime's activity overseas. Iran's government was supporting several militant groups in the middle-east. Sanctions also had a huge effect on the country's nuclear program.
2- Force them to negotiate. That actually worked with Iran (but Trump reversed it)
FWIW, I believe that sanctions serve to
1- Limit the reach of a regime's activity overseas. Iran's government was supporting several militant groups in the middle-east. Sanctions also had a huge effect on the country's nuclear program.
2- Force them to negotiate. That actually worked with Iran (but Trump reversed it)
I'd be surprised if by now Iranians hadn't figured out alternate means of communication.
I think it's not so much about them talking to each other, it's about shutting them off from the outside.
> The last time the Islamic Repubic cut off the Internet in Iran, they brutally massacred 1500 people, just 3 years ago. I beg you please save my people (crying while typing)
-- https://twitter.com/AsingleNight/status/1572930406709530624
> We are covered in blood, don't forget us, they want to suffocate us. Please be our voice.
-- https://twitter.com/dokhtr81/status/1572907289774006272
It's heartbreaking, and I for one do not intend to let it go. Enough is enough.
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1572273975639642114
> The last time the Islamic Repubic cut off the Internet in Iran, they brutally massacred 1500 people, just 3 years ago. I beg you please save my people (crying while typing)
-- https://twitter.com/AsingleNight/status/1572930406709530624
> We are covered in blood, don't forget us, they want to suffocate us. Please be our voice.
-- https://twitter.com/dokhtr81/status/1572907289774006272
It's heartbreaking, and I for one do not intend to let it go. Enough is enough.
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1572273975639642114
Install Briar from FDroid, it can comunnicate even over Bluetooth.
Can people in Iran SSH out to other countries? If so the folks familiar with SSH could use something like sshchat or devzat [1] see demo info, not my project This does not persist chat, but that may be a net positive in a surveillance state.
ssh-keygen -q -t rsa -b 2048 -N "" -C "devzat" -f ~/.ssh/.id_devzat
ssh -i ~/.ssh/.id_devzat [email protected]
Host devzat devzat.hackclub.com
Hostname 150.136.142.44
Port 22
# Port 443
User some_name
IdentityFile ~/.ssh/.id_devzat
LogLevel VERBOSE
What are the odds someone makes iranstagram.com lol
Edit: i've just read the article. disheartening series of events. my country philippines has flaws but damn i can still say i'm lucky in a lot of ways.
Edit: i've just read the article. disheartening series of events. my country philippines has flaws but damn i can still say i'm lucky in a lot of ways.
I was thinking more like sneaker net - passing thumb drives of photos and videos around
Or point to point connections using simple "WokFi" setups.
Maybe you live in Iran and just happen to REALLY like cooking Chinese food? And so do ALL your friends :-D
Maybe you live in Iran and just happen to REALLY like cooking Chinese food? And so do ALL your friends :-D
You weren't joking!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WokFi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WokFi
Or content based addressing, so that there isn't any network traffic to censor in the first place.
.com is probably not the right TLD for the iranstagram product.
Am I paranoid to to think Iran has the CA signing key for any TLD you can register with there?
don't leave us hanging, tell us the right one! HAHA
They're using Telegram now with MTProxy.
Here I am wondering why a censorship proof meshnet version of WhatsApp or Telegram has not reached wide popularity in these countries yet.. is it because these governments dictate they be blocked from the app store?
Another reason why we need sideloading ..
Another reason why we need sideloading ..
[deleted]
Google pulling out of China instead of catering to censorship was a principled move, but fairly obviously did not lead to more freedom of speech in China. It helped kickstart a domestic, government-obedient tech industry.
I don't know what the right move here is. Nobody who thinks there's an obvious right answer is worth listening to.
I don't know what the right move here is. Nobody who thinks there's an obvious right answer is worth listening to.
FWIW, Google said they pulled out of China for principled reasons but they did it practically for self-preservation.
Google got hacked by inside actors planted in their physical offices by the Chinese government. It's one of the very few times that Gmail's security was compromised. At the time, Google did not have the security countermeasures in place to protect against such an attack so they responded by severing the physical ties so such an attack could not be repeated. Once the BeyondCorp initiative had completed and they had the technology necessary to firewall pieces of their infrastructure where users had admin rights from other pieces of their infrastructure where users had admin rights, they reopened business in China because the risk model had changed.
Google got hacked by inside actors planted in their physical offices by the Chinese government. It's one of the very few times that Gmail's security was compromised. At the time, Google did not have the security countermeasures in place to protect against such an attack so they responded by severing the physical ties so such an attack could not be repeated. Once the BeyondCorp initiative had completed and they had the technology necessary to firewall pieces of their infrastructure where users had admin rights from other pieces of their infrastructure where users had admin rights, they reopened business in China because the risk model had changed.
>Google got hacked by inside actors planted in their physical offices by the Chinese government.
This just isn't true? It was an IE 0-day.
This just isn't true? It was an IE 0-day.
That was one of the tools used. The attackers got access to the Gmail backing store.
That's the tool they used to get in, then they went sideways from the corporate network and eventually into Gmail. I was on the team that cleaned it up...
Correct. The issue was that at the time, simple access to the intranet allowed for such turboing of credentials.
Culture moves both ways.
I would rather American companies not get so comfortable with blatant censorship. While we do still have some degree of censorship (and a whole lot pf privacy violation), it’s still generally seen as a taboo and not as a moral or necessary thing.
Once the social standards change however, the goalpost moves and it becomes harder to maintain the same freedoms we had before.
I would rather American companies not get so comfortable with blatant censorship. While we do still have some degree of censorship (and a whole lot pf privacy violation), it’s still generally seen as a taboo and not as a moral or necessary thing.
Once the social standards change however, the goalpost moves and it becomes harder to maintain the same freedoms we had before.
I would rather the American people elect a government that will protect their rights through laws.
Meta will not violate American law. As citizens, our most effective tool is our government of the people.
The idea that we rely on culture or corporate benevolence to maintain our freedoms, and not our representatives and laws... it's insane, to the say the least. I'd prefer to elect the people to protect my freedoms, not hope a for-profit advertising company will do so automatically.
Meta will not violate American law. As citizens, our most effective tool is our government of the people.
The idea that we rely on culture or corporate benevolence to maintain our freedoms, and not our representatives and laws... it's insane, to the say the least. I'd prefer to elect the people to protect my freedoms, not hope a for-profit advertising company will do so automatically.
You've given platitudes with an overall misunderstanding of both the parent comment as well as a the functioning of the real world.
> I would rather the American people elect a government that will protect their rights through laws.
I would also like a world where problems don't exist, but that doesn't change the real world. It's a naive take. The world is complicated.
> Meta will not violate American law.
This is both demonstrably false and borderline meaningless.
False because they have and will, unless you're suggesting Meta/Facebook has NEVER broken a law. It's just a question of whether they got charged/sued for it.
It's meaningless because laws can be highly interpretable, unenforceable, impractical... and the playing field is constantly changing, so there's always a new opportunity for new types of violations.
That isn't to say laws are meaningless, obviously they are extremely necessary and must be enforced, but the public response to those ambiguous situations is what would help determine the next set of laws/norms.
> The idea that we rely on culture or corporate benevolence to maintain our freedoms...
Parent comment doesn't suggest this. "Corporate culture" has little to do with it. American culture is what would change, has changed, and is changing. When the tooling is developed to carry out efficient, sweeping censorship, it will be used. With more use, we become more comfortable with it and even see it as a necessary evil. Currently there is public outrage when a tech company censors information. How long will this remain interesting enough to draw our attention? TSA in airports after 9/11 is a good example of this.
> I would rather the American people elect a government that will protect their rights through laws.
I would also like a world where problems don't exist, but that doesn't change the real world. It's a naive take. The world is complicated.
> Meta will not violate American law.
This is both demonstrably false and borderline meaningless.
False because they have and will, unless you're suggesting Meta/Facebook has NEVER broken a law. It's just a question of whether they got charged/sued for it.
It's meaningless because laws can be highly interpretable, unenforceable, impractical... and the playing field is constantly changing, so there's always a new opportunity for new types of violations.
That isn't to say laws are meaningless, obviously they are extremely necessary and must be enforced, but the public response to those ambiguous situations is what would help determine the next set of laws/norms.
> The idea that we rely on culture or corporate benevolence to maintain our freedoms...
Parent comment doesn't suggest this. "Corporate culture" has little to do with it. American culture is what would change, has changed, and is changing. When the tooling is developed to carry out efficient, sweeping censorship, it will be used. With more use, we become more comfortable with it and even see it as a necessary evil. Currently there is public outrage when a tech company censors information. How long will this remain interesting enough to draw our attention? TSA in airports after 9/11 is a good example of this.
What an absurd, condescending and pointless reply.
Example:
>> I would rather the American people elect a government that will protect their rights through laws.
>I would also like a world where problems don't exist, but that doesn't change the real world. It's a naive take. The world is complicated.
What in the hell kind of reply is this? How dare you. (On the day that the EU fined Google 4 billion Euros, largest in history, demonstrating laws and governments of people, no less). Your nonsensically dismissive reply is immature and entirely unfit for this community. Take this tripe back to reddit.
Shame on you for how you behaved here.
Example:
>> I would rather the American people elect a government that will protect their rights through laws.
>I would also like a world where problems don't exist, but that doesn't change the real world. It's a naive take. The world is complicated.
What in the hell kind of reply is this? How dare you. (On the day that the EU fined Google 4 billion Euros, largest in history, demonstrating laws and governments of people, no less). Your nonsensically dismissive reply is immature and entirely unfit for this community. Take this tripe back to reddit.
Shame on you for how you behaved here.
I want to fully reply to this but there is too much to dismantle and it would be unenlightening to do so.
All I will say is that in being offended by a rather benign comment, you have yourself committed what you accuse me of.
All I will say is that in being offended by a rather benign comment, you have yourself committed what you accuse me of.
I have no interest in any further communication with a child, please find another thread to troll.
It’s also viable to fight for neither capital or state dominance. You have a lot of confidence in the rule of law applying to power and liberal society
Yeah, wow, laws aren’t code that runs on people instead of silicon.
Important point. To reiterate, the culture of companies change.
Culture in general changes. A company is not an island. Employees move around, tech moves around. Society at large gets comfortable with censorship when its use spreads.
We're all looking for ways to censor spammers or belligerents from internet forums. It could easily start there and spread to other areas.
We're all looking for ways to censor spammers or belligerents from internet forums. It could easily start there and spread to other areas.
That already happened, eg, COVID policies on social media and YouTube.
We had a breakdown in our consensus mechanism — because the government partnered with corporations to censor rather than allow public debate.
The nation is still bitterly divided.
We had a breakdown in our consensus mechanism — because the government partnered with corporations to censor rather than allow public debate.
The nation is still bitterly divided.
America is divided more than, Iran maybe a glimpse into our immediate future.
Should American companies pull out of Germany instead of banning Nazi propaganda? The UK instead of removing court-ordered offensive speech?
I mean, maybe, but since the US has the least-restricted speech of basically any nation, you are de-facto asking for a nationally partitioned internet. That's a big change.
I mean, maybe, but since the US has the least-restricted speech of basically any nation, you are de-facto asking for a nationally partitioned internet. That's a big change.
The problem is: if you want to ban Nazi propaganda you have to develop tools to do it. Once you have tools in place you can use it to ban anything you do not like, not just Nazi propaganda.
You also have to develop tools to block spam, child porn, and (in practice on almost all social networks) legal porn that there is nevertheless considerable censorious pressure on.
Or just copyrighted material. Try posting the new Disney movie or streaming the latest UFC fight for free and see what happens. The tools for censorship are there, they just don't count if it's to protect a corporation's assets, for some reason.
Precisely. This is what it means for a company to get 'comfortable' with something. It means that given enough demand they have developed the tools necessary to do that aforementioned thing and those tools now can become accessible to any jurisdiction, even those who didn't ask for it.
> Should American companies pull out of Germany instead of banning Nazi propaganda?
That would be a little ironic since it was the US who pushed for such laws in post-war Germany in the first place.
That would be a little ironic since it was the US who pushed for such laws in post-war Germany in the first place.
> It helped kickstart a domestic, government-obedient tech industry.
How long do you think US companies could operate in the US if they weren't government-obedient? Or any company in any country for that matter.
How long do you think US companies could operate in the US if they weren't government-obedient? Or any company in any country for that matter.
If you want to call Google's act "principled", you need to explain Project Dragonfly.
It is and always has been the intersection of realpolitik and greed.
It is and always has been the intersection of realpolitik and greed.
Those are two very bold claims: that Google pulled out of China for purely ideological reasons, and that the Chinese tech industry would have otherwise failed if they had stayed. We are dealing with hypotheticals here, so it's not like we can back up our propositions with actual evidence. But both ideas just seem deeply unlikely based on what we know of both Google and Chinese tech.
not sure why this is downvoted. Chinese companies can definitely make their own search engine. And in fact search engines are not so big in china anyway; everything is an app, and questions are answered on Zhihu. Google's time in China was up anyway and they knew it. It was good PR for them to leave with a bang. Does anyone really thing the CCP would allow Google to collect data on every Chinese person as they do in the US? And without data collection ads become much less profitable (see: facebook). This would also set a precedent of barring Google from data collection which would spread elsewhere. Now its just seen as a domestic Chinese thing only.
It's a bit of a pickle if someone really finds the right answer and you don't listen to it isn't it?
I have no problem with people talking through the tradeoffs and listening. There's tautologically a least-worst option we should find.
But if the answer is trite snark that summarizes evil vs obvious good, they haven't done that work, and I won't listen, no.
But if the answer is trite snark that summarizes evil vs obvious good, they haven't done that work, and I won't listen, no.
The right move is letting countries govern themselves in whatever way they see fit and leaving them alone.
Or would you like to have Iran or Pakistan or whatever intervening in the domestic issues of the West?
Or would you like to have Iran or Pakistan or whatever intervening in the domestic issues of the West?
This includes not wanting to support or do business with people who look the other way as people get slaughtered. I'm not in Iran, I'm dealing solely with things that enter my ken and therefore become subject to my judgement.
I can't go to a museum, admire the bravery of, say, Sophie Scholl, and then go "ah yes, but at the end of the day it's not really anyone's business", and you cannot both have the dignity of a person who accepts the responsibility they have just by virtue of being human and shut yourself off.
At the end of the day, it's just a rationalization for kicking away the ladder. You don't care what happens to them as long as it doesn't happen to you or people you love. That is what it is, and all it is.
I can't go to a museum, admire the bravery of, say, Sophie Scholl, and then go "ah yes, but at the end of the day it's not really anyone's business", and you cannot both have the dignity of a person who accepts the responsibility they have just by virtue of being human and shut yourself off.
At the end of the day, it's just a rationalization for kicking away the ladder. You don't care what happens to them as long as it doesn't happen to you or people you love. That is what it is, and all it is.
People really do think their nations culture should be imposed everywhere.
In reality it doesn't work.
See Americas bitter defeat in Afghanistan. Which is now more Islamic and antiwestern than it's ever been
> more Islamic and antiwestern
It's a massive regression from 2002 - 2021, but this is not true. The Taliban has moderated somewhat from 2000 (somewhat), and frankly would be very happy to make tactical deals with the west to help counter ISIS.
It's a massive regression from 2002 - 2021, but this is not true. The Taliban has moderated somewhat from 2000 (somewhat), and frankly would be very happy to make tactical deals with the west to help counter ISIS.
[deleted]
Starlink iPhones can’t come soon enough.
I'm sure repressive governments will make it illegal to use phones that can connect to Starlink. Satellite phones are banned in India, for example. You will be arrested for a lot longer for owning a satellite phone than if you owned a gun illegally.
Let's see the governments try to ban iPhone. What a nice revolution trigger.
If you think violence in the name of Apple products is plausible you may have an unhealthy obsession with Apple products.
Yes, I think violence in the name of affordable satellite phones is plausible.
A government that beats young women to death could probably intimidate people that grumble that they can't buy the least apple fashion accessory
Right now there's practically a revolution because they don't want to wear a piece of fabric on heads. I don't think they could.
You do realize that these topics arw differwnt? Also a nice stab at supressed women standing up for their rights in very repressive country, doing so takes a lot of courage. Don't diminish that.
I didn't diminish a thing. If anything, it was a stab at the dumb religion the damned government is basing it on. I lived through communism in Europe and was present during the local revolution, I know very well how much courage is required, I was staring inside the gun of a Russian tank there. And no I don't think these topics are too different - everybody knows unfree people need secure communication first and foremost, it's only your take that the iPhone is merely a fashion accessory, but in practice it's also the most secure phone on the market and now it's getting sattelite comms too.
Most Iranians can't afford iPhones.
New iPhones. It's very common to buy secondhand in these markets. The satellite-able ones will need some time to "trickle down" but it's going to happen - especially if it offers this feature.
They'll just declare it a satellite phone and defect make them illegal.
I mean, we are discussing hair here, so it is a (bitter) laugh to imagine that they are going to let citizens have access to an unfettered network ...
I mean, we are discussing hair here, so it is a (bitter) laugh to imagine that they are going to let citizens have access to an unfettered network ...
They already tried: https://www.globaltradealert.org/intervention/80877/import-b...
From the same site: Iran smartphone imports (sept 2021 - sept 2022)
1 Samsung 48% 2 Xiaomi 28% 3 Nokia 12% 4 Apple 6%
From the same site: Iran smartphone imports (sept 2021 - sept 2022)
1 Samsung 48% 2 Xiaomi 28% 3 Nokia 12% 4 Apple 6%
Good thing other manufacturers are going to copy the feature soon.
Tmobile is actually the one that will be partnering with Starlink. Apple is partnering with GlobalStar which actually really sucks (currently) and will have pretty much the worst satellite network for at least a few years. If they really got their shit together and started launching satellites ASAP they could probably improve a lot in a year or two.
Also GlobalStar only covers the continental US and a little farther......
Depending on how strict they are you might be able to smuggle in a Garmin inReach and connect to Iridium now (or an actual Iridium or Inmarsat satellite phone or modem)
Also GlobalStar only covers the continental US and a little farther......
Depending on how strict they are you might be able to smuggle in a Garmin inReach and connect to Iridium now (or an actual Iridium or Inmarsat satellite phone or modem)
[deleted]
Not just Starlink, smartphones have to become truly P2P-Meshnet compatible
If it works well for dodging censorship and catches on, it will be made illegal. Not just in Iran, but also in the USA and Europe.
>Starlink iPhones can’t come soon enough
Yeah, authoritarian governments will just allow that to happen, let alone the cost of such a device is out of reach for most of these people.
Yeah, authoritarian governments will just allow that to happen, let alone the cost of such a device is out of reach for most of these people.
With their 50% inflation and ~10k% average salary I bet they can't wait for these tech gadgets either...
In case you, like me, needed more context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mahsa_Amini
Yikes it feels like arab spring again.
I wonder if this will be Afghanistan, where things westernize for a decade then goes even more the other way than it was initially.
> it feels like arab spring again
Hopefully not, because the Arab Spring didn't do much in the long term, just the US & allies profited from it by getting rid of Ghaddafi, while the whole of northern Africa isn't faring much better today than before that flash in the pan.
I just hope this civilian revolution actually tears down the Iranian religious dictatorship for good. And hopefully in my lifetime I can experience seeing the Saudi scumbags getting the boot as well. Wouldn't that be great.
Hopefully not, because the Arab Spring didn't do much in the long term, just the US & allies profited from it by getting rid of Ghaddafi, while the whole of northern Africa isn't faring much better today than before that flash in the pan.
I just hope this civilian revolution actually tears down the Iranian religious dictatorship for good. And hopefully in my lifetime I can experience seeing the Saudi scumbags getting the boot as well. Wouldn't that be great.
gotta do communications over radio, if only cell phones had that access during an emergency situation. i know that would need more power and a bigger antenna to have a radio broadcast mesh network. i know there are issues with that but it’s better than no communication to the outside world especially during a crisis situation, people really should have the freedom to communicate.
[deleted](1)
Iranian government is especially horrible.
Also, restricting information and frees speech is something that western governments routinely do. Sometimes to skew election result in favor of the ruling regime.
Supporters of the regime see it as stopping 'misinformation'. I'm not sure if they actually believe that or if it is just convenient cover for unethical and immoral conduct.
Also, restricting information and frees speech is something that western governments routinely do. Sometimes to skew election result in favor of the ruling regime.
Supporters of the regime see it as stopping 'misinformation'. I'm not sure if they actually believe that or if it is just convenient cover for unethical and immoral conduct.
[deleted]
[deleted]
annual occurrence for one reason or another there
interesting that it works
might as well make it a national holiday for the purge
interesting that it works
might as well make it a national holiday for the purge
[deleted]
nashashmi(7)
so that’s what that strange USB plug poking out of a brick wall is for: transference of “ideas”.
Interesting contrast to Arab Spring. I wonder if blockage has to do with Iran govt or US Intel agencies. My assumption is that the latter is more influential. If Iran is inducing the blockage, the spies agree for some reason.