The Speed At Which Wrong Information Flows

from the unfortunate dept

If you've been following the news of the protests in Iran over the past few days, you've no doubt heard about the story of Neda Soltani, who was shot and killed on video, and has become, as some news reports have noted, "the face of Iran's struggle." Not to get into the politics of it all, what is quite fascinating is the news that the photo that many individuals and news sources are using for Soltani isn't just of a different Neda Soltani, but it's due to confusion over how Facebook works (found via Mathew Ingram).

Basically, a woman named Amy Beam, who was interested in the Neda Soltani in the video contacted other Neda Soltani's found on Facebook, and one communicated back with her, and eventually they "friended" each other on Facebook. Soon after, the "living" Neda Soltani posted a translation of an article about the killed Neda Soltani on Amy's Facebook "wall." However, the way this works, is that along with the post on the wall, it includes the poster's own avatar/profile photo -- in this case the living Neda Soltani. From that, others who were friends of Amy saw the name Neda Soltani, the story about the killed woman, and the photo of the living woman -- and assumed they were all the same woman... and from there the photo started spreading like wildfire, including websites, TV, banners and elsewhere. And the really scary part is that the living Neda Soltani is now quite afraid for her life, since she's suddenly become "the face of the face of the struggle in Iran" despite not being the woman who was shot.

Certainly, bad information flows at incredible speed in this day and age, but the series of events and confusion that led to this result is quite fascinating, if a bit scary (especially for the living Neda Soltani). There's an effort under way to alert everyone using the wrong photo to change their images, but you have to wonder how effective that will be.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Twitter, Data Center Delay Upgrades Rather Than Cut Off Iranian Communications

from the the-power-of-twitter dept

I recognize that it's still fashionable to bash Twitter as being a useless toy for people with too much free time (despite many, many examples of how useful it is for those who use it properly). Yet, for anyone paying attention this past weekend, Twitter has emerged as an amazingly powerful communications tool as to what's happening in Iran, where there are massive protests, riots, rallies and attacks following the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iran Twazzup page has had a tremendous wealth of information from inside and outside Iran -- the sort of information that we wouldn't know about otherwise. It's an amazing view into the country that simply wasn't possible in the past. I remember in the runup to the war in Iraq, there were a few Iraqi bloggers you could follow to get a sense of what was going on in the country, but nothing like the massive ability of thousands of people to easily get the word out on what they're seeing on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere. It's really quite impressive, and I'm hard pressed to see how anyone could look at what's coming out of Iran via Twitter, and then claiming that Twitter isn't a useful or different communication tool.

With all that going on, it's fascinating to see that Twitter and its data center partner, NTT, have actually chosen to delay some critical updates, knowing that cutting off communications from Iran just as so many people are relying on it would be a disaster. While this does highlight a separate problem -- about the fact that as Twitter becomes a critical communication channel for some, the fact that it is a "single point of failure" is worrisome. It's definitely something that will need to be addressed at some point.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Iran Blocks Facebook... Though There Are Disagreements About The Reason

from the let's-vote-for-political-reasons dept

There were a bunch of stories this weekend talking about how Facebook appeared to be blocked in Iran, with many assuming that it was due to upcoming elections, where some reformist candidates have been using the social networking site to build support. Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently claiming that he has nothing to do with it, and that he "believe[s] in maximum freedom of expression," and that he'll "look into" the block. Meanwhile, others are claiming the ban is for moral, rather than political reasons. The reality is probably a bit of both -- with the government being able to use the cover of "morality" to block an effective organizing technique for an opposition candidate. Either way, this action only seems to be calling more attention to the opposition candidate, so if the goal was to stifle his campaign, it might just have backfired.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Iranian Matchmaking Site Shut Down For Promoting Prostitution

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

Apparently an Iranian matchmaking site, that pretty clearly seemed set up for the purpose of linking up potential husbands and wives, rather than traditional "dating," has been banned in the country for promoting prostitution. The details aren't clear, but it certainly sounds like they viewed any kind of internet matchmaking, even for the purposes of marriage, as somehow "promoting prostitution."

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Censoring The 'Net Is Hard

from the even-for-authoritarian-governments dept

Over the last few months, I've been doing research on a forthcoming paper for the Cato Institute on the network neutrality debate. In the next few weeks, I'll be doing a series of posts on the major themes of my paper. My goal will be to highlight some interesting stories from the tech world, and then highlight their broader policy implications.

This week, the blogosphere is abuzz with the story that Iran may shut down the Internet on the date of its elections next week. I should note at the outset that I'm a little bit skeptical of this story, which seems to be rather thinly sourced. It's been picked up by a bunch of news outlets, but they all point back to the same International Herald Tribune article. That story cites two unnamed Iranian media outlets, which apparently don't even agree with each other about the reasons for the supposed Internet blackout. And the idea of blocking Internet access on election day just doesn't make a lot of sense. I can imagine why an authoritarian regime would shut down the Internet for a week or two before the election to suppress access to information about the election. But a block on the day of the election -- especially one that's announced a week ahead of time -- doesn't seem like it would do the government any good.

In any event, this certainly wouldn't be the first time Iran has instituted broad restrictions on Internet access in an effort to suppress the free flow of information. In 2006, Iran reportedly required that home Internet connections be reduced to 128 kbps. That doesn't make a lot of sense either; 128k is still plenty of bandwidth to download compressed audio, for example. But the Iranian government turned to a broad restriction on bandwidth after other efforts at content filtering failed. It seems that "as fast as they put up information roadblocks, Iranians have found detours around them." The only way the Iranian government has found to cut off the flow of information it doesn't approve of is to restrict the flow of information, period.

Some advocates of network neutrality seem to think that network neutrality is an issue of free speech. The fear is that AT&T or Verizon will use sophisticated filtering technologies to block content and websites they don't approve of. A conservative telco might block liberal blogs or YouTube videos, say, or maybe Ford would pay telcos to block access to Chevy's website. But if the government of Iran -- an institution with an almost unlimited budget and the ability to throw people in jail -- can't keep information it doesn't like away from its citizens, it's awfully hard to imagine that AT&T or Verizon would be able to do so. Iran has found that the only way to limit access to content it doesn't like is to limit access to the Internet altogether. Obviously that's not going to work for telcos, which are in business to make money. There are certainly some plausible arguments for network neutrality regulations, but fears of telco censorship are pretty low on the list.

• Censoring The 'Net Is Hard
• Ownership Doesn't Always Mean Control
• Changing The Internet's Architecture Isn't So Easy
• Revolving Door Undermines FCC's Watchdog Role

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did It Really Take Over A Year For Security Companies To Realize That Iranian Prez's Blog Installs Trojans?

from the seems-a-bit-slow dept

Someone who apparently prefers to remain anonymous submitted to us the news that Israeli security companies are warning people to stay away from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blog, as it installs some spyware. What struck me as odd about that story was that this is not news at all. In fact, it was widely reported in the weeks following the launch of Ahmadinejad's blog. The blog watches to see if your IP address is from Israel and then tries to install the spyware (if you're using Windows). So, why is it suddenly being reported in Israel that this is happening, when it was well known about a year and a half ago? Isn't that a little late to try to get the warning out?

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..