Read this disturbing account in the Wall Street Journal about Iran's tactics for tackling growing criticism of the state among the large global expatriate community - photographing demonstrators, logging people's Facebook activity, imitating dissidents on Facebook, and most chillingly threatening people's families in Iran to stop their activist relatives abroad.
If true it is intensely cynical and distasteful.. On the other hand, what better warning over state misuse of the internet for surveillance do you need? States do what they can.. not what they should.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Friday, 4 December 2009
Friday, 24 July 2009
Sauce for the goose: What we do, they do.
When it comes to privacy, state surveillance and the Internet I have a simple rule of thumb when it comes to judging whether legislation is reasonable, proportional and democratically defensible.
What would I think of these measures if I lived under a dictatorship - or some other less enlightened form of government? There is a risk that circumstances can change at home, and powers brought in in good faith could be misused in the future. More than that though there is a good chance that other countries around the world will use our behaviour as a justification for introducing powers that might not be so benignly employed.
The latest example of this was Iran's decision to introduce something equivalent to the EU's Telecom directive - which will allow them to monitor, amongst other things, where people surf to. The law will allow them to tackle 'cyber crime', but what else might it be used for?
Fundamentally, the rights of free speech and privacy are not served by governments keeping track on what we see, think or do. Technological advances are making it possible to monitor every aspect of our lives - but just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Western society, with high ideals on human rights needs to set a shining example... and remember that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. .
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet - Putting privacy first.
What would I think of these measures if I lived under a dictatorship - or some other less enlightened form of government? There is a risk that circumstances can change at home, and powers brought in in good faith could be misused in the future. More than that though there is a good chance that other countries around the world will use our behaviour as a justification for introducing powers that might not be so benignly employed.
The latest example of this was Iran's decision to introduce something equivalent to the EU's Telecom directive - which will allow them to monitor, amongst other things, where people surf to. The law will allow them to tackle 'cyber crime', but what else might it be used for?
Fundamentally, the rights of free speech and privacy are not served by governments keeping track on what we see, think or do. Technological advances are making it possible to monitor every aspect of our lives - but just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Western society, with high ideals on human rights needs to set a shining example... and remember that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. .
The Pirate Party & Piratpartiet - Putting privacy first.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Divine injustice in the ballot box
HAX... Henrik Alexandersson.. a favourite stopping off point of mine for Swedish political gossip has a recent blog piece on electoral fraud in Sweden - speculating on whether the irregularities reported in the recent EU elections could have changed the outcome. An interesting topic for debate. Democracy hinges on the honesty and integrity of the voting process.
Interesting.. but not in the same league as this statement from Iran's Guardian Council reported by The Guardian on complaints of election rigging in Iran:
"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate - the incident has happened in only 50 cities."
Read that again... in fifty cities the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters. (...by up to 40% I gather) That in my book is vote rigging of epidemic proportions ...and yet this seems to be considered a cause for reassurance....
Islam, in my understanding, has close ties between religion and politics - the state of the Islamic community reflects on the spiritual well-being of it's members. Quoting from the preface to Karen Armstrong's "Islam, A Short History"
"...the Quran gave them (muslims) a historical mission. Their chief duty was to create a just community in which all members, even the most weak and vulnerable, were treated with absolute respect. The experience of building such a society would give them intimations of the divine because they would be living in accordance with god's will"
Absolute respect is not expressed by stuffing ballot boxes... it is fundamentally repressive and unjust. ... and for moslems presumably not just morally, but spiritually wrong. And in this case condoned it seems not just by politicians but by spiritual leaders too. Double jeopardy.
It is a dilemma. What do you do when those leading you to a just society deliver injustice instead? How far are you prepared to go to stand up for justice and respect for all?.. and society's spiritual well-being?
What would you do, if your salvation depended on it?
Footnote: the original press conference explains the overflow to voters voting outside of the area where they live. A practice permitted in in presidential elections.
Interesting.. but not in the same league as this statement from Iran's Guardian Council reported by The Guardian on complaints of election rigging in Iran:
"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate - the incident has happened in only 50 cities."
Read that again... in fifty cities the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters. (...by up to 40% I gather) That in my book is vote rigging of epidemic proportions ...and yet this seems to be considered a cause for reassurance....
Islam, in my understanding, has close ties between religion and politics - the state of the Islamic community reflects on the spiritual well-being of it's members. Quoting from the preface to Karen Armstrong's "Islam, A Short History"
"...the Quran gave them (muslims) a historical mission. Their chief duty was to create a just community in which all members, even the most weak and vulnerable, were treated with absolute respect. The experience of building such a society would give them intimations of the divine because they would be living in accordance with god's will"
Absolute respect is not expressed by stuffing ballot boxes... it is fundamentally repressive and unjust. ... and for moslems presumably not just morally, but spiritually wrong. And in this case condoned it seems not just by politicians but by spiritual leaders too. Double jeopardy.
It is a dilemma. What do you do when those leading you to a just society deliver injustice instead? How far are you prepared to go to stand up for justice and respect for all?.. and society's spiritual well-being?
What would you do, if your salvation depended on it?
Footnote: the original press conference explains the overflow to voters voting outside of the area where they live. A practice permitted in in presidential elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
