On Looking Deeper, Or, Things About Iran You Might Not Know

It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.

For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little…which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we’re getting into a proper context.

The goal of today’s conversation is to give you a bit more of an “insider look” at today’s news; and to do that we’ll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we’ll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we’ll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we’ll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.

Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.

The first task for today…let’s talk about blogging:

It turns out that bloggers in Iran risk running afoul of the Press Law of 1986, which, in addition to requiring the licensing of media outlets, reads in part:

Article 6: The print media are permitted to publish news items except in cases when they violate Islamic principles and codes and public rights as outlined in this chapter…

…5. Encouraging and instigating individuals and groups to act against the security, dignity and interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran within or outside the country…
…7. Insulting Islam and its sanctities, or, offending the Leader of the Revolution and recognized religious authorities (senior Islamic jurisprudents);
8. Publishing libel against officials, institutions, organizations and individuals in the country or insulting legal or real persons who are lawfully respected, even by means of pictures or caricatures; and
9. Committing plagiarism or quoting articles from the deviant press, parties and groups which oppose Islam (inside and outside the country) in such a manner as to propagate such ideas (the limits of such offenses shall be defined by the executive by-law)…

… Article 25: If a person, through the press, expressly and overtly instigates and encourages people to commit crimes against the domestic security or foreign policies of the state, as specified in the public penal code, and should his/her action bear adverse consequences, he/she shall be prosecuted and condemned as an accomplice in that crime. However, if no evidence is found on such consequences he/she shall be subject to a decision of the religious judge according to Islamic penal code.

Article 26: Whoever insults Islam and its sanctities through the press and his/her guilt amounts to apostasy, shall be sentenced as an apostate and should his/her offense fall short of apostasy he/she shall be subject to the Islamic penal code.

Article 27: Should a publication insult the Leader or Council of Leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran or senior religious authorities (top Islamic jurisprudents), the license of the publication shall be revoked and its managing director and the writer of the insulting article shall be referred to competent courts for punishment.

(In Iran, the penalty for apostasy is death.)

Those bloggers who are not licensed can still be prosecuted under the Penal Code, as the OpenNet Initiative reports in an excellent article they’ve just posted on the subject.

In 2008 the Iranian parliament passed a law which provides for the death penalty for bloggers who engage in non-permitted activities, a situation faced today by Yaghub Mehrnahad, who publishes the “Mehrnahad” blog.

(Interestingly, this blog can be reached in Persian, but an attempt to access the same URL with Google Translate returns this message:

“You are not authorized to view this page

The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.”

More about that later.)

There is also the risk of torture: a problem noted by the BBC at least as far back as 2005.

Ironically, Mohammad Ali Abtabi, a cleric and former Vice-President of Iran whom you may have recently seen on “The Daily Show” maintains a blog in which he does criticize Iranian society on a regular basis, including his assessment of the recent election as “a huge swindling”…which has now caused the authorities to place him under arrest.

So how does Iran manage to control Internet access?

What they aren’t doing is employing the simplest method possible: cutting off all access. This is presumably because of the negative impact on the Iranian economy that would be caused by business being unable to do what they need to do online.

There are several methods being employed, including a requirement that all Internet Service Providers in the country connect to the state-owned Data communication Company of Iran (DCI) for international access, that all ISPs put in place “filtering” and monitoring technologies, and that households be blocked from having access to high-speed Internet connections.

As of this writing the fastest Internet connection now available for an Iranian household is 128k, about double the speed of a dial-up connection…and as you might guess, not fast enough to allow Iranians to use such services as YouTube. A 6MB cable Internet connection, not uncommon in the US, would be roughly 50 times faster. Because of this the total capacity of Iran’s international Internet connections are roughly 12GB per second. Normal traffic is about 5GB per second, which, we are told, is about the same as a mid-size American city.

OpenNet reports that after an initial period of reliance upon foreign monitoring software, the government decided to create an “in-house” capability, and as a result there are locally developed software packages designed to allow access to the actual data packets in messages—meaning that authorities can read such things as e-mails and instant messages after they are sent and before they pass through the DCI “gateway”.

There has been a conversation regarding the role of Western equipment suppliers in all of this; and it is alleged that a Nokia/Siemens joint venture (Nokia/Siemens Networks) has sold to the Iranians equipment that is used to monitor the Internet use of Iranian citizens. The company denies this, however.

They also want you to know that the joint venture has been sold to a third party, and that, as their press release tells us: “providing people, wherever they are, with the ability to communicate ultimately benefits societies and brings greater prosperity”.

Another method of blocking access is to deny connections to certain sets of IP addresses, and this is why, presumably, I could not access the translated version of the “Mehrnahad” blog. This method would also allow the Iranians to block access to and from inside the country to sites like the BBC, Google, and Blogspot.

There is a way around “address blocking” which involves setting up “relays” and “bridges” that can be accessed by people in Iran—and this is something you yourself can do that can be of considerable benefit to Iranians trying to reach out to the rest of us.

The Iranian Government is also trying to locate and isolate those with Twitter accounts that are set to the Tehran time zone…and you can help make that process tougher by either setting up a Twitter account and setting the time zone to Tehran, or changing your existing account’s time zone.

The next few minutes are going to get a bit geeky, and for this I apologize in advance.

In order for your computer to use certain services that involve communicating with other computers the operating system utilizes a series of “ports” (this is all in the software, so don’t bother looking at the back of the machine to find them).

Some quick examples: the TCP/IP connection your computer is using to access the Internet is through Port 80 and the FTP service runs on Port 21.

There are two kinds of ports—TCP and UDP—and there is no reason to explain here why or how they differ.

There are thousands of ports, the ports used are usually specific to a particular service, and there are giant lists of assigned ports that everyone can access. A service can (and usually does) use more than one port for two-way communication with a computer, which is why the Federal Emergency Management Agency Information System uses TCP Port 1777 and UDP Port 1777.

The routing data that packets of information display as they travel through the Internet includes the port that the packet is seeking to access…and that data is accessible to all routers…and if you controlled the gateway through which all inbound and outbound Internet traffic was passing through you could block packets that seek to utilize certain ports.

Experts are suggesting that this is exactly what is happening today in Iran, with more than 80% of traffic bound for ports using the Adobe Flash Player being blocked, nearly 75% of the POP Service (e-mail) traffic being blocked, and roughly 70% of traffic bound for ports used by “proxy servers” being intercepted. (Proxy servers, by the way, are the same type of connections we discussed earlier that you can set up at home to help Iranians trying to reach the Internet.)

Voice over IP (VoIP), the Internet “telephone” service, is proving to be a troublesome issue for censors, as it has legitimate business purposes and is difficult to censor without either having someone listening on the other end of the line or installing a monitoring system worthy of the National Security Agency.

Interestingly, with the exception of the few hours immediately following the vote, the amount of Internet blockage, overall, seems to be fairly close to what it was just before the voting. However, the amount of “instability” has been highly variable, suggesting that certain blocks of IP addresses have been temporarily “withdrawn” from the Internet’s address structure, for want of a better term, and then once again made known to that same addressing infrastructure.

It is suggested that this may be because the Iranian Government has been able to institute a sufficient level of monitoring on those address blocks so as to make them comfortable with again allowing the users of those addresses access to the Internet.

In one of the oddest developments I’ve heard so far, there are reports that certain communications protocols used by some games are not being blocked. We will not go into specifics here, but it seems strange indeed that the video game your mother didn’t want you playing all day might actually be a tool for surreptitious communication.

And with all that said, let’s wrap it up for today.

Here’s what we’ve learned: it is indeed hazardous to be a blogger in Iran.

Despite the fact that it can get you tortured or get you the death penalty, there are those who take the risk—including a former Vice-President who now finds himself under arrest.

We can help Iranian citizens by installing software on our own computers that helps them obtain uncensored Internet access, and about 1/3 of that traffic is getting through.

The regime is not attempting to permanently shut down all Internet traffic—and in fact, that would be a cure that might be as bad as the disease.

The Iranian Government, instead, is developing and operating a sophisticated system of Internet blocking, but it is not perfect…and there are odd connections that could be used that most people would never think of as useful for the purpose.

Finally, a Western company is accused of selling equipment to Iran that could be used for Internet monitoring, but the company in question denies that the gear they sold Iran can perform the tasks the accusers say it can.

It is rare indeed to be able to see two revolutions taking place at the same time--but as you’re watching the news from the newest Iranian Revolution…keep an eye on the news of the Internet Revolution as well.

WARNING—Self-promotion ahead: I am competing for a Netroots Nation scholarship, and I was not selected in the first round of voting. There are two more chances to be selected…with an announcement due this week...so even if you’ve done so before, I still have to ask you to stop by the Democracy for America site and click on the “Add your support” link to offer your support for me again. Thanks for your patience, and we now return you to your regular programming.

On Politics And The Internet, Or, Who Are We Missing?

It is by now an accepted fact of life that the Internet is having some sort of impact upon the political process…after all, if it wasn’t, would we even be here?

But we’ve all wondered exactly how much impact; and now the good folks at the Pew Research Center have taken the time and trouble to do some survey work that seeks to answer that very question

The logical approach would be to “walk through” the data (which is, frankly, good news for Obama) and see what they have to say about it…but let’s take a different approach today.

Let’s instead look at the data and ask ourselves: who aren’t we reaching, why, and what implications might those answers have going forward—and downticket?

First things first: we’ll be evaluating data obtained from Pew’s “The Internet and the 2008 Election” report (part of the Pew Internet & American Life Project)…and if you don’t regularly visit the Pew sites, you should. They are a fantastic resource for those interested in reality-based reality—and in this election season, reality will matter.

It’s possible to summarize the report’s findings in a paragraph or two, and let’s use that as a jumping off point:

--Democrats are significantly advantaged in this election cycle because of the Internet, and particularly Obama Democrats. This is primarily because voters’ political engagement through the Internet is primarily a function of age and income—that is to say, those who are the most engaged trend to younger age groups and higher income brackets.

--The more someone is politically engaged through the Internet, the more likely they are to use the Internet as something beyond a “reference library”. These “Webitics 2.0” users organize and connect with each other, donate online, forward political messages to others…and even create their own media to advance their political interests (not to mention their “separation anxiety”).

--The trend of increased Internet influence upon the political process has been reinforced over time; and voters in the 2008 cycle are roughly twice as likely to use the Internet as a tool of political involvement as they were in ’04. (As with the rest of the data, however, this trend skews younger as well.)

--These advantages are unlikely to accrue to those running for other offices in this cycle…unless the candidate has an unusually well-educated—or especially young—constituency.

--These results are not particular to either party. Younger Republicans use the Web as well, but since there are fewer Republican supporters in younger age groups Republican-leaning sites tend to have lower traffic numbers.

The facts out of the way, we are ready to turn to the analysis…which brings us to the first question: who aren’t we reaching?

Two-thirds of those from 50-64 years of age, and 85% of those 65 and older do not “look online for information about politics or the campaigns”, the Pew folks tell us. More than 75% of those with a high school education don’t either.

We also aren’t reaching those with lower incomes: 60% of those with incomes from $30-50,000 and nearly 80% of those with incomes below $30,000 do not use the Internet for information about politics. By contrast, if you made $75,000 or more last year (or you’re a college grad), two-thirds of your income bracket is getting information online.

Obama supporters and activity are strongest in places like the DailyKos website, these numbers suggest…and perhaps not surprisingly, older and lower income voters are the voters least likely to be found there.

So where are those voters?

You might think that talk radio is where they are to be found…but that’s where it gets weird. More than 75% of talk radio listeners are college educated, according to Arbitron data—and over 60% have incomes above $50,000. Older voters are listening to talk radio, however, as you might expect—70% of listeners are 45 or older…just about exactly where Obama’s supporters are least likely to be found.

But what about Obama’s other “area of interest”: those with incomes below $30,000, and not college educated?

I can’t offer you an answer based on any real information at all…but here’s a guess based on talking to a few folks who are under 30, and don’t have college educations: at the moment, most of these folks seem disinterested in politics altogether—and that means they’re unlikely to be found online or listening to talk radio.

So what’s an Obama to do?

He may already have part of the answer: concerts. News outlets that are not…shall we say…”Democratic-leaning” have reported that as many as half of the 75,000 attendees at Obama’s Portland, Oregon rally were drawn to the event because of the “opening act”, the Decemberists.

If it’s true, it’s genius.

Try to imagine the last time a candidate attracted to a political event more than 30,000 “outsiders” who were uninterested in politics in the first place.

Another possible solution might explain the decision to not limit his spending: to get to those over 50, Obama will probably have to bombard that group with advertising that appeals to their economic interest…and also counters the McCain “security” advantage within that group. To advance both those messages at the same time, nationwide, will be enormously expensive—but even here we can find data that offers us an opportunity.

Returning to the Arbitron data, we see that the highest proportion of talk radio’s audience is found in the Intermountain West and a bloc of States that consist of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri—and New England. We also discover that half of that audience does their listening at home, not in the car (just for reference, about 1/3 of that audience is listening in the car).

This suggests that the potential exists for large-scale radio buys to have a disproportionate impact in reaching a key audience that Obama seeks to either discourage altogether or possibly convert to his side—and lucky for us, radio is inexpensive compared to TV advertising. Better yet, the states with the highest talk-radio audiences are in relatively inexpensive media markets….or reachable as “cohort” markets serviced by larger markets. For example, a purchase in Boston gets you coverage throughout New England.

What about those farther down the ticket? At the moment, the DCCC is not as flush with cash as Obama, suggesting an interesting scenario indeed: Obama pulls tons of new voters into the system, plus draws lots of interested Democrats.

This “raises all the boats” for downticket Democratic candidates…but it does so by placing those candidates in Obama’s debt, which could be a powerful tool when it’s time to actually legislate.

Is this Democratic advantage likely to erode over time?

After all, it is more likely than not that some of today’s younger Democrats will become Republicans as they age…and it is also more likely than not that those weaned on Facebook will eventually adapt it to the advantage of the Republican cause as they age and gain influence within that Party’s structure.

So what are the lessons here?

We are seeing the rollout of the Internet as a powerful tool of politics—if you’re under 50 and have an income over $50,000.

Over time, that impact should increase as the population using the internet themselves age.

The voters Obama is now seeking to either discourage to convert are not available to him using the tools that have been the most effective for him so far…but moving forward with concerts combined with “carpet-bombing” media markets with TV and radio spots should make those voters more accessible.

If I’m correct, and this is the Obama strategy going forward, there’s one thing we know for sure: considering the amount of money he’ll need to pull it off, there’s going to be no shortage of emails from David Plouffe in your inbox soliciting money from now until November.

On The Wild West, Or, Who’s That Blogger?

In the 1870’s, a tall man in a tall hat would ride into town, hitch up his horse, and head to the local saloon.

Maybe he’d find himself at the general store, looking for a job and a grubstake.

Of course, many others staked their land from the back of a Calistoga wagon, or mined a hole in the ground, or panned a river. They ranched. They drove cattle.

Some of them rustled those cattle, and robbed a stagecoach or two, as well.

Put it all together, and you have the Wild West.

This in many ways resembles modern blogging.

As I look around today, I see a blog universe that has grown from individuals writing “my diary” posts, to journalism in the classic sense, to blogging “communities”, whose existence transcends the individuals posting.

It is within that universe of communities that I would like to focus today’s discussion.

A blogging community faces an inherent contradiction from the very start-the desire to advance the community’s objectives versus the freedom of speech that is clearly required if the community is to remain popular and a source of new ideas.

This issue is of particular note if the community is intended to advance a particular purpose-a product or political community, for example.

In my wandering around the Wild Web, I’ve noticed certain “management” issues that have yet to find solutions. Consider these three examples of “stagecoach robberies” that can or have occurred:

Over at BlueNC there’s a conversation ongoing regarding possible planted messages from a supporter of “possible” gubernatorial candidate Richard Moore.

Organized (or disorganized) groups of “shout-downers” (trolls on steroids) with a message opposite of the stated purpose of the community launch attacks that deter others from staying with the community.

The community’s “regulars” can become unwilling to accept the outside interactions that the owners desire

How can these concerns be addressed?

Let’s consider the BlueNC situation first.

Because these communities desire an open membership policy, there doesn’t seem to be an easy “gatekeeping” solution, and you’ll notice the comments among the members of the community reflect this reality.

Vigilance, however, has brought the issue up for comment, and that might turn out to be the most effective solution-to the extent that the connections can be noted.

But what about the “member on member” interactions? And how can the community’s management and owners appropriately respond?

Let’s put it in a political context.

If you are operating a campaign community, you want to have a “guest-friendly” environment, but be open as well. Obviously removing the most “trollish” and intentionally offensive posts is easy enough.

But what about a community that becomes insular?

The campaign is a marathon, and the communities are going to discover that 2 years is a long time to run chat and blog without weariness setting in.

How many times can the same group of regulars face “your candidate sucks!” over and over again without losing the desire to interact with outsiders at all?

This is where we get into new ground.

Obviously new methods of “wrangling the regulars” will have to be developed.

Here are a few quick suggestions:

Use the power of ownership. Consider the creation of “superusers” who are brought closer to the community’s management-maybe even a private chat room.

Create “evangelizing” opportunities for your regulars-for example, as a manager of a D candidate’s community I might challenge the superusers to visit R leaning websites to discuss my candidate, using talking points I develop in conjunction with the superusers.

Constantly remind the community of the ambassadorial and educational functions the candidate is hoping to achieve.

Create fun opportunities as well-anything from personalized gifts to VIP opportunities at various campaign events.

This is going to be a groundbreaking election cycle for the Internet, and a lot of rules are going to be written this time that will set the stage for many elections to come.

So git along, lil’ dogies. There’s a long trail ahead.