UPDATED Iran & Twitter: Last Words on The Hell of Heaven (Shahryar)

UPDATE 12 JANUARY: Patrick Philippe Meyer has posted a thoughtful response, "Where I disagree with Will Heaven vs Josh Shahryar", which concludes: "Digital activists really need to get up to speed on nonviolent civil resistance tactics and strategies just as the latter need to get up to speed on how to communicate more securely in repressive environments."

---
EA's Josh Shahryar, to move beyond the myths of "security" on Iran and social media so we can continue in the task of information and analysis, offers some final thoughts to Will Heaven:

Before I get to your arguments, I want to clear something up first. My first response was rather insulting --- and it was knowingly so. You had clearly gone out of your way to insult people that I have come to know and cherish both as friends and as colleagues. These people are not 13-year olds with laptops who listen to Emo music all day and cut themselves for fun. They are experienced professionals from fields as diverse as psychology, law, journalism, medicine, politics, and information technology. And they care. So any attempt at undermining their efforts will be swiftly answered. Anyone questioning their intentions or work is going to receive a reply. And any insults hurled at them will result in ridicule for the hurler.

Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and “Deep Packet Inspection”
Iran & Twitter 101: Rereading A Tale of Two Twitterers
Iran & Twitter 101: Getting The Facts Right — A Response to Will Heaven
The Latest from Iran (11 January): Reading the Regime

Now let’s get to your latest, hopefully last, argument, posted on The Daily Telegraph website last Friday:

Picture this scene. In Tehran, during the summer of 2007, a group of young students – male and female – are enjoying a house party. It’s a very hot day. They are drinking, smoking pot and listening to music around a swimming pool. Then, unexpectedly, there is loud knock at the front door. Men wearing the uniform of the Revolutionary Guard barge in. The music is switched off and the party falls silent. The girls are wearing bikinis, and the boys are holding beers – they’ve all been caught red-handed. But the order given by the guards is this: every one of you with a laptop or a computer must hand it over to us now.

This anecdote – passed onto me by a trusted British-Iranian source – illustrates something very important about Iran’s authoritarian regime. For a long time, it has actively hunted for compromising hard-drive data in order to assert its control over the lives of Iranians. By confiscating the students’ laptops, the Guards gave themselves access to photos, documents and emails. Enough evidence, in other words, to prosecute (or at the very least threaten) the party-goers, who attended these sorts of events frequently.

More recent stories suggest these efforts have escalated. Take, for instance, Evgeny Morozov’s Iranian-American woman, who was asked by officers at Tehran’s International Airport to log into Facebook when she arrived there in July. At first, she denied having a Facebook account – so when they proved her wrong, they also noted down all of her Facebook friends’ names. I personally know of another Iranian who was arrested and imprisoned after posting anti-regime slogans, rather naively, on a publicly-listed Facebook profile.

I personally, as someone who looks at more substantial evidence, decline to tackle the anecdote you present. As for Morozov’s story and your other Iranian friend, yes, the regime has been actively hunting for data for years. But Morozov’s opinion about social media is pretty negative, not just about Iran but in general, and so I am not going to debate someone who has made up his mind even before tackling the Twitter Revolution. That Revolution is about awareness, not provoking a political revolt or helping it directly.

You persist:

It’s overwhelmingly clear, then, that it is dangerous for Iranians to partake in online protests on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, or to post compromising information online with the intention that it is read by a Western audience. Clearer still – as I wrote in the Daily Telegraph last week – that when Westerners encourage this communication, or provoke it, they could be putting Iranian lives in danger, especially given the prolific use of “Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI). It’s terrifying to think that a simple “re-tweet” could lead to torture, but it’s also worryingly plausible.

Your perception of what foreigners are doing for Iranians is unfounded and wrong. As for your continued worries about Deep Packet Inspection, the report about the Iranian regime using DPI is hotly contested --- have a look at Mike Dunn's dissection, posted today on EA, of your flimsy evidence or responses from professionals like David Isenberg or Christopher Parsons. DPI is not something that you can detect by simply checking systems from the outside. Indeed, About the only way you can tell if DPI is being utilized is if the user actually shows it to you.

You concede:

Now, I have received a lot of criticism for putting forward this view. The most recent from Daily Nite Owl writer Josh Shahryar, an influential#Iranelection Tweeter who has also written for The Huffington Post. His argument is forcefully made (to put it mildly), and he alleges that I have misunderstood the role played by Twitter in Iran. He writes:

Shahryar is spot on about one thing: Twitter has helped to share news about what is happening inside Iran – as I made clear in my Telegraph piece, “spreading awareness” is in theory a good thing. He is also to be commended for his efforts to conceal the identities of those Iranians who spread information online, by providing them with anonymity network software such as Tor and Freegate.

Thank you for the kind words, I certainly don’t deserve any of that. But our efforts are not concentrated on making the revolution a success. That is the job of Iranian protesters. Our job is to simply let the world know what is going inside Iran. If you have to measure our results, do it at how we have managed to spread the news about the protesters. I think there is enough evidence that that we have made a difference in that specific quest.

Instead of measurement, however, you make another fling at tearing down that effort:

But those softwares, as Shahryar admits, are only used by a “select few”. And it is foolish to think that their use guarantees safety: if the Revolutionary Guard were to find someone using the software, the consequences would be dire. “No one actually communicates with people in Iran,” he contests. “They post their stuff and they leave.” But who does he think they are posting their “stuff” for? If the regime was able to match information posted by someone in Iran with similar information being passed around in the US, does Shahryar think they would be forgiven?

Your initial argument was that Westerners are encouraging Iranians to engage in those activities. Now you’re saying not that we should stand aside but that we should intervene to discourage them from posting this information online? Who are we to do that?

"The select few" of whom I spoke  currently have software that is undetectable through even DPI. The exact nature of that software needs to remain a secret for their own safety. The other Iranians already have more primitive proxy server software that they use to access information.  They don’t post anything, but they certainly get informed.

If you genuinely have concerns about DPI, read the articles that I mentioned above. But remember this as well:

It is naïve to think that Iranians are totally dependent on Westerners to protect them. More than two-thirds of Iran’s population is young and a large majority is very well-educated. They know their way around the Internet better than some folks in Britain and the US. And they  know the risks that they face. Again, it is immature --- and rather insulting --- to think that they are kids that are being manipulated by the ‘superior’ race in the West into doing things – and rather insulting.

Insulting to them when you reach desperately for evidence that they are being manipulated by "outsiders":

The idea that, as Shahryar puts it, “we aren’t encouraging anyone” could not be further from the truth. Here are a few tweets from the #Iranelection hashtag posted in the last few days, most of which have been re-tweeted numerous times:

@houmanr: How to stop basij motor bikes http://vasabaha.com/1388/04/07/mikh/ #iranelection (2 days ago)
@jefryslash: ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????http://tinyurl.com/luex5x How to DEFEND AGAINT BASIJ & POLICE #iranelection in Streets #iranelection (2 days ago)
@PersianTechie: Two nails will stop basiji bike/car/truck. http://twitpic.com/7ychu #iranElection (3 days ago)
@fr33dom_fighter break the basiji knees with fierce strikes w/Bat and break their pride and make them humble #iranelection (4 days ago)
@tehranweekly: take all pictures of basij agents and post on twitter &facebook so we can retweet them #cn4iran#iranelection (1 day ago)

And that was just a quick search. It seems difficult to deny that these sorts of messages --- mainly posted by Iranian-Americans -- incite those inside Iran to commit very dangerous acts. Even if they are not carried out, they could be used as evidence against those Iranians who choose to re-tweet them or post them online.

Many of those who use Twitter "on the outside" are Iranian-Americans; many still retain their Iranian citizenship, and they certainly have a stake in their homeland. However, for the very few "Westerners" who cross the line with provocation, you also note my reference to how much we --- as the members of the #IranElection hashtag on Twitter --- are opposed to such childish activities. Your argument is self-defeating: it is we, not you, who are maintaining "security".

So unable to prove danger, you choose to belittle us. More importantly, by reducing Iranians to our helpless victims, you belittle them:

The positive aspects of online activism for change in Iran have been vastly overstated. And when you consider the danger posed to Iranians by online participation – compared with what online participation has achieved – the overall result is hardly tangible, and certainly not worth the risks which have been undertaken. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his brutal regime remains in power after a vicious crackdown. Tens (if not hundreds) of Iranians have been killed, dozens tortured and raped, and many more imprisoned. The Twitter revolutionaries, however, are too proud to re-think their strategy.

You ignore any counter-arguments, including those in my previous response, and just keep on beating your own drum. But let me try one more time to make you stop.

Will, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested, killed and beaten faced that terror on the streets while protesting. No one online is responsible for that. They willingly chose to go and engage in those activities.

If you’re suggesting that Iranians are going out to protest because we’re asking them to...then I don’t know if I should mourn the lack of your common sense or the waste of my time engaging in this debate. We weren’t even around when Iranians started protesting and they came out in millions. They want to do this. If you don’t get that, then I’m not sure what you do get.

Once more, the main purpose of the Twitter Revolution is to help spread the word about news and human rights events outside Iran.

I really hope you can eventually grasp that. Because then you won't resort --- perhaps unintentionally --- to the insult of those who have faced the risks not from our manipulation but from their bravery:

Witness the demise of @Persiankiwi, a twitter-user followed by some 30,000 people all over the world. In June, he or she (apparently from inside Iran) posted regular updates about the post-election protests. Here are the account’s final tweets:

@Persiankiwi we must go – dont know when we can get internet – they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names – now we must move fast -#Iranelection (June 24th)
@Persiankiwi thank you ppls 4 supporting Sea of Green – pls remember always our martyrs – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar #Iranelection (June 24th)
@Persiankiwi Allah – you are the creator of all and all must return to you – Allah Akbar -#Iranelection Sea of Green (June 24th)

After that, only silence. Was @Persiankiwi arrested or tortured, even killed? Was @Persiankiwi tracked down online by the Revolutionary Guard? Tragically, we’ll never know. But for me, that silence is a powerful reminder of the dangers faced by online activists working in dictatorships. I would not encourage the activity, unless the benefits clearly outweighed the enormous risks. In Iran, I’m afraid, that is plainly not the case.

First of all, you clearly have no idea who @Persiankiwi is, even if I thank you for the concern. From what I know, @Persiankiwi is safe. If you want to pay a real tribute to @Persiankiwi, note that when @Persiankiwi was tweeting, there was no Twitter Revolution. We followed him/her as we made our decisions to support those inside Iran in distribution of information.

Here are a couple of paragraphs just to remind you of something that you have ignored in your previous opinion and your current response. More than 200 years ago, when the British tried to crush the American Revolution, peasants, innkeepers, merchants, students and ordinary folk in general knew that, if they took arms and fought for their freedom against an unjust ruler, some of them would die. Many did. But they kicked the tyrants out and took their freedom through force of arms.

The same happened with revolutionaries in South America in the early part of the 19th century and it has repeatedly happened all over the world. Just because the revolutions in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia were largely bloodless doesn’t mean revolutions are all going to be as peaceful. People don’t always get their rights by sitting at home and not doing anything. People have to put themselves in danger for what is dear to them. Sometimes, people die and still don’t get their rights. But the allure of having and enjoying human rights is too great.

The fact that Iranians are dying is not the fault of Westerners. It is not even a fault. It is a sacrifice that Iranians must make to gain their freedom. They know this very well. They aren’t doing it because anyone else is telling them to do it. They’re doing it because they’re humans. They’re not sheep. And humans need more than just food, clothes and a roof on top of their heads. Maybe you don’t get this, but Iranians do.

I don’t know you. You can be a perfectly nice guy in person. Criticism is just part of being a journalist. Here’s hoping next time I read something from you, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.