UPDATED Iran: Did Yahoo Give Names of 200,000 Users to Authorities?

The Latest from Iran (9 October): Almost Four Months

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 1900 GMT: Yahoo! has issued a further statement: “The allegations in the story are false. Neither Yahoo! nor any Yahoo! representative has met with or communicated with any Iranian officials, and Yahoo! has not disclosed user data to the Iranian government. Yahoo! was founded on the principle that access to information and communications tools can improve people’s lives, and Yahoo! is committed to protecting and promoting freedom of expression and privacy. To learn more about our human rights efforts, please visit: http://humanrights.yahoo.com.”

The original source of the claim, the Iranian Students Solidarity Organization is very active with a blog --- the story is 3rd or 4th on the current page. It has about 30,000 members. In this case, the ISSO is claiming that it had a source inside the Iranian Government who was at the meeting between Yahoo! and the Iranian authorities.


UPDATE 1300 GMT: Yahoo! has posted this denial on Twitter: "The...allegations are false. No Yahoo! representative met w/ any Iranian officials or disclosed user data to Iranian government."

--
Normally we do not feature uncorroborated stories, but the allegations of the Iranian Students Solidarity movement are so serious that we think they merit attention. The post was translated and sent to lawyer Richard Koman:

On 27th of Shahrivar [Qods Day, 18 September], when Iranians demonstrated again on the streets, the Iranian authorities, in addition to blocking many Internet sites all over Iran, blocked or severely limited access to Yahoo and Google. Google did not react and its problem was resolved with 48 hours, but Yahoo sent a representative to Iran’s telecommunications ministry, to resolve the issue.

During the meeting with Iranian Internet and telecommunications authorities, Yahoo representatives were asked to provide Iranian authorities with the names and data on all Iranian Internet account holders in exchange for removing the block/filter on the Yahoo website.

The Yahoo representative said that currently there were more than 20 million e-mail accounts and providing such a list would be a very time-consuming process. The IRGC [Islamic Republic Guardian Corps] replied by asking the representative to provide e-mail accounts of those individuals who have Yahoo accounts and are publishing blogs.

Apparently this made Yahoo’s task a bit easier, and the Yahoo representative agreed to provide such a list within a matter of hours. Upon the receipt of such a list, which included approximately 200,000 e-mails, by the Iranian authorities, the regime immediately unblocked access to the Yahoo.com website. The list went back as far as five years and included active and inactive accounts and blogs.

It is necessary to mention here that the Iranian Yahoo is managed by Yahoo Corporation in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur).

Now, for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Mehdi Karroubi

The Latest from Iran (20 September): Is Ramadan Over?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



UPDATE 9 October: We originally posted this on 20 September, but in light of today's announcement of the 2009 award to a Mr B Obama, we thought it was not too soon to prepare for next year.

Mehdi Karroubi as a Nobel Prize Laureate? A group of activists certainly think so after the events in Iran since June, and they have launched a petition via Twitter to nominate the cleric and Presidential candidate. More information is available via this Twitition link.

The Latest from Iran (8 October): Will There Be a Fight?

NEW Green Tweets: Mapping Iran's Movement via Twitter
NEW Iran: A Telephone Poll on Politics You Can Absolutely Trust (Trust Us)
UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
UPDATED Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense
The Latest from Iran (7 October): Drama in Parliament?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

1900 GMT: It appears that the State Department's withdrawal of funding from four Iran-centred human rights organisations including the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which we noted yesterday, may get some media attention. Alex Massie of the British magazine The Spectator has written about the "shabby, and actually terrible" Government treatment of the groups, raising the concern of Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic magazine.

1845 GMT: A University student newspaper has been closed by Government order after it implicitly accepted that the Holocaust had occurred.

1545 GMT: We're here, but it is a really slow news day, compounded by breakdowns in communication. Twitter seems to be out of action. Press TV's website is still leading with yesterday's story of the Supreme Leader's speech, and CNN has nothing beyond the disappearance of the Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri (see 1025 GMT).

1050 GMT: Fereshteh Ghazi ("Iranbaan") has posted another set of updates on the conditions of detainees.

1025 GMT: Kidnappings and Talks. Both in Iranian and non-Iranian media, headlines are devoted to Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's allegation, "We have found documents that prove US interference in the disappearance of the Iranian pilgrim Shahram Amiri in Saudi Arabia."

The claim elevates an already murky story into the current power politics around Iran's nuclear program. Amiri is one of four Iranians who have "disappeared", whether through defection or kidnapping, since 2007. All four have been connected with Iran's military or nuclear programme. (Note that Press TV coyly refers to Amiri, beyond the "pilgrim" status, as "a researcher".) There have been allegations that the disappearances may be connected with an Israeli covert effort to cripple Iran's nuclear efforts.

Mottaki's statement, however, is connected more with an attempt to get leverage in the post-Geneva negotiations. The article uses comments by University of Tehran academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi to put further pressure on the US, "As long as the United States continues to behave in an unacceptable manner, I think it will be very difficult for Iranians to be convinced that true negotiations can lead to a fruitful conclusion." Marandi also applies that pressure to Iran's regional manoeuvres: "What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Saudi regime has effectively discredited itself and...will be seen by those who know what has gone on in the region as being confined to American demands and effectively abiding by American wishes."

0955 GMT: A Bit of Fun. Thanks to Persian Umpire, we have posted the ultimate telephone poll of Iranians on politics and President Ahmadinejad.

0915 GMT: The Death Sentence is Noticed. Reuters, citing the Green movement website Mowj-e-Sabz, has written about the death penalty imposed on Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani (see 0620 GMT).

0910 GMT: Parleman News offers an overview of yesterday's events in the Iranian Parliament. The focus is on Ali Larijani's success (and thus President Ahmadinejad's defeat) in winning re-election as head of the Principlist majority party, but there is also a bit of light-hearted banter between journalists and MPs over the question, "Where is my vote?"

0635 GMT: Following up our story of the morning (0600 GMT): Ayande News has an interview with Saeed Mortazavi (pictured), most of which is on the events surrounding Kahrizak Prison. Mortazavi minimises his role in the detentions and abuses, claiming that deaths occurred because of "prior injuries" rather than incidents at Kahrizak.

0620 GMT: Beyond the politics, a curious silence this morning on our last report of yesterday, the first death sentence passed on a post-election demonstrator, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani. Possibly because the news has not been reported inside Iran, I cannot find a sign that the opposition has picked up on the development. If the death penalty is carried out, it could offer the symbolism of a martyr --- as with Neda Agha Soltan or Soltan Arabi --- for high-profile protest.

0600 GMT: The open challenge in Parliament to President Ahmadinejad, or at least to some high-profile officials, did not materialise yesterday, despite the existence of a report into post-election abuses which could be the foundation for that confrontation.

The document remained classified, and no one --- not even the reformist press --- broke out to make claims beyond the identification of two likely culprits, Iran Deputy Prosecutor General Saeed Mortazavi and Tehran police chief Ahmad Reza Radan.

That does not mean that the challenge has evaporated. To the contrary, there are enough signals from conservative/principlist members of Parliament to indicate anger with a Government which both oversaw and covered up the abuses. The symbolic catalyst for this is "Kahrizak", the prison where detainees were beaten, on occasion to death. One of those detainees was Mohsen Rohulamini, the son of a prominent academic and adviser to conservative Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, and it is his case that appears to have propelled the movement that someone has to answer for "crimes".

The question, as we noted yesterday, is how far that anger has translated into talks "across parties" not only to press the President on the report but to turn this into a wider attack on his authority.

We know that Hashemi Rafsanjani met principlist clerics on Tuesday. What we don't know is how much contact he has had with conservative/principlist politicians and officials within the Government. And we do not know what role the "Green movement", or rather its leaders, have in any discussions. It could be that the relative silence of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi in recent days is because they are now in talks which need time to produce action, or it could be that they are on the outside but waiting to see what occurs.

Throughout the crisis, EA readers have reminded me that Iranian politics is rarely measured in days or even weeks but in far longer periods. That timeframe seems to fit here.

Green Tweets: Mapping Iran's Movement via Twitter

The Latest from Iran (8 October): Will There Be a Fight?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Our colleague Ali Fisher, who writes the excellent blog Wandren PD on public diplomacy and new media, has unveiled the first results from his study of the interaction of Twitter users with post-election protest in Iran. Writing for the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, he has mapped the conversation around the tags #GR88, #FreeIran, #Neda, and #Sohrab as well as the tag #helpiranelection (which I did not know about and was apparently created by a software developer in Israel).

As promising as this study is, the potential for it is even greater. As Fisher notes, "[The tag] #IranElection had so much data that a user would have had to scan 1,000 tweets every hour to keep up."

Iran: A Telephone Poll on Politics You Can Absolutely Trust (Trust Us)

The Latest from Iran (8 October): Will There Be a Fight?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

We avoided the media flutter last month over a poll by World Public Opinion of Iranian attitudes, not because we objected to the purported findings --- the most provocative that "eight in 10 Iranians say they consider [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to be the country's legitimate president" --- but because WPO's rationalisation could persuade us that this was a poll carried out under "neutral" conditions. A telephone call from the United States, coming out of the blue, to a household in Iran, made amidst post-election conflict in which there is a presumption that phone conversations may be under surveillance....hmm, didn't strike us as being optimal for getting full-and-frank answers.

We were going to let a wobbly survey fall of its own accord. But then Persian Umpire came along and put everything in perspective for us:

I wanted to mention the report by worldpublicopinion.org when it was first published but didn’t get a chance. Since it was referred to by [Dr Seyed Mohammad] Marandi  – considered by many here to be on the academic front of the mouthpiece industry  – in a CNN discussion on Sunday, it might be a good time to revisit the topic. The report stirred up controversy here, causing us much vexation and digestive upset.

In all honesty, I don’t know anything about polls and statistics, I am even forgetting my basic math, but to accept the results of this poll is tantamount to believing that the post-election chaos, on the streets and in the corridors of politics, must have only been a figment of our imaginations.

I don’t want to hurt their feelings, so let’s give worldpublicopinion.org A+ for effort. As for publishing the results of the effort, maybe they should have considered the health hazards and slept on it. So, they left me with no choice but to correct parts of the poll and repeat it. Unlike the original survey, the refusal rate for this one was a little less than 52%, so you can take this as solid information.

How much confidence do you have in US President Barack Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs?

I found the answer consistent with the WPO report: 16%. Then last night I asked myself the question and didn’t get a wink of sleep. I got on the internet to find out what “World Affairs” really meant.

Six hours later, I realized I wasn’t any wiser. After perusing the 38,700,000 results and getting familiar with terms such as “socioeconomic”, “geopolitical”, “interdependence”, “trade”, “foreign policy”, “global economy” and many more, I think I have to refine the question and call all those people again. In fact the question may need to be broken into two, because I spent another six hours thinking about “doing the right thing”, which led me to concepts like “ethics”, “political philosophy”, “interests”, “utilitarianism”, and “eye of the beholder”.
In light of this development, I decided to leave the foreign stuff until I can further specify what I am asking these people.

Considering everything that has occurred before, during and after the elections, do you consider Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate president of Iran?

Of the 50% who answered the question, 12.5% said they belonged to either the Basij or the Sepah [Revolutionary Guard], and 87.5% said “considering everything that has occurred before, during and especially after the elections” they are willing to consider Ahmadinejad as higher than President if he wanted them too....

Note: one respondent misunderstood “legitimate” as meaning “bastard”, for which he is in trouble as his phone was wiretapped.

In general, how satisfied are you with the process by which the authorities are elected in this country?

Now this question in the report were very interesting to me, but I though it required further probing. Here, I initially got the same numbers: a very large majority (81%) said they are satisfied with the general process, though only 40% said they were very satisfied. Sixteen percent say they are not satisfied. But when respondents were asked if they were very very satisfied, 20% said they were, and then only 10% said they were very very very satisfied.
My assistants are still on the phone with this question, incrementally adding a “very”....I will publish the results once the question is over.

In Iran how free do you think people are to express controversial political views, without fear of being harassed or punished?

To me this question should have been binary. Free or not free. Combining “how free” with “without fear” was just confusing. Let us look at the response with a 71% rating in the WPO report: “I am somewhat free to express, without fear.” Perhaps it is just me but I don’t understand what this phrase means. I can handle “I am free to express without fear”, or the opposite “I am not free to express without fear.” I can also process “I am somewhat free to express” and its opposite. Let me say it another way: I am either free of fear to say something, or not. I cannot be “somewhat” free of that fear.

Before going insane, I decided to rephrase the question:

Do you agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad that Iranians have “almost complete freedom”?

Lo and behold, 100% said “yes”.

Are you comfortable answering silly political questions over the phone in Iran?

I squeezed in this last but essential question to assess the reliability of my survey. 14% refused to answer because they were offended, 5% said they were comfortable, 50% said they were not comfortable and 31% responded with a single tut. I marked them as "freaked out and afraid even to say so".