13 ms·
US Seizes Domains Used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
- ceejayoz 6y ago> According to the seizure documents, four of the domains purported to be genuine news outlets but were actually controlled by the IRGC and targeted the United States for the spread of Iranian propaganda to influence United States domestic and foreign policy in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and the remainder spread Iranian propaganda to other parts of the world. Do they get to seize the Voice of America domain too?
- readams 6y agoThey are free to launch their own counterintelligence operations.
- googthrowaway42 6y agoVOA doesn't hide the fact they are state sponsored so I don't see how this is a valid comparison.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoBut there are plenty of other outlets for covert US propaganda that would be a valid comparison.
- googthrowaway42 6y agoYes, OPs comment is especially hilarious when you consider that when the US government wants to engage in actual propaganda they will use the NY Times.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoNYT is a private organization, with reporters who have sources from many governments. Since it’s US-based, it has more sources in the US and covers more domestic stories, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s a mouthpiece of the US government. NYT has a somewhat adversarial relationship with the government, and regularly publishes highly damaging stories the government would rather suppress. There’s an important distinction between an independent media outlet with a US perspective, and US government propaganda. The former holds some principles that the nation will better prosper if corruption in the government is exposed. The latter just wants to increase the standing of the nation, and/or keep the present leaders in power.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- googthrowaway42 6y agoI totally understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. In reality that is not how it works in many cases. The NY Times is often used by the ruling class to direct public policy.
- stefantalpalaru 6y ago> I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s a mouthpiece of the US government "Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA" - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/corres...
- kube-system 6y agoFor starters, VOA isn't foreign.
- dane-pgp 6y agoThis is a valid rebuttal to the question "Do they get to seize the Voice of America domain too?". Perhaps the original question should have been, "Why isn't there a law like FARA that prevents the US government from publishing propaganda?".
- kube-system 6y agoTo answer the revised question: Propaganda is simply influential speech that someone takes steps to distribute. Not all propaganda is bad, or even disagreeable. Typically it is not literally the state of being propaganda that makes propaganda concerning, but instead, it’s the the agenda that the propaganda is espousing that is of concern. For example, some propaganda is good and had an agenda that is widely agreeable — e.g. many things produced by the Ad Council. Few would think it is reasonable for the US to prohibit its government from doing things that it believes is in its own interest. Tl;dr: it’s because countries don’t prohibit themselves from doing things they think is a good idea.
- dane-pgp 6y agoIt may be helpful, then, to draw a distinction between propaganda targeted at a domestic audience and propaganda targeted at foreign audiences. I think many would say that the US government shouldn't try to spread any "good ideas" that differ from what its citizens already believe are good ideas. That would still allow the US government to publish those ideas to other countries, though.
- kube-system 6y agoIn that case, I don't think many Americans would take issue with VOA's publishing. It is generally bland, non-controversial reporting. Even their editorials are typically just criticism of human rights abuses or opinions in support of democracy.
- oh_sigh 6y agoYes, if VoA registers a .ir address, Iran can seize it if they want. Did you have an actual point with this question or was it some kind of rhetoric that I don't understand?
- markdown 6y agoThe point is that it's ridiculous that the US government can stifle the speech of anyone, anywhere in the world with a .com Hopefully China is soon in a position to counter US hegemony on the world wide web.
- jameslk 6y agoIt must be nice for the US government to have a tool it can selectively use to punish the speech of anyone it disagrees with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act#Allegations_of_selective_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Ac... Unfortunately for the government, I suspect abusing control of domains like this will just make a decentralized DNS that they cannot control more of a reality.
- derision 6y agoDon't want your domain seized by the US? then don't use a TLD owned by the US to engage in anti-US activities. Have we already forgotten Iran and their calls for death to America? Would you expect any country to allow usage of their services to advocate for their downfall? Would you expect McDonalds to allow you to have an anti-McDonalds protest inside one of their restaurants?
- fit2rule 6y ago>Iran and their calls for death to America? Citation required. (EDIT: to be clear, it seems that we require a citation to the official Iranian policy, not some clear agitprop around a popular slogan ...)
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's an extremely common slogan in Iran(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America). I should note that Iranian officials generally insist that it's not meant literally, although I'm not taking a position on whether or not that's true.
- fit2rule 6y agoOh, its a slogan .. I thought we were talking about official government policy. I wonder if McCain meant his death chant literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris Its probably a good thing he didn't get a chance to set official US policy on Iran. EDIT: /s
- joemazerino 6y agoDoes this move have a precedent outside of law enforcement? Seizing domains from foreign interference seems like an escalation valid or not.
- derision 6y agoSeems like a pale escalation in comparison to bombing one of their top generals
- oh_sigh 6y agoSome would argue Soleimani escalated by coordinating attacks on the US embassy and military bases. And hopefully, Iran doesn't decide to shoot down a commercial airliner half-filled with their own nationals, that took off from their own airport, as retribution for these domain name seizures.
- 0xFFC 6y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4 Sure. Iran is the uncivil one in the region.
- sumedh 6y ago> Some would argue Soleimani escalated by coordinating attacks on the US embassy and military bases. Didn't the escalation begin when US removed a democratically elected Iranian leader?
- ThinkBeat 6y agoSome countries use firewalls or other means to block content they do not want their citizens to see. The US removes them from the Internet to ensure nobody in the world can read them. A great display of American exceptionalism. Presumably this entitlement to outright remove content on the web should be extended and available for other nations as well. A form of immediate global censorship. I hope over time the Internet infrastructure and operations will either make these types of operations impossible or available for any country.
- ffpip 6y agoLiterally every country does this. US has more power because it controls .com domains. They have taken the most effective way of blocking the site instead of using ineffective blocks like DNS, firewalls, etc.
- Biganon 6y agoIsn't the ICANN supposed to be independent though? I thought that had been their main fight in the last 20 years
- kube-system 6y agoYes, but the registries that operate TLDs are not.
- tialaramex 6y agoEver since the ccTLDs were bulk generated the sovereign entities they notionally belong to have exercised about the level of control over them that you'd expect. See also the flags flown by ships. If a ship has a French flag, the French state actually takes some responsibility for it, even if you saw it in port in Brazil, that's still a French flag, France cares about that ship 'cos it has their flag on it and they don't let that flag fly just anywhere. On the other hand, if the ship has the Comoros flag, well, don't expect too much from a poor island nation that was mostly glad of the cheque paid. If you're lucky Comoros can give you the phone number for the people who actually own it, but they want nothing to do with that ship. What matters here is that these were gTLDs operated by American registries, so it's up to the Americans if they want.
- cameronehrlich 6y agoAnyone know what the domains were?
- kube-system 6y ago> Four of the domain names, “newsstand7.com,” “usjournal.net,” “usjournal.us,” and “twtoday.net,” were seized pursuant to FARA.
- ENOTTY 6y agoA few of them are listed in the press release. Check the linked court documents to see if there are others.
- wcoenen 6y agoThe press release does not seem to have a link to the actual seizure documents. Am I missing something?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- genkaos 6y agohttps://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1325981/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1325981...
- aaomidi 6y agoJust looking at this list it seems like a bunch of bullshit domains tbh.
- fit2rule 6y agoAll of the sites in this article are still available in Archive.org, and .. Streissand effect .. I for one have found it very intriguing to go through the archive and see what all the fuss was about. It seems that the US doesn't really want to have an honest conversation about its history of sanctions against Iran, nor can it tolerate anyone discussing the 37 million refugees from its wars. I hope the Iranian government will put the same info up, properly identified and complying with US' requirements .. because honestly, the content of these sites needs to be discussed openly and honestly. EDIT: after further reading, it seems that the archived content doesn't necessarily contain anything demonstrably false - but the motivation for seizing the domains is more like "these sites didn't properly identify themselves as being authored by the government of Iran, therefore they don't deserve to exist". Because, so far, I haven't seen anything in the wayback machine to indicate that anything previously published on these sites is false. They definitely do not paint a pretty picture of American imperialism, however - and they do provide a counter narrative to the great American war propaganda that currently embroils the west. EDIT2: Just so its clear, I'm still reading through the archives, and I see nothing in these sites that makes the 'holocaust denial' claims or any other such nonsense. Just lots of articles detailing America's illegal wars and its crimes against humanity. I can see why American's want that off the 'net, and why any attempt to discuss it must be censored into oblivion. The facts on the ground of America's war insanity are pretty heinous, to be honest.
- jariel 6y ago"It seems that the US doesn't really want to have an honest conversation about its history of sanctions against Iran," Hmmm ... 'honest conversations' with a group that literally denies the holocaust? This position, much like most of the antagonizing positions on the thread are a reflection of a common and strange psychology worth examination - the 'slights of my father' are held to the highest moral standards, the smallest deviation from which deserves condemnation, whereas 'my father's adversary' ... mass murder is fine. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard can use '.ir' to it's hearts content.
- djsumdog 6y agoSo you're using once stance to deny the totality of everything? Everything you read will contain both truths and lies (just watch CNN/MSNBC, which are pretty much corporate and political propaganda on the level of RT today). The CIA did cause a revolution against a democratically elected government in Iran, replacing it with the Shaw. The Iranian-Contra situation is a travesty against the Iranian people. The world is more complex that A is true and B is false. You have to take everything you read and examine if it's true or not. There are literally no trustable media today.
- kstenerud 6y agoThis is a pretty bold move. Normally America just throws a few ceremonial sanctions around to show them who's boss. I wonder who pushed for it?
- kodablah 6y ago> was a collaborative effort between the FBI and social media companies Google, Facebook, and Twitter [...] a perfect example of why the FBI San Francisco Division prioritizes maintaining an ongoing relationship with a variety of social media and technology companies. Trying to read between the lines here, but having a hard time without statements of appreciative voluntary collaboration from the companies themselves. Is the FBI saying that collaboration has been valuable, or forced cooperation? Unless any of those companies similarly boasts, I have to assume the latter.
- albntomat0 6y agoFrom the "about us" page on the first provided domain: "The website is run by a small team of political science students who work seven days a week to provide fact-based news and views from around the country." [0] From the original submission: "In addition, the remaining 88 domains targeted audiences in Western Europe, the Middle East, and South East Asia and masqueraded as genuine news outlets while actually being operated by the IRGC to spread pro-Iranian disinformation around the globe to the benefit of the Government of Iran." "four of the domains purported to be genuine news outlets but were actually controlled by the IRGC and targeted the United States for the spread of Iranian propaganda to influence United States domestic and foreign policy in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)" [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200308072511/http://newsstand7.com/about-us/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200308072511/http://newsstand7...
- waterheater 6y agoThe four seized by FARA make complete sense. Allowing news outlets to hide their affiliation with foreign governments or components of foreign governments will bring trouble. According to the release, those four worked a US audience, so good on the DOJ and FBI for seizing those. The other 88 were because the Government of Iran violated our sanctions by not getting a proper license. The US had the ability to seize because the domains were owned and operated within the US and subsequently broke the laws. So, it boils down to Iran breaking our rules by not improperly disclosing intent or failing to have the appropriate license. The DOJ and FBI did a good job. The Government of Iran could have registered those news outlets under FARA, but they didn't. Same for the obtaining the licenses, though I'm not versed in that approval process. If you're looking for some riveting reading, check out FARA: https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/fara-index-and-act https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/fara-index-and-act
- hetspookjee 6y agoPerhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation but I think this rather highlights the awkward position the world allows itself to be in: to let the USA govern the entirety of the domain space. I believe this ought to be a global affair. Sure this might be headed by the USA as per usual, but the current situation is not one I think we should desire as a global populace. I think what Iran did here is wrong, no doubt. But don't fool me that the USA does no such similar tactics as well, perhaps a tad bit more convoluted, through side companies for example But it's nothing weird to conceive the USA meddling in other countries their news feeds, right?
- TheDesolate0 6y agoI agree. But I think your statement points at a bigger problem. We need to start looking towards a global human coalition. More than the UN/WC. The US has had too much power for too long, as well as China, Russia, and any other country with "veto powers".
- waterheater 6y agoIf Iran hosted these sites in, say, Myanmar, I have a strong suspicion the DOJ and FBI couldn't take down these sites. That said, perhaps the military would end up getting involved, if the threat was serious enough. >Sure this might be headed by the USA as per usual, but the current situation is not one I think we should desire as a global populace. Okay, right now, remove the USA from their global role. Who do you want to fill the void? Remember that sudden power vacuums allow bad actors to fill in (ISIS being the most modern example of such). As controversial as it may sound, the USA still allows for the greatest expressions of liberty of any country, period. It ain't perfect, but no representative system is. >But don't fool me that the USA does no such similar tactics as well, perhaps a tad bit more convoluted, through side companies for example Of course we do. Unless a treaty is signed explicitly condemning such behavior, every country possessing or seeking power meddles with domestic politics of other countries. Political power derives its strength from perception. If a domestic populace views their leaders as capable, political power increases, and vice versa. This reality is used by militaries and intelligence services to influence domestic and foreign nations. For example, if you're China, you attempt to convince the USA population to perceive their government as weak, ineffective, and non-representative, and you simultaneously tell the USA population that China is a worthy successor to the USA and is totally not a threat. If the population is unaware of these efforts (often spanning years if not decades), you have a fairly high success rate, as you are fabricating an alternate reality which is deemed plausible enough to pass as truth. Raise a whole generation on this reality, and you've laid a new foundation for that society. (For more information on the topic, look up "psychological operations".)
- DeonPenny 6y agoThey should just turn it into a signup and login page and investigate anyone that comes by
- im3w1l 6y agoThis establishes that USA will use their control of .com to further their interests and that if you are at odds with those interests you should prefer a ccTLD.
- adventured 6y agoThe .com TLD is under control of the US, so of course the US will leverage that in its own interests when it makes sense. Can you explain where the surprise is exactly? It's equivalent to proclaiming surprise that the US will leverage its natural resources to its own advantage, or physically seek to control its borders in relation to its economy for trade purposes, or use & abuse the USD global reserve currency to its advantage. The .com TLD is just another resource under control of the US. The US, as with every country on the planet, seeks to leverage all manner of things to its advantage, politically and economically. The only difference between nations is how many points of leverage they have to utilize. The US, or China as another example, have many points of leverage to use; smaller or weaker countries do not. Kind of like OPEC successfully leveraging its oil dominance in the 1970s. It's what countries tend to do, when they can.
- im3w1l 6y agoI think a lot of people thought that US was content to let .com be neutral-ish ground.
- CydeWeys 6y agoIt never has been and never will be. These seizures are simply a few in a long line of similar actions stretching all the way back to the beginning of the "war on terror" in 2001. Hell, even the "war on piracy" has seen a lot of domains being seized.
- stefantalpalaru 6y ago"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
- jjones2 6y agoIt is OK that the US did this because .com TLD's are controlled by their government.