Slashdot Mirror
Rapid Internet Growth In Iran
securitas writes "The BBC's Abbas Azimi reports on the rapid growth of the Internet and Internet cafes in Iran, apparently with the tacit approval of the government. Seven million Iranians have Internet access, or 10% of the population - double the rate two years ago. Access costs 60 cents/hour. The article describes how the Internet is used for everything from VoIP phone calls to chat and Web logs. Even Iran's vice-president has a daily blog on a popular site with 'musings about politics and life.' All of this despite the ban on many sites, which is easily circumvented by Iran's webmasters and geeks. An interesting point is that most of the PCs used in Iran are assembled from smuggled parts and run pirated versions of all the latest software (due to foreign embargo?). It sounds like a great opportunity for open source software."
The old saying, "if it aint' broke don't fix it," seems to apply here. With no laws against pirating retail software, what would the advantage be to OSS? I know it wouldn't cost them any more, or less, so why change?
FisterBelvedere -- Putting a whole new meaning to "streaks on the china" since 1996.
It's interesting to see yet another government try to circumvent web sites that don't agree with their particular world view. And even better when the web-sites re-appear under different names. Sounds exactly like the situation in China. I wonder if the Iranian geeks are learning from what happened to the Falun Gong et al. They are obviously realizing that the filters are almost worthless to people who really want to get at the material.
However, I still think the filters are effective because they have a very powerful psychological effect. If the government says you shouldn't be viewing said material, and if caught(even though it's almost impossible to catch you, but how many people realize the true power of the government) there will be big trouble. Thus I think most banned sites just wind up preaching to the choir, very sad indeed.
For how long? The 'rulers' overthere just banned several THOUSAND canidates from the elections because they where too 'progressive'.
Once the hardliners regain control there is a good chance this trend will reverse itself.
It sounds like a great opportunity for open source software.
Speaking from personal experience from the good ol' Russia, I would disagree that open source software will proliferate. Strike it as flamebate, but given the choice of ANY software available for FREE (beer), the software that has the highest number of the most "common" applications will become ubiquitous. This means - everyone will have windows, photoshop, office plus whatever else that has high value, without any regards to price/advertising. Average Joe might not want to invest his time into less polished Linux for desktop, thus M$ is what everyone will have. Apparently, to the average consumer, the value of OSS is not stability or openness, but the word FREE.
<begin flame here>
> Call open source the software of choice among
> terrorists. If it takes hold and any terrorists
> there get caught with it on their machines look
> for microsoft and the government to start pointing
> fingers.
You're not the first to say this, but it's one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard. I can't believe either Bush or Microsoft would push this line.
Have any terrorists been caught with Windows on their PCs? Are the latest breed of "computer terrorists" (aka virus writers) running Windows on their PCs? If the answers are "Yes" and "Yes", don't you think you could construct a counter argument that Windows is actually the terrorists' choice?
One of the first things the media would do with such an issue is to consult "respected FOSS spokesman (insert any of several names here)". Do you think Microsoft would risk that person pointing the finger of blame back at MS based on the above argument?
Equating FOSS with terrorism is both absurd and unrealistic.
They're supposed to be unbreakable, yet those in office are convinced that terrorists are using encryption. So the government has broken it, or are lying.
Well, they could know these groups are using encryption without actually having broken any particular message. For instance, they might have seized a computer and found a PGP installation on it.
My guess, though, is that the government angle is all spin. This makes it into the headlines for two reasons.
First, the government and government contractors are genuinely worried about encryption, because its use really does reduce their ability to eavesdrop. The issue of U.S. encryption policy was a major political issue throughout the 1990s, which reached ridiculous extremes with T-shirts with the RSA algorithm on them which were legally classified as munitions. Legislation is so unenforceable now that it would be hard to make it stronger, but the "threat" of terrorist use provides enough political weight to check any forward movement.
Secondly, the notion that terrorists are fully versed in all our Western skills, and thus may be able to exploit them to advantage against us, scares people and therefore resonates with them. Scaremonger broadcasters on local news stations live and breathe on this kind of stuff.
Maybe terrorists are using steg and crypto; maybe they're not. In either case, it's politically desirable for the government to claim they are, and for the media to report it.