Slashdot Mirror
Iran Cracks Down on Internet Sites
Dan Brickley writes "It appears that Iranian ISPs have been ordered to block a large number of popular Web sites, including weblogging, community, chat and email services. Web (particularly weblog) use has been increasing rapidly in Iran, with 64000+ weblogs published by Iranians via various sites. As of today, if the news is correct, the majority of these may be inaccessible to their authors, as will the email (eg. Yahoo) services they use to communicate with friends, colleagues and family worldwide. See stop.censoring.us and hoder.com for more details. The newly expanded blocks include PersianBlog, Blogger and the Google-hosted Orkut 'social networking' site, where Iranians come third after Brazil and USA, representing 7% of all users. How can we get our Iranian friends back in the Web?"
Complete control of information is required to stay in power. Lets hope that the people can get around this.
They can use a proxy to surf the web.
.01 cent
just my
Go take a look at blogger some time. Seriously. There are a zillion blogs on there now, it updates so fast that you could post your own blog and not make it to the "Latest Updates" page and catch your post before more than 500 new items scrolled it off the screen.
If everyone has a voice, no one really has a voice. Any single voice will be drowned out by many thousands of "Gee, this is my blog, I thought it would be a good idea to start one because my cat is so cute. I'll post pictures of my cat and I love Jesus."
The main thing is that the Iranians have access to medical information, educational information, and worldwide news outlets. None of those are being squashed, even by the fundamental, right-wing Muslim leadership. They know that having good quality information is key to improving the quality of life in their country.
Dissent is the only thing prohibited, but I doubt there is any country in which real dissent is permitted.
Corporations would never stand for blocking of site sthat they could advertise on.
If such an asinine action were ever undertaken by the US government, I can only hope that the corporations wouldn't be needed to do something about it. Of course, this sentiment presumes that at least part of our government is still "of the people."
Some kind of open distributed web proxy might do the trick.
Sounds good, how about tor http://tor.freehaven.net/
if a single (or even multiple) tor proxies get blocked, it will just go through a different one.
it works nicely for me
hrmmm... I wonder if it would get through the "great firewall of China" just as easily
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Technical problems require technical solutions.
Political problems requre political solutions.
Don't use law to stop file sharing in america.
Don't use proxys to stop legal action in Iran.
THe problem is a political one and we need a political answer. The people of Iran need to make it heard that they want blogs and such. Only they can secure their own freedoms. The best thing that we as a free people can do is offer assistance in helping their government learn that free speach is good.
We could invade Iran (again) or we could train Iranians to hack but the reality of the issue is that beyond this, all we will do is put a band aid on a huge wound.
Why is the religion of peace directly responsible for 28 out of the 30 violent conflicts raging in the world today?
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the vast majority of chattel slavery in the world today?
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the 20th and 21st Centuries?
Why are the practitioners of the religion of peace routinely slaughtering unarmed practitioners of every other religion wherever they can get away with it?
Why does the religion of peace call for the murder of anyone who converts from the religion of peace to another religion?
Why do so many of the believers of the religion of peace look forward to the opportunity to rape 72 virgins in heaven if they die while killing innocent women and children of other religions? Is it a god they worship, or just sex? If a god, then shouldnt heaven have more to do with him than their libidos?
Why do the leaders of the religion of peace routinely issue fatwas (death warrants) for anybody who questions their holy book of peace and their holy prophet of peace?
Why is the religion of peace responsible for the sexual mutilation of millions of little girls and the savage oppression of women?
Why did millions of the practitioners of the religion of peace laugh, cheer and dance in the street because 3,000 innocent men, women and children were murdered by seventeen men who supposedly hijacked the religion of peace? And why dont the real practitioners of the religion of peace condemn the supposed hijackers of their religion? Why the deafening silence? Why the smiles? Why the cheers and high fives?
Perhaps I just dont understand this whole PEACE thing. Did the definition of the word change, or is somebody just blowing a lot of smoke?
Have you seen some of those Brazillian women? I'm not complaining about them being on Orkut at all! They can talk in any language they want to as long as their picture is available on Orkut.
Your constitutional right makes clear that the federal government can't abridge your right to speak your mind, especially about "grievance" with your government. It doesn't say you have access to megawatt broadcasts for nothing. And there is a free non-censored medium: Hoofing it and talking to people face-to-face. Second to that, I'll take the Internet. While it isn't free, it's damn cheap, and arguably more relevant than TV or radio.
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
The rest of the population would just like to live their lives. Go to work, have kids, homes, watch TV, go to church/mosque...like the rest of the world. But they can't, because of that small, vocal, armed minority of asshats.
Oh, by the way, I guess I'm expanding the notion to include free expression. If you want to limit it to freedom of *speech*, how about the fines that the FCC levies against radio broadcasters. Yes, such as Howard Stern, but also others. Or, how about Lenny Bruce?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
That's funny. The thing is, when we had a secular, nationalist named Mossadegh, we didn't have a problem. Bt of course, a democratically elected governmented could not be tolerated by your wonderful government. So the US stepped in and overthrew Mossadegh, replacing him with the Shah who began the start of a repressive regime that was quoted by Amnesty International as having the worse human rights record to date.
No wonder any Islamic movement could have gained any popularity. Anything strong and opposed to the Shah was and is still better. However, you imposed that decision on us in the first place. Moreover, your government supported the Iraqis in invading Iran, which strengthened Khomeini's hand while our brothers and sisters perished.
And after all that, you have the nerve to say that it's just our problem, and not yours?
Why are these ISPs trying to get rid of paying customers again? I'd bet that a large percentage of their users would have no use for the Internet without blogs and such.
Because the government is forcing them to. I'm sure the ISPs don't want to do this, but when a government fears a loss of power due to the rampant flow of information, they need to do something to stiffle that flow of information.
Remember how China blocked google? Now google censors itself so that the Chinese government will allow it to continue (or at least it was censoring itself... maybe it's been opened back up?)
Tor has an excellent approach, but I couldn't figure out from their site how they distribute their distribution servers. Each client pulls a list of proxies from a central server. All you have to do to block this out is to block the central servers from which the proxy lists are served. Got a workaround?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
There's plenty of censorship here. It just *looks* like it isn't censorship because we have different values than the Iranians, a different view on what reasonably limited free speech is.
I dunno if Bush would go for it. After all, I'm not sure if there's oil to conquest in Iran (like the only reason there was a "war" -read, slaughter- in Iraq)? We gotta find an excuse for the monkey to cash in on it, first.
I think a country needs to "liberate" itself. The US had numerous bloody wars to get to the point to where its at. If enough people are against a topic in a country, they need to overthrow the powers that be themselves, that's all there is to it. Same thing goes to the whole "woman being battered" in a few of the middle eastern countries. Sure, I think its wrong, like anyone. But that's *my* belief, not necessarily theirs. These people have a whole set of beliefs that they have, too. They've been living with it for quite a long time. If a number of people wish to change things, they must do it *themselves*, not rely on the support of a country halfway around the globe that should be taking care of its own problems instead of spending billions overseas. If they do it right, they'll change things for the better and the beliefs just might stay around for awhile.
For those that often post of the US as a "totalitarian" state, please consider that we can post just about any damn thing we like anywhere on the internet. There is no government control of what you read or post. (There may be government monitoring, but that is a different story...)
Even in places like Iraq where some consider us a "dictator in residence" please note that anyone can run a blog any way they like, without censorship. Even if they are critical of the US in the region!
Please, before you post again about what a facist government the US the the terrible repressions US citizens suffer take a look at places like Iran with real repression. The US has some annoying laws that have been passed but we are a LONG ways from being a truly repressive place.
I know I'll just get flamed eight ways from Sunday for posting this, but it simply had to be said. In order to protect my own sanity (and free time) and encourage other posts I'll encourage other more silent people to come out of the shell and respond to any flamers I might get.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Two words: Regime Change.
Or you could ask the UN to do something about it. But of course, unless there's Oil-for-Food bribes involved, they're not likely to do anything about it.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
i am really beginning to think some people's brains are just wired differently than mine. here is a subject matter everyone seems to agree on: censorship is wrong, and here we have an egregious example of it from the iranian government
and yet i scan the comments here and what do i see? anti-american sentiment
how does that work?
is the usa a friend of iran? does the censorship by the us government not look like a molehill in your mind compared to the mountain of that going on in iran?
i honestly cannot fathom how some people think: iran does something evil... therefore, let me criticize the usa
i'm not saying the usa doesn't deserve criticism, not at all: the usa does plenty wrong that needs to be examined and castigated
but what i am saying is that criticizing the usa in the context of what iran does is simple, pure lunacy. it's alternately hilarious and horrifying to me how some people can have so little understanding of concepts like: perspective, scale, context
people really have to stop obsessing about the usa. no, really, you look like a fool. a fair criticism of blindly pro-american people is that they are obsessed with the usa. but some of the posts here only prove to me that the same obsession lives in the heart of anti-american sentiment too, to the same level of monomaniacal stupidity
guess what pro-american and anti-american people: there is more to the world than the just usa. really. the world does not revolve around the usa. for real. there are other cultures and peoples and governments out there. no, really. the world does not orbit the united states. for true.
you'd think this simple painfully straightforward observation would be dumbfoundingly patently obvious and stating it would a cause for laughter and going "duh!" but then you read some of the comments in this thread. it's absolutely mystifying the obsessive one-dimensional idiocy of those talking about the usa in this thread. when the story is about the abuses of the iranian government?
utterly dumbfounding, this one-track obsession. please, some of you need to wake up. some of you need to ditch the fashionable propaganda of the times and try thinking for once
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Not that I've got any brilliant alternatives, except diplomatic ones where you get a big coalition together to solve the problem correctly.
Such assumes the existance of a solution that can be implemented by a large coalition but not a small one. I'm not sure what set of solutions exactly that is; a lot of people seem to have some sort of faith they exist but the rational evidence for their existance seems to be lacking.
In the world I live in, things trend rather the other way; large national coalitions suffer from the same exact problems as small personal coalitions, which we call committees and rightly distrust to do anything other than maintain the status quo and protect their existance. Again, the rational evidence that upsizing the committee to international sizes suddenly solves this problem is in rather short supply, whereas evidence that corruption, incompetance, and status-quo-at-all-cost thinking sets in is so abundant it boggles my mind how so many people can so thoroughly ignore it and maintain their faith.
I'm pretty sure the loss of a few blogs is less damaging to the average Iranian than the loss of their life, which is something that's bound to happen if the US try another one of their 'liberation' stunts. Look at Iraq, where people are still dying nearly everyday because of Islamic militants setting off car-bombs to kill American troops and Iraqi 'collaborators'. Do you really want that to happen in Iran for the sake of a few blogging sites? At least with Iraq, Saddam had a proven track record of genocide against his own people, so perhaps the Americans had a good reason to invade, but the fact is there is still bloodshed of innocent people going on nearly everyday. With Saddam you can turn round and say "but he killed thousands of Kurds, that's far worse than what's going on now". What are you going to say about Iran when the death toll continues to climb long after Bush declares 'victory'? Are you going to complain about how those evil dastardly Iranians stopped their people reading John and Jenny Doe's blog post about how their toddler's potty-training?
As for executing a retarded rape victims, that's not much worse than the US executing people found incompetent to stand trial, people suffering from severe mental illness and people professionally adjudged to have the mental age of an 11-year-old child. I could probably find more, but I remember that press release distinctly and had it bookmarked. Admittedly those people had committed crimes rather than been the victim, but it's really not that big a step. Lastly, don't get me started on the 'illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure' comment - you've got the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world, who are you (as a country) to call any other nation's nuclear infrastructure illegal? Does DRM come on tactical warheads now? Seriously, this is no reason to be blowing up anyone - it's just not worth it... and doesn't China have the 'Great Firewall of China' and executions for frivolous crimes? Oh, I forgot, they're too big for good ol' George Dubya to go after.
George W. Bush: Always picking on the little guy.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
In a country where speaking against crime is considered taboo and females are kept in veils, exercising your right to speak and communicate is a 'crime' in itself. As far as I understand, these 'islamists' who control the Government wants to check the spread of 'westernisation' in their country. This is not restricted to Iran only. Even in countries like Pakistan, government exercises strict control on communication media.
You want free access to the web and media in Iran. The Iraninans will have to kill all the mad turbans off. You have to remember this is a counrty where they hang 17 yearold girl with a mental age of 8 because her parents sold her into sex slavery.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
using domestic violence as an example... you're a few decades out of date.
It USED TO BE in the US that the woman had to press charges against the man in order for the police to make an arrest. I know this not only from a law enforcement background, but from personal experience.
One of my next-door neighbors growing up was a terrible alcoholic and wife-beater (he was also a physician. What a disgrace to the profession... but I digress). I can't remember how many times we called the police, because we could hear him beating her (things breaking, screaming, thuds, etc). The guy used to beat the living tar out of his wife... bruises, black eyes, cuts... I've seen better-looking barfight victims. She, however, would never press charges, and the guy got off every. single. time. We could have "minded our own business," but we felt an obligation to do something. I was but a lad, so I couldn't understand the dynamics involved... Needless to say, all their kids, save one, are now in prison.
It took decades, but a sea change eventually took place. These days, Domestic Violence is a crime not only against the individual, but against the state. This allows the police to make an arrest whether the victim wants it or not.
Sometimes the situation is bad enough, or the people co-dependent enough, that they literally need help to get out of their situation. I'm well aware of how that sounds... so spare me the vituperation for being patronizing. That said, I don't think the Iranian people would resent being free... and any way we could assist them in that effort is arguably the right thing to do.
Of course, it goes without saying that we'd probably be ahead to first exhaust less-violent means of assistance.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I've been going through the comments and most of what I read is about invading Iran because they're censoring the net. How is that any better?
Can we criticize censorship without bringing an invasion into the equation? And heck a few years ago, I remember a time where many around here made comments favorably or unfavorably towards one US policy or another and yet the anti-american label was rarely used to reply to such comments.
people really have to stop obsessing about muslim countries. the world doesn't revolve around them. there are other cultures and peoples and governments ou there.
It really stinks. You criticize something in a foreign country, all of a sudden they wanna invade it. You say something bad about a US policy and you're labeled as anti-american. wth happened?
Disclaimer: This was written by someone here a few years ago, that's why I post as AC. I forgot who wrote it, and /. searching is a joke. As was the parent, probably. Anyway, here goes:
But if you want to play it that way, let's have the full, accurate list shall we? And let's just see where these countries are today...
France 1942-45 Republic
Germany 1942-45 Federal republic
Belgium 1942-45 Parliamentary democracy
Netherlands - 1944-45 Free
Italy 1943-45 Republic
Japan 1942-45 constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
China 1945-46 Free from Japanese, conquered by communist dicatorship.
Korea 1950-53 Republic, see South Korea
China 1950-53 Communist tyranny
Guatemala 1954 Constitutional republic
Indonesia 1958 Republic
Cuba 1959-60 NO BOMBS community tyrants take over
Guatemala 1960 Constitutional republic
Congo 1964 Thank the Belgians
Peru 1965 Constitutional republic
Laos 1964-73 Communist tyrany
Vietnam 1961-73 Communist tyranny, and how about them French?
Cambodge 1969-70 Multi-party democracy
Guatemala 1967-69 Constitutional republic
Grenade 1983 Constitutional monarchy with Westminster-style parliament
Lybia 1986 - Dictatorship
El Salvador 1980s - Republic
Nicaragua 1980s -Republic
Panama 1989 - Republic
Iraq 1991-99 - Give us time
Sudan 1998 - Authoritarian regime
Afghanistan 1997-2002 - Republic
It's a pretty great list. In fact, it looks like getting bombed by the U.S. is a great way to end up with a free country.
What a bunch of braindead wankers you all are (mostly, there are a few thinking humans evident in the postings). Too many of you are just soooo willing to send me to fight in wars all over bejesus for yet another regime change.
I, as a soldier, ain't buying. It is neither our right nor our responsibility to force our version of Halliburton "democracy" down ANYONE'S throat. Newsflash: Iraq was and remains a frickin' fiasco. It is a bust. It has made us up to be a joke.
Initially, no doubt the powers that be in the ME were all a quiver over our illegal and unjustfiable invasion of Iraq. Shortly thereafter, when it became obvious that we were and are powerless to actually control the country and are now well and FULLY bogged down, they began laughing. There is jack squat we can do ANYWHERE else. Forget, absolutely, about invading Iran. Iran would be harder by a long shot than Iraq. It is twice as large, twice as mountainous, has a larger and complete working military, and its citizens would NOT in any way welcome us as "liberators for Halliburton".
If N. Korea decided to make a big go for S. Korea, we're screwed. We do NOT have the teeth to deal with any other military goo-gaw. China makes a move on Taiwan? Nothing we can do short of abandoning Iraq to the inevitable chaos and violence that WILL control that country for the foreseeable future (OUR fault) and trying to throw a bunch of tired, overburdened troops into yet a bigger and worse conflict.
Get off your frickin' war wagons. I'm sick of this shit from a bunch of snotnosed ignorant punks who don't serve, never served, and never intend to serve. Shut the fuck up. I SERVED and I STILL serve and I'm tired of you wackjob idiots talking tough by throwing MY life around for nothing. Bite my camouflaged military ass you damn cowards and candyasses. YOU take up arms and invade every country that offends your wackjob Christian belief system or offends your desire to make capitalistic money off other people's resources and countries. YOU do it but leave the legitimate and honorable soldiers to do what they're supposed to do: protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. That's our job, not overthrowing every dictator that annoys Exxon or Halliburton.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
No, just because he's brainlessly reciting US-fascist government propaganda. There's no opinion present in that post with which to disagree -- just evidence of successful zombiefication. I'm sure he'll make ideal cannon fodder, just like the Muslim suicide terrorists he might end up fighting. The sad thing is, he has a lot in common with them.
The opinion stated is that he's been brainwashed. Believe me, you're not speaking in fact when you say that. I could say that you sound exactly like every other extreme left wing nut running around the US, because they all like to use the words "brainwashed", compare the US government to fascism (which you obviously have NO clue what fascism is, if you believe the US is behaving in that way), and questioning the moral convictions of someone who genuinely wants to see a better world. You should be ashamed of yourself to even question whether or not he genuinely believes in making the world a better place, regardless of his method, because at least that attitude is the right way to start. "Wait and see" is not an appropriate way of making change.