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?"
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.
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
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmond Burke
There is no difference between setting the policy and implementing it. "Someone else would have done it anyway" is not an excuse. Selling them hardware, much less helping them implement it (like they did in China) makes them equally culpable. Shit like that should not be legal.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
In the USA free speech is only possible with money. Look at elections, the candidates with the most money wins most of the time. And whenever there is a law which tries to limit how much money special interest groups can give to candidates, the courts say that money is speech, and they throw those laws out.
How much does a US Senate seat cost? 7 Million dollars? A US Congressional seat is over 1 Million dollars. Who can get this kind of cash? How? If I raise $200,000 in a fund raiser for a candidate, and that candidate wins, how much of an ear do I get? How much influance? What if I am not even from his state, will he take my call over a local constituent? I bet if I call him and say "Law Z is being voted on tomorrow, and I would really like to see you vote for it". If he does not get my $200,000 the next time, he might not win. What does he do?
There is no free speech in the USA. In the USA there is SPAM from advertising, it drowns out everything else. 10 minutes of sit coms or reality TV followed by 4 minutes of commercials. If I was more cynical, I would wonder if they were trying to train my brain to accept information in small tiny sized nuggets.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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
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...
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.
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
In the '80s, the US was providing technology and supplies to Saddam's chemical weapons factories. Now, the US is cleaning up the mess, with body parts of it's own young. What goes around, comes around.
To quote the Regans: "Just Say NO!"
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.