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?"
I wonder if "freedom of information and communication" will ever become an internationally recognized human right? 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?
Cisco built firewall for china and many other cos. helped china in a way that is in use against people who are working for Democratic or other free government. Then Microsoft censored contents for China. Now american cos. are working against the peoples of Iran ?!!!!
So Iran centric! What about the rest of the world?
Alright, I haven't RTFA yet, but if this is news that Iran is censoring the Net then I dont think it's anything new. There have been a number of recent events that are using the media to direct public attention against Iran now (the most recent of which is probably Rumsfeld's Slam of their elections). As a concerned American citizen who is fast losing faith in the honor of his government, I think this is a ploy, to direct the attention of world citizens, and especially US citizens away from our own flaws and toward the flaws of other countries.
Anybody who read the article a few days ago about the new use of eminent domain can see that the US government has major problems with the way it functions. Instead of anybody pointing out the US censors information also, we all hurry to jump on the band wagon to single out and bash Iran. No, they (the US government) don't prevent you from searching for certain words or anything, at least not yet, but they do force the removal of websites that portray a view contrary to what they want the public to know: see http://www.67cshdocs.com/, a blog that didn't disclose any classified information, but showed you what was really going on on the US war fronts, but was shut down by the government. I'm an American citizen and very patriotic, but I'm not blind. Our government is using the media. No, I'm not saying they are controlling /. or any other news source, I'm saying the media has become the lap dogs who go when the government says fetch.
I don't approve of Iranian censorship. I don't approve of censorship of any sort. But it would be foolish of anyone to believe that the "axis of evil" are the only ones who do this. They simply do not have the size and power to cover up for the mselves and direct public attention elsewhere.
Just my two cents....
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
Its an American software maker that is providing the software solutions
:)
for such large scale filtering.
To be honest, the company has stated that they do not have an clients
representing the Iranian government.
This leads one to conclude that the software is either being used illegally
or a 3rd party is interfacing between the company and the country.
regardless, filtering of the internet for Iranians will be here for sometime
yet, though through experience i have seen that those that want to circumvent
the system, easily can. and there aren't many that want to but can't
Arash Partow
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
You should read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. It is a good book about religious dogma and why it threatens to destroy the world.
The premise is that rational debate on religion is stifled under the guise of tolerance. If I say that Christians are backwards because they believe someone walked on water, I'll be labeled intolerant. If I say Islam is a violent religion that opresses women, and rational thought, I'll be labeled intolerant.
If someone says the world is flat, and I say they are wrong, I'm not labeled intolerant.
What's the difference?
-- bearclaw
I understand that I am using "anti-US relativism" in my argument, but I am using it because the media is so far biased in favor of pro-US relativism instead and I believe it important to express alternative view points. That was pretty much the entire point of my post. I realize I do not have the best examples listed.
As for press coverage of scandals within the United States, there are two inherent flaws in this belief: first of all, if the mainstream media does not focus on it, then how would the general public know that it happened at all? They wouldn't! This sounds all conspiracy-theory and theoretical on the surface, but my favorite example is the Chinagate scandal. Ask your average citizen walking out the door of your local supermarket about it and I can guarantee that 49 out of 50 or more will respond with a blank look. I know because I've tried it for a history class.
For those not in the loop with this, the Chinagate scandal was the event that was manipulated by the government and the press to become the stupid and superficial Monica Lewinsky scandal. It occurred in the mid-90's and it boils down to Bill Clinton providing China with classified US nuclear technologies and bringing them up to a full scale threat. Regardless of his reasons for doing so, the press got ahold of this in the mid 90's and began printing stories.
The 'letters to the editor' that you speak of were beginning to come off the home desks of the American public. But there was a problem: neither of the two major parties in the US wanted the public to know about this!! The democrats of course because Clinton was in office and the blame would fall partly on his shoulders. The Republicans because Bush Sr. had been doing the same thing!! Of course it would be disasterous to both parties if the public knew they were both involved with it, so both parties wanted it hushed. The result: the Monica Lewinsky scandal grabs American attention instead. The press did not have to be forcefully silenced or censored: they chose to write about those stories on their own, but they were manipulated into that position by politicians. This how the government runs its censorship.
The Chinagate scandal blew over. You can still find it from third-party sources all over the web, but it never really got the public!! If the government can censor something like that, then what is to stop them from using the same means to censor other events? None.
And I am being the pessimist here and pointing at our declining freedoms. You say that we're not even comparable to the Axis of Evil, etc, and I would like this to remain true. The only way for it to continue, however, is for people like me to point out our own flaws. If the American public remains in the dark and directing their attention toward other countries, then by the time people like yourself believe that we ARE comparable, it will be far too late!
As for the "secret police" argument, I say to you that if a single American citizen is held by his own government against his will, without evidence and because he has stated views contrary to those of the US government, then it is just as bad as the many who are suppressed in other countries. One is one too many. But guess what? It happens! That one actually gets to the news fairly regularly! But does the public care? No, because the media soon directs their attention to the evil OTHER COUNTRIES.
It is you, my friend, who are foolish and naïve to argue that there is not a parallel between the US and these other countries. The US may not be "just as bad", but without vigilant citizens, it will be.
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
There is no free speech in the USA.
And you are not presently reading this message either. Slashdot is a figment of your imagination.
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.
Maybe Steve Jobs has the answer:
When you're young, you look at television and think: There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.
In short: most people are dumb and demand to stay that way.
kick China out for censoring their citizens overtly
A .asp
3 _175406.html
Well, it's not that easy - as most things in politics. The point of having China in the UN is two-fold: one so we can stop them from doing things to other peoples; two so that we include them (rightfully) among the other superpowers. If you don't think China is a superpower, then you don't understand why it is so hard to force change on them.
I don't agree with what they are doing to their citizens, and in a perfect world we would put a stop to it - but it isn't as easy as it sounds. Kicking China out of the UN would have the same effect as America leaving the UN: World War III. All bets are off and the world starts looking like Europe before World War II.
But why not go into Darfur? Why not hold Saudi Arabia to the same standards? Saudi Arabia is a member of the United Nations and executes innocent people by the hundreds weekly. Why not stop all forms of tyranny everywhere? Because it isn't practical. When we (liberals) were trying to do it we were told to stop trying to save the world - now saving the world is lead policy to NeoConservatives (by their own admissions, see: BBC's The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear).
Why not start to right the wrongs at home?
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/US
Even China thinks we have problems:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng2005030
Of course, I'm a "crazy liberal" when I start to talk about making America better. Let's start with things we *can* change...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Maybe Iranians have different values than us, and they want the good stuff that technology provides, but not the bad.
Sort of like the Saudis: they want the cars, lobster and Switss watches. They don't want the porn, feminism or modern art.
A lot of the Iranians in the country are probably happy that the arrival of internet doesn't mean they'll be flooded with things they consider degenerate.
Besides, they are smart folks. They'll find a way around it, if they really want the tubgirl, goatsex, etc.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
In essence, you seem to be pointing out that intollerance of criticism regarding religion in the name of tollerance is bad. Or as Tom Lehrer said "There are some people in this world who do not love their fellow man and I hate people like that."
...
I am all for tolerance regarding religion. However, I think people need to stop and think about what this means. Does it mean that rational discussion must be curtailed? I don't think it does. Or rather tolerance, while a noble goal, is also something which can be corruptly used as a shield for fragile egos.....
For example, if you said the things above, I would lable you as intolerant because you seem to be unwilling to look at mainstream versions of the religions which either de-emphasize these things you mention or simply don't fall unto that category. Basically, you have not offered a thoughtful critique of either religion (rational discussion again?) but have simply issued a few statements you believe to be true without backing them up or admitting to debate. Even if you said "I think that Christianity..." or "I think that Islam..." I would not label you as intolerant because you are admitting to another possible viewpoint.
For example:
I think that monotheistic traditions are inherently backward and unable to provide adequate answers to many of the most important questions we often face: How do we build a just society? What is the nature of Good? What should a legal system be based on? In each of these areas, if one believes in a singular divine entity with a definite will, then these questions must simply be deferred to God without question. I.e. Good is in line with God's will (religious principles), our laws should be based on God's will (religious principles), and hence justice means acting in accordance with laws set forth by religious principles. It is very informative to read the Koran and realize that it is largely a set of religious invocations spaced throughout a book prescribing certain rules for *social* interactions.
Also every monotheistic religion as it exists today was built upon a seminal revelation by a singular individual: Christianity came from the teachings of Christ, Islam from Mohammed, and Moses received much (or all) of the basis for Judaism on Mount Sinai. Because these traditions all look back to a seminal founder, their religious principles are frozen in time. So too are the concepts of law.
It is informative to look at the revolution against the intellect that occurred in Islamic religious circles in the 13th and 14th centuries. Prior to this time, Islam was one of the most open, investigative, and intellectually supportive religion in their area. The Muslims had preserved the writings of Plato during a time when they were lost in Europe, etc. They had supported the sciences to the extent that they had measured the circumference of the world, and had many many other achievements (inventing Algebra, and many more things). However in that time frame, there was a large reaction against such intellectual persuits as mathematics, comparing it to wine (it makes men drunk on reason). Fortunately, Europeans had a change of heart in the 12th century and started translating Arabic works into Latin (and discovered many Greek works in the process).
But what is interesting is that while much of what we see as the high civilization of the Renaisance was preserved by the Arabs, it was *authored* by our Pagan Greek ancestors. Even though Plato authored most of the framework of Christian theology (including original sin and the Trinity), our pagan ancestors though systemically because their religion was set up as a series of interlocking systems. Indeed Christianity was not only unnecessary for the advancement of European intellectual advancement but was actually a step backward.
Does this make me intolerant?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Guantanamo bay.. apparently the US _does_ hold people without rights.. and to top it off.. they werent even on US soil? You want to list the abuses the US has been involved in around the world? The US has been the source of political governments oppression of their citizens for year.. and there are many countries that the US applys it 'will' over to make sure this happens. Egypt, Morroco, Many South American countries, various middle African countries (Nigeria, Sudan, and so on).. and various other South East asian countries like Thialand, Indonesia and so on.
If anyone need to get off their high horse, its Americans. The use of corp power to control _other_ countries is the source of alot of these governments that are applying strict control on information to try and curb the 'capitalist pig' doctrination the rest of the world suffers.
America has been a Fascist state for the last 50 years at least!! Some of your greatest people have had common liberty's removed from them, just because they spoke out against a government or against a powerful citizen. Read your history books, the US is far from a wonderful benevolent government you beleive it to be. And your citizens continue to apply racist attitudes towards peoples in your own country!! Look at the anti muslim and anti arabian attitude in your country? Are you saying these people dont feel in some way despised, and hated? Are you saying they are not being jailed and beaten up for no reason!! Read your news..
America is no better than anywhere else.. and more so.. since its corporate greed that is currently enveloping the globe. A country has its own soverign rights.. there is no justification for any other country to apply their laws to them..
Btw I guarantee you have never even seen/been involved in what you are talking about.. you really think that mentioning the president in bad terms in Iran will get you locked up.. this is typical of Americans "Everyone else is worse than us" attitude..
Its fuuny that people cant even see Facism occuring in their own country.. and claim its morality and democracy above all others.. complete BS..
Actually, in that respect, the United States is a lot more like the erstwhile Roman Empire than the Third Reich.
Like the Roman Empire, the United States was founded on principles of basic freedom by political visionaries. Like the Roman Empire, the state was slowly lost to tyrants and murderers who used propaganda to energize the masses with ideas of racial and religious superiority and the concept of 'glory' or some abstract idea of creating a utopian society. Like with the Roman Empire, this never actually happened. Like the Romans, the United States started to decay with the growing power of Christians in the State, while simultaneously engaging in acts of excess and decadence as well as brutality towards those who chose not to subscribe to their idealogy. If we carry the comparison to it's logical conclusion, then, like the Roman Empre, this country is inevitably destined to collapse in civil war and anarchy and invasions from foreigners. In this respect, the Islamic zealots are a lot like the Goths, Vandals, and Huns who periodically ransacked Rome during her dying years. Like preying vultures and carrion crows, they sense the eventual destruction of this country and are trying to get in on the feast.
It's very sad that so many innocent people have to die before this happens, but American Society has lost whatever virility and worth it once had, and we should just let them pass into history and allow their civilization a dignified death.
History never repeats itself, but historical situations often recur. I can only hope that wheatever comes after isn't worse.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
You are so right. No mather how hard it is, I refuse to do work for customers I consider unetical. For now I say "no" when my employer asks me to work for a tabacco company. I would do the same with even more pride if it was weapons/military or a project that goes against what I beleive is right. What kind of a person would I be if I gave up on my beliefs just for money?
"You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
If you read the full text of the article, it states and confirms "that it uses the commercial filtering package SmartFilter - made by the US-based company, Secure Computing - as the primary technical engine of its filtering system." The multilingual support allows them to filter Farsi. So the same company that stops you so many from visiting just about any site at work is proping up other restrictive regeimes.