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 ?!!!!
This must have been accepted under the "Stuff that matters," because it certainly isn't news...
This just in:
Tyranny extends to all forms of communication!
Am I to act suprised?
Get your Unix fortune now!
So Iran centric! What about the rest of the world?
Tor is easily detected and/or blocked.
So this is almost as oppressive as, say, Utah?
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
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
would slashdotting iran be considered an act of war? who cares, gimme a link.
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.
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.
...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."
Just saying...
Get your Unix fortune now!
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.
The average joe in Iran *hates* the mullahs. Unlike most other Arab governments (which encourage people to blame and hate the US for all of their home-brewed problems) the Iranian government has no easy scapegoat. (And 36 years of economic deprivation is a lot to answer for) That's why the people in power are so afraid of revolution.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
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?
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
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.
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."
Although some American companies are completely unethical, the overwhelming majority abide by some minimal standards of decency. Back in the days of apartheid in South Africa, all American companies (except one) doing business there agreed to abide by the Sullivan Principles, which pledged fair treatment to South Africa's blacks.
We need to take the same moral fortitude in dealing with both Iran and China (including Taiwan province). When we slap sanctions against he Beijing government, we should also slap sanctions against the Taipei government. Taiwan and mainland China are one in the same, as far as morality is concerned. When American companies curtailed investments in China just after the Tiananmen Square Incident, Taiwanese companies actually accelerated investments into mainland China, leading to today's massive cumulative Taiwanese investment of $100 billion into mainland China.
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2005/06
so... how many of those are we not doing in the US right now?
Sitting Walrus Blog
i travel to iran often with work and slashdot is one of the few sites that i check that can still be accessed.
the filtering there is hardcore.
in april there was a political clash with some local arabs and a few were killed - the net to our city was cut off entirely for 6 days or so. no one knew what was wrong, or could give us any info. i eventually found out from a friend that works at the local ISP that the govenment had ordered the cut.
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..
Saudi Arabia does the same thing! I don't see why this is considered news, lots of middle eastern countries do this!
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
2. you're wrong.
1. I said If things continue as they are, in 20 years
You answered the statement you WANTED to answer by saying
There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere
I was not using the present tense - YOU WERE. I was saying that IF THINGS CONTINUE ALONG THE PATH THEY ARE AT PRESENT, we won't have much, if any alternative press in this country.
YOU decided that I was saying that the USA is like Iran TODAY, and responded using such a presumption. Why? Because you're a typical ninny.
2. You're wrong.
Have you been arrested and thrown in prison and then beaten for suggesting you do not like the president? I don't think so.
No, but many people have been arrested and then beaten or tortured or faced with asymmetrical application of state force for much less. Proof?
Here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.ht m
Take a look at her face and tell me that isn't torture.
http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/conghansen.htm
He wasn't tortured? He wa a former CONGRESSMAN (even)!
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng
Oh - I guess you didn't read the Amnesty International Report, either...
I could go on and on about the evils of the American Government, but I won't. Suffice to say, you're wrong. RIGHT NOW most of the torture and fascist repression our government does (but not all) is visited upon our victims through proxies - client states and corrupt governments supressing their people in the interests of the local ruling class who support the insane and destructive American lifestyle and get rich in the process.
SOME of the torture is handled here, and is dished out as described above.
Make no mistake about it: the USA is quickly sliding into a new and unique form of "pseudo-democratic fascism" in the form of a 1.5 party state. The "winner take all" structure of the election system prevents third parties from getting any real daylight, and the power duopoly has been so eroded in the past several years by the neocon thugs in the Republican party that it is more of a monopoly of government by and for the corporations.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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?
But there's a good reason why the people staying at Guantanamo have no rights.
Cheney says that they are bad people
Seems that due process isn't needed if the government believes that you're a bad person.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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.
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.