Slashdot Mirror
Iran Blocks, Unblocks Access to Google
morpheus83 writes "Iran has blocked access to the Google search engine and its Gmail email service as part of a clampdown on material deemed to be offensive. Hamid Shahriari, the secretary of Iran's National Council of Information did not explain why the sites were being blocked. Google, Gmail and several other foreign sites appeared to be inaccessible to Iranian users from Monday morning. Iran has tough censorship on cultural products and internet access, banning thousands of websites and blogs containing sexual and politically critical material as well as women's rights and social networking sites." That didn't take long. Iran has now
unblocked Google claiming the censorship was an error.
As has happened many times before, What starts as a simple censorship of a website ALWAYS turns into more nastier things while the 'people in charge' are trying to control the masses.
.... as well as womens rights") and are now clutching at straws - it can only result in resentment from the citizens.
How stupid are these governments - really. Do they honestly believe that the problems of their country can be solved by stopping someone having a GMail account, or preventing them looking up camel porn on google?
Iran is in a desperate attempt to return to old school biblical times (great if you are not a woman - "Iran has tough censorship on internet access
Actually, it has been unblocked.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
I think it's a great idea. After all, Google can give you plans and instructions for making a nuclear weapon! We wouldn't want that information to fall into the wrong hands.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
Censorship of Google is the least problem there today unfortunately.
At some point along the line we Americans got a bit funny about making fun of other people. Some call it political correctness, others call it cultural sensitivity, and even others call it complete hogwash. Whatever it's called in your neck of the woods, times have changed, and tactics for dehumanizing the enemy have changed.
In the obvious run up to the war with Iran, it seems like the media is all too happy to paint them with the bigot, sexist, and totalitarian brushes. We are doing this with China. We did this with Iraq. Now, with Iran in our sights, they also get the black tar treatment.
And if you buy into any of this at all, you're the problem with this country.
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government? I know, I know... the bad guys have the guns. However, if they can get the guns (and more importantly, ship them to Iraq), surely those Iranians who want regime change can take matters into their own hands.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The loss of information is a step in the direction of cultural collapse. If you constantly treat your citizens as children, you either a) stop being productive or b) get a bunch of very angry citizens.
Iran, you might have a culture that demands things, but if you force them onto your population, you will create resentment, resentment becomes anger, and anger begets revolution. Remember the Shah? The current government is running along the same path, and will meet with the same end.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I can't believe you cited IranFocus.com That website is really questionable.
http://www.iranian.com/Milaninia/2005/August/MKO/
Th US has to stop trying to be the world police. Why should Iran just expect the US to jump in? They should grow some balls and try standing up for themselves.
Yeah, that's a great idea in theory, really.
But, ya know, it doesn't ever seem to work out so well. I think it has some to do with the way the government handles it, and some to do with how the people inside handle it.
We did it in Afghanistan, and it made a massive mess. We did it in Cuba, didn't work (I blame THAT 100% on the US government, but I doubt it would have worked anyway).
Did it to a lesser extent in Poland in WWII, everyone ended up pretty much dead.
It could work, but man, that'd be risky (what if Iran found out it was coming from us? What if THEY found it?)
From iranfocus.com
"Iran should stop executing children"
Bad, but we try an increasing number of childern as adults, and states keep lowering the age at which children can be tried as adults.
"Iran hangs three in south-west"
We are in good company here, not only do we execute plenty of people, but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?
"Western countries on Thursday voiced concern at the rising number of executions in Iran"
Didn't Bush and Texas execute a horrific number in his term as governer?
Most of the rest of the statements on this site are about public hangings. At least they have the honesty to execute people in public, in this country we hide from our executions, so people never really 'know' in a gut sense what they are paying for.
To quote Jesus:(approx.)
"Remove the beam from your own eye before you worry about the splinter in your neighbors eye"
But, not to worry, Google will provide the Iranian government a complete list of users and their searches.
So, President Ahmacompletewhackjob can sleep at night knowing his has fulfilled his duty to the mullahs.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
"Iran should stop executing children"
I realize you're stupid, but execute doesn't mean the same thing as incarcerate.
"but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?"
No. No, "we" don't.
I realize drawing moral equivalence between Iran and the US is what keeps you people going, but pretending what happens here is as horrific as what happens in Iran is unrealistic and intentionally inaccurate.
Why do you go so far out of your way to make the things that happen here look as bad as what happens there? Why are you so insistent on peddling such intellectual dishonesty to further your agenda?
it's really this simple: make a list of your complaints about governments in the west
now judge the government of iran on the basis of those criticisms
in other words, on the basis of the principles on which you vocally criticize the west, you should be loudly criticizing tehran
"And if you buy into any of this at all, you're the problem with this country."
ok, there's a criticism of yours: the drumbeat up to war, the propagandizing of a populace towards conflict
dude!
ever since 1979, the government of iran has been on propaganda full alert about demonizing the decadent immoral great satan of the west. constant rhetoric, demonstrations, down with the great satan. all through the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s
so on YOUR BASIS for criticizing the west: dmeonization of another people for a drumbeat up to war, on YOUR BASIS!: tehran comes out orders of magnitude worse than any criticism you could level at london, paris, washington dc, etc
using YOUR RATIONALE, you should be 10-100x angrier at tehran than any government in the west
so go to the front of the line sir, and hurl some of your venom at tehran, unless you want to forfeit your claim to intellectual honesty
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You are naive if you think that the affairs of other countries do not impact your life. Censorship of the Internet, even when it occurs locally, becomes a global issue... because the Internet is global. Being aware of what's going on throughout the world is important in a variety of ways--not the least of which being that it gives you much better perspective on issues within your own country.
If you find stories about other countries to be boring, then by all means do not read them. I, for one, read with a keen interest about all manner of international events. Whether they occur in Iran, Canada, the US, Germany, or anywhere else, they may be of interest to me. If they are tech-related, then they are certainly in keeping with the stated goal of Slashdot: "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
is that iranians were more religious under the pro-western "decadent" shah of iran. because it was subversive to be religious. now, after the 1979 revolution, in a theocracy, where religion is obligatory, young people are less religious in iran. it's a theocracy! (slasps forehead). young people in iran are less religious today than they are in say, turkey, right next door, which is a secular government
this should teach something the current crop of violently militant religious fundamentalists who wish to link religion and government throughout the muslim world: religion and government don't mix. i don't care what your sharia law says about that, this fact is something no religious-political text can overcome: you can't impose religious passion
religious passion is something that grows organically, from within. but when you try to enforce religion, you only cause people's passions to unite against religion
imagine that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That logic can be applied both ways. Imagine right now, on Tehrandot.org:
"I heard on Al Jazeera last week, from an American protesting in Washington, that there are a large contingent of the population is is pro-peace, and who are looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?"
I'm looking at this from an outsiders perspective, but it seems to me that in both countries (United States and Iran), there are a reasonable, sane majority of people just trying to get on with their lives, who are being pushed into war by a vocal, fundamentalist minority.
Rational people on both side look out, and see only the extremists. Joe Washington doesn't want war but everything he hears regarding Iran is negative - they want to wipe out Israel, they want to build nukes. Joe Tehran has a generally pacifist outlook too, but when he reads about America, it is usually because of attrocities like Abu Ghraib, or some other massacre. Time passes, and the crazies on both sides get louder and louder, while the rational people - constantly exposed to this propaganda, start to feel that even though they want peace, the "other side" is giving them no choice but to go to war.
Yeah, that works. So, we'll see some guy with his grocery bags standing in front of a Russian or Chinese supplied tank, stopping the entire Iranian Army from running down protesters that "grew some balls".
Have we seen this before?
In an age where the government has much more firepower than the armed citizenry, its difficult for citizens to rise up like they did in 1776.
Back then, with the exception of a Navy, the people in the American Colonies were a lot more closely matched with the British. What they lacked, they were able to get through guerilla action. Hell, back then, even privately owned vessels were armed.
Modern tyrannies are better armed than the citizenry, even where the citizens are permitted to own firearms. Back then, a handfull of armed farmers could take over an artillary battary, and use it. Now, farmers might be able to knock a plane out of the sky. Or disable a tank, but, the average farmer, tribesman, stockbroker, pimp, is going to be hard pressed to come out on top when a division of tanks comes at him while jets providing support for the ground troops create a no-mans land where neighborhoods stood.
Yeah, your idea worked for the students in China.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Th US has to stop trying to be the world police. Why should Iran just expect the US to jump in? They should grow some balls and try standing up for themselves.
It sounds like you have the mistaken notion that the US is some benevolent "peace keeper". However the vast majority of the time (every single US involvement except for serbia) was unwanted intervention to support either US ideology or US economy. standing up for themselves... I'm sure most nations would prefer if the US just went back to their pre WWII isolationism. How about the US grows some brains and stop jumping in where they aren't needed (Iraq) and actually interfere where they could help (Durfur).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?
Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
[...]
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[73] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction-- second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war
Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
You can't take the sky from me...
1. Because it's easier to hate your own country and countrymen due to their immediate proximity.
2. Iranian laws don't affect American rights,. People are going to focus on the laws that affect them directly.
Also, you can't use Slashdot as a good gauge. The Gaussian bulk of people here are narcissistic technogeeks who desperately and continually seek a reason to feel superior. You don't get that same self righteous buzz criticizing people in another hemisphere as you get calling your fellow citizens idiots because they bought a Tivo instead of investing thirty-twelveteen hours setting up MythTV.
In a "recent" post, I included a link to a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not even posted to the blog - it's just a link.
Well, hot damn! I start getting hits from all over the world, especially Asia. And what are they for? You got it - they're lookin' for hunky body builder pictures! And the first one was a Google hit from Alborz in Khuzestan, Iran looking for pictures of weight lifters.
I actually have a (different) post on the blog that mentions a town in Iran by name (Masshad, Iran). How many Iranians stumbled on that post? Zero!
Looks like the Iranian government is right - their pervy little citizens just use Google to find hot pics of buff studs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, how else are we going to find that picture of Vanessa Hudgens... um, for "research"!
i don't think so
but you apparently do
if the world is ever to achieve peace, then every government in the world must be judged according to the same standards... sooner, rather than later, for the sake of peace
and when you begin to do that, and ONLY when you begin to do that, do you begin to move towards world peace. but if you continue to think of the west as somehow (ridiculously) "superior" to other parts of the world, then in your own mind you perpetuate the cycle of violence, by positing an "us" versus a "them"
no: i don't believe in that. i believe in all humanity being equal. and when you do that, yes, comparing london or paris or washington dc to tehran or dhaka or la paz is not only normal, it is also the only morally and intellectual defensible way you can look at the world
in a way, by saying what you just said above, you reveal a subtle form of racism/ ethnocentrism that is in fact the cause of the problems we see in this world. and so comparing the west to iran is NOT in any way bad, it is, in fact, a step forward in progress, in your mentality about how to think of the world, how to properly frame your worldview. you talk about falling standards. when i see london compared to tehran, i in fact see increasing standards
all world governments must be held accountable to the same standard. to hold the west in a special "superior" light is a subtle form of ethnocentrism/ racism, a vestige of colonialism in YOUR mind. it is a sort of condescension and patronization/ paternalism: the west is the "daddy" and the other parts of the world are "children" that can't be held to the same standard
bullshit
i, as an american, when i look to an iranian, see my equal, in rights AND responsibilies. in THIS way, i see the totalitarian theocracy in tehran as woefully inadequate, because the iranians, as my brothers and sisters, deserve better. but in a colonial mindset, other people in the west say we shouldn't be judging the iranian government
isn't that funny: the condemnation of tehran is an act of soldarity with universal human standards, and the call to lay off tehran by westerners is an act of ethnocentrism/ colonialism/ racism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tell me: exactly who do you believe is in charge of the legitimate government of Iraq? Hint: we're not at war with them.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
1. iran has been doing exactly what you say the west is doing, since 1979, with orders of magnitude more effort: drumming the constant war drum against the great satan of the west. so why don't you condemn that? do you know what intellectual honesty is? or is only the west capable of being criticized? which brings us to #2:
2. it is ethnocentric to only criticize the west. that the west is only party that can be held responsible. this is soft racism: those poor iranians, they can't be held to the same standards as us. no, that's bullshit: iranians have the same rights and responsibilities that i do
you either have one standard for judging all governments of the world against, or you have no moral and no intellectual valid basis for criticism at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it