Iran Suspends Google's Email Service

appl_iran writes "Iran's telecommunications agency announced that it would be suspending Google's email services permanently, saying it would roll out its own national email service." From the short WSJ article that is kernel of this Reuters story: "An Iranian official said the measure was meant to boost local development of Internet technology and to build trust between people and the government." Funny way to go about that. Updated 20100211 9:54GMT by timothy: Original link swapped for a more appropriate, updated one.

Comments

China lead the way.

[eparker05]

"to build trust between people and government"

Because, as China has shown, censoring communication is the fastest and easiest way to built trust. Go Iran!

Re:China lead the way.

[the_povinator]

This storyline sucks because it has no moral ambiguity in it.

Re:China lead the way.

[Arthur Grumbine]

Oh, yeah... well how would you feel if you were a country that was just trying to provide the most wholesome kind of social system possible (as laid out by God himself!), and all your people were using the internet for was bad-mouthing your attempts to fight the righteous battle against the vile corruption from the West that was threatening to engulf your poor country? You wouldn't feel so good then, would you?

Re:China lead the way.

[DarkofPeace]

I also tried to put myself into the shoes of an Iranian fundamentalist,but I got frustrated and decided to throw those shoes at someone.

Build trust?

[Enderandrew]

Is this the same Irani government which torturers people to try and gain Facebook passwords so they can better track groups who want to discuss politics freely?

Forcing users to use a government monitored service doesn't sound like something that would build trust. It sounds like a move to crush dissent.

Re:Build trust?

[_Sprocket_]

Those of us in the US will understand the language. Iran has a central, government email system to build trust. We have the PATRIOT Act to protect freedom.

Re:Build trust?

[RingDev]

So because politicians in both of the major US parties agree that something is good, it is there for irrefutably good?

Because other people have it worse than us means that we shouldn't fight against oppression in our own country?

Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. The four boxes of freedom. You sir, are standing right next to the GP's 1st box.

-Rick

Re:Build trust?

[Enderandrew]

While I believe that almost every politician is motivated by dollar signs, I don't believe everyone in Congress is evil.

Having met several politicians who I believe actually have some principles (crazy thought!) I can't believe the bill would pass vote after vote if it were truly so evil.

For years I've asked people to back up their claims. Tell me what specifically is evil. Tell me what specific beef you have with it.

I might just agree with you. I might actually make it a personal crusade and contact some politicians myself to express my concerns with it.

However, since no one ever does back up these claims of how evil the Patriot Act is, I'm left to believe this is mostly empty rhetoric. I have zero interest in buzz words thrown around.

I grew tired of Chicken Littles telling me that if you said anything anti-government you'd be thrown in jail. The government is monitoring us all and controlling us all!

Funny, because for everyone who speaks out against the US government, nothing ever happens to any of them. Keith Olberman specifically said he was concerned that his wife would disappear in a black van if he spoke out against the government, despite the fact that he ripped the US government on a NIGHTLY basis on national television. Nothing ever happened.

Maybe, just maybe, we don't have this evil, oppressive government that everyone claims.

We are FAR from perfect. But we're not Big Brother either.

Re:Build trust?

[gerddie]

Iran called for the extermination of all Jews.

No, they didn't and the quote of Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped of the map was a
mistranslation that has been quote way too often. Specifically:

"The fact that he (Ahmadinejad) compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out,"

Besides:

Though Iran doesn't recognize Israel, and Iranian citizens are not legally authorized to travel to the Jewish state, ... Jews in Iran are not in danger.

Iran's Jewish community of about 25,000 people is protected by the country's constitution and remains the largest in the Muslim Middle East. Synagogues, Jewish schools and stores operate openly. Morsathegh said in Tehran there are 20 synagogues, eight butchers, five schools, four youth organizations and two restaurants.

Morsathegh said Iranians, including Jews, immigrated from Iran following the 1979 Islamic revolution that brought hard-line clerics to power but said there had not been an exodus of Jews from Iran in recent years.

"We are one of the oldest communities in Iran. We are free to practice our religion. Anti-Semitism is a Western phenomenon but Jews have never been in danger in Iran," said Morsathegh, who spoke in his office in the Sapir Charity Hospital, which is run by Iranian Jews.

Source

Re:Build trust?

[ShatteredArm]

I believe the word Ahmadinejad used was actually "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists, and this would be consistent with the relative toleration of Jews in Iran.

Re:Build trust?

[Apple Acolyte]

He isn't just talking about regime change. He's talking about the destruction of the state - that's clear. And besides, there are videos of Ahmadinejad leading chants of "Death to the Jews."

Re:Build trust?

[drinkypoo]

Immediately after 9/11 the public criticism was that the government did not know enough. They should have prevented it.

A report suggesting that a terrorist was likely to steal a plane and use it as a missile was fairly well-circulated before the strike. Support for the war overwhelmingly came (comes) from the misled. Support for the U SAP AT RIOT act is very much the same; the government did know enough to know that 9/11 was impending, and deliberately buried the reports to avoid having to do anything about them. Security theater is [relatively] cheap and easy. Actually doing something is hard. We still haven't taken effective measures to prevent terrorism.

The problem is that you can't scream for privacy, yet expect the government to know everything at the same time. Pick your poison. The public clammored for the government to have more power.

Only the misled public. Which was nearly everyone, since the media is overwhelmingly controlled by people in a position to profit from all this nonsense. But since a certain FCC knocked down the rules preventing ownership of multiple media outlets and even types of media outlets by a single corporation, lying to the public has become even easier.

I haven't read the entirety of the bill. (I've only skimmed the table of contents). But I do believe that it was passed with the honest intent of trying to make the nation more secure for foreign threats.

It was passed with the intent of demonstrating to constituents that something was being done about terrorism. It was proposed with the intent of eroding freedom.

In that regard, the name Patriot Act isn't some lie meant to cover up the true insidious purpose.

The name is so jingoistic it is virtually impossible for it to be anything else.

I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was a knee-jerk overreaction that grants too much power to the government.

I'm not shocked that you would support it, but I am dismayed.

Re:Build trust?

[gerddie]

He isn't just talking about regime change. He's talking about the destruction of the state - that's clear.

Care to elaborate, because the Guardian article I linked to explains quite well that he did not, at least not in that speech.

And besides, there are videos of Ahmadinejad leading chants of "Death to the Jews."

In the video I found he said "Death to Israel" (well, that's what the subtitles say - since I don't understand Farsi I am only sure that the sentence includes "Israel"). This is of course different from "Death to all Jews" and somewhat in line with Iran's policy of not recognizing the state Israel.

Since the real question was whether "Iran calls for the extermination of all Jews (like Hitler did)" I'd summarize that they don't.

Remark 1: I don't want to defend Ahmadinejad (he doesn't have much power anyway, because the power is with the clerics), and there are a lot of reasons to criticize the Iran (human rights, freedom of speech et al.), but claiming that they want to start a genocide is something I can not let pass unchallenged. Besides, the Iran has also a very long history of not starting wars.

Remark 2: IMO the state Israel has every right to exist, but I don't agree with their current politics towards the Palestinians.

Maybe the problem is not mail

[gmuslera]

is Buzz. Else they should be blocking every other web mail provider (hotmail, yahoo, etc)

Re:Maybe the problem is not mail

[CannonballHead]

Offhand, I don't know what sort of "deals" the other providers have made with Iran... e.g., maybe Yahoo already allows Iran's government access to e-mail or something like that? Perhaps Google didn't?

Or perhaps gmail is the only significant webmail provider over there and the others have

Re:Maybe the problem is not mail

[antifoidulus]

A large part of it probably has to do with the upcoming UN hearings on sanctions on Iran. Iran does realize that Google and China, a permanent member of the UN security counsel, have had a pretty public spat recently. But singling out gmail they are hoping that they will curry favor with the Chinese, and further persuade them not to vote for sanctions.

Web 2.0

[ShaunC]

They've even got one of those catchy web-2.0-style names for their new site, mail.ir.

Re:Web 2.0

[ink]

I tried to create an account, and was able to get past the account creation form. It was fairly detailed... It wanted my street address, the company I worked for, and some sort of "national ID", which I assume is Iran's equivalent of a social security number; but then once I successfully submitted that, I was greeted with another screen telling me to send post to some address at "Argentina Square Blvd." in Tehran. I am to include my signature, as well as that of the highest "administrative unit" in my work. It's draconian by western standards -- and would easily allow them to track people with email; all for "our own good", I'm sure....

Don't bother R'ing TFA

[Silentknyght]

So scant, it's a travesty to call this a "news article." Here it is, in entirety:

Iran's telecommunications agency announced that it would be suspending Google's email services permanently, saying it would roll out its own national email service. Google didn't have an immediate comment about the announcement. An Iranian official said the measure was meant to boost local development of Internet technology and to build trust between people and the government, according to the Wall Street Journal. The measure comes on the heels of celebrations to mark the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic.

For once, everything you need to know is safely found in the Slashdot summary.

It's good...

[djKing]

I'm glad the Iranian Government will be able to trust their people with this exciting new tech.

Well of course

[Sycraft-fu]

They are an extremely oppressive government, of course their goal is to crush dissent. Goes double since they are rather worried now since there was a big uprising recently over the rigged elections.

However, something you'll also discover about many oppressive government is they love lying. They are so used to the idea that their official word is "the truth" that they lie all the time and seem to think everyone, including other countries, will believe the bullshit. Hence they don't tell their people, or the world, that this is to crush dissent, they make up BS about trying to build trust.

We've seen it all before in many other oppressive places, and I'm sure we'll see it all again.

Re:Well of course

[v1]

I think it's also more a case of they lie, you know they lie, they know you know they lie, and they DON'T CARE.

Not much you can do at that point besides feel sorry for their citizens. It's a waste of time to catch someone in a lie that doesn't care if you catch the lie.

Reminds me so much of 1984... back when the book was written, most of what went on was considered so absurd no one could possibly have tolerated it to let it get that far, but now look here at how governments can get away with it and even manage to make it grow.

Re:Well of course

[Grishnakh]

No, because the UN is run by countries like Iran, Sudan, Libya, etc., who even hold high positions in their "council on human rights". It's like the fox guarding the henhouse.

How can you have an organization pushing for human rights and freedoms when many of its members completely oppose such things?

Re:Well of course

[Grishnakh]

"A proper global government"? You say that like it's a desirable thing. If we had a global government, we'd have to give equal footing to leaders from places like Somalia, Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. These are places where people do NOT value freedom or human rights. Even worse, you'd have all the Islamic nations pressing for worldwide laws against anything they deem "immoral". We have enough problems here in the USA with fundamentalist Christians trying to push their morals on us.

You can't have "global government" and then only allow Western nations to have all the power. If you include everyone in the government, you have to give equal power to everyone. And I don't want uncivilized savages from the Middle East having any kind of say about what goes on in my life.

Re:WTF?

[canajin56]

Why not boost local development of Internet technology by finding projects that weren't already solved 15 years ago?

Because if you force everybody to use iranmail instead of gmail, you can read everything they email?

I've seen the Beta!

[e2d2]

I've seen the Beta. It's actually quite like Google wave where you can edit another's words in real time. And by you I mean government agents.

Re:frist

[zill]

If you're were in Iran you would have been stoned to death already.

I'm pretty sure the Great Prophet Muhammad explicitly forbade trolling.

Build trust? I guess that makes sense.

[hey!]

Once the government is managing all your communications, they'll finally be able to trust you.

HTTPS

[ink]

It's because Google recently moved gmail to HTTPS. It was an option before, but now its mandatory. Someone's email snooper device stopped working in Iran's ministry of snooping^H^H^H^H^H^H truth, and they threw a fit. Then their prophet-dude probably received a revelation that the country needs it's own "Islamic" email system to be rid of the heathens... etc., etc.

Re:Run own server?

[morgan_greywolf]

can you run your own email server in Iran without getting shot at?

Do not worry, Infidel! We have tracked your IP address! The Imperial Guard is on their way, as I write this! Death to you, and may Allah have mercy on your soul!

Thanks,
The Iranian Minister of Information

Re:UAE

[chill]

Iran isn't an Arab or Arab-controlled State. They're Aryans or Persians, not Arabs. Calling a Persian an Arab is liable to get you a good long rant -- or punched, depending on the circumstance.

Neither -- it's countering demonstrations

[Chris Burke]

It is neither an empty threat, nor foreshadowing of an attack on Israel (or any other country).

The "punch" is going to be Revolutionary Guard, Basij Islamic militia, and regular police taking to the streets to violently oppress the peaceful opposition protesters who will also be taking to the streets on the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, which is Feb. 11. They will thus stun the opposition, and indirectly "the West" who the Iranian government claims is responsible for organizing the protesters.

The BBC article gets it right. The WorldNetDaily article and your post are piles of FUD-mongering dung.

What, is crushing a peaceful pro-democracy movement by killing its own citizens in the name of peace not bad enough for you?

Re:frist

[shutdown -p now]

If you're were in Iran you would have been stoned to death already.

You can only get stoned to death for adultery.

For everything else that deserves death penalty, in Iran, they practice short-drop hanging (where you slowly strangle to death).

Re:frist

[NiceGeek]

Tell me, why single out Islam? *ALL* religions were pulled out of someone's ass at some point. Not just the ones you don't personally like.

Amnesty International, on The Patriot Act

[tlambert]

"Amnesty International is concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act:

- Creates a broad definition of "domestic terrorism" that may have a chilling effect on the U.S. and international rights to free expression and association.
- Allows non-citizens to be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged.
- Infringes on the right to privacy and removes many types of judicial review over intelligence activities."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/civil-rights/page.do?id=1108209 ...excuse me if I trust these guys more than your anecdotal experience with unidentified politicians.

-- Terry

Re:frist

[commodoresloat]

If you're were in Iran you would have been stoned to death already.

Thanks to the medical pot laws, you can do the same in California.

Uncivilized savages?

[copponex]

Tell me, are these the sort of people who would force you to change your way of life using violence? BEING AN AMERICAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE LIVING IN A SOCIETY LIKE THAT.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to run to a closed door military conference deciding the fate of Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and a smattering of Latin American countries. It's a good thing we know how to save their poor, wretched souls from their own savagery, isn't it?

PS Do not confuse this with something a conquistador or nazi or British imperialist would say. It's totally different!

Re:Iran Shmiran

[pclminion]

Absolutely right, the best way to prevent millions of people from being oppressed by their government is to just KILL them all. You can't be oppressed if you're dead, right?