Slashdot Mirror


Google Releases Software To Iran

eldavojohn writes "After working closely with US officials following the lifting of export restrictions, Google has announced that their Google Earth, Picasa and Chrome are now available for download in Iran. US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions."

39 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Home of the Free by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.

    What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.

    Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Home of the Free by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.

      Yup.

      And back then things really were pretty free and open... Look at what we're putting up with today. You don't even need to try to vacation in Cuba to get an invasive search at the airport.

      What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.

      At least with Google Earth I can almost see the logic... It could possibly be used for military planning or something...

      Chrome... Umm... Maybe it's got some nice encryption for SSL stuff? Or something? I remember there used to be a problem exporting Netscape back in the day.

      Picasa... I'm at a loss. What're they going to do, upload pictures of government office buildings or something? I have a hard time envisioning any way to use Picasa for nefarious purposes.

      Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.

      I'm sure it is... But that isn't just a problem with the US. Every nation is going to use its exports as a lever to get what they want. And in order to exert that leverage, they're going to make things more complex/difficult for the folks trying to earn a living off those exports.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Home of the Free by Duradin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you don't see any difference between getting pulled over by a cop for a traffic violation and being asked for your license and registration and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?

    3. Re:Home of the Free by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US has lost some freedoms, but it has gained others. It is much easier to be openly homosexual, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and one doesn't have to participate in school prayers.

    4. Re:Home of the Free by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      I can see it now:

      "Rajiv Jain, while traveling to Arizona, was detained by the local police. Was deported to Sweden - claims he's not from there."

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Home of the Free by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      apparently you are either woefully uninformed or have a very selective memory regarding US government behavior.

      our government has tortured people to death very recently. some of them we knew to be innocent. we have partnered with governments every bit as hateful as iran to outsource even more torture (Egypt as an example.) take your strawmen elsewhere

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    6. Re:Home of the Free by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I must have missed the memo where a cop is able to stop you for no reason. Last I checked they have to have a reason to stop you, and "he didnt have his papers" doesnt really cut it.

    7. Re:Home of the Free by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      See, I now go by the logic that if it makes no sense whatsoever, it's probably law.

      Judge: "Why did you stop the man?"
      Cop: "He had no papers."
      Judge: "How did you know he had no papers?"
      Cop: "He said he didn't when I stopped him."
      Judge: "Sounds reasonable. 6 months!"

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Home of the Free by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Refusing to show your ID to a cop who demands it for no discernible reason is a jailable misdemeanor?

      Under what law?

      I've refused to show my ID to cops, and I've been to lectures where ACLU and other attorneys explained to me what my rights were. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyE6_b_xJY&feature=channel

      The lawyers told me that the Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment are clear: A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you, and without that, you have no obligation to cooperate with the cop. They told me to say, "I don't consent to anything" and "Officer, am I free to walk away?"

      Driving is a separate issue, since the courts ruled you've made an implied agreement to identify yourself. But parent was referring to sitting in a coffee shop.

      Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.

    9. Re:Home of the Free by glwtta · · Score: 2

      Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.

      Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it. They can detain you (on "reasonable suspicion") or they can arrest you (with "probable cause"); in case of the former, in some states, you have to identify yourself (verbally) if asked, in the case of the latter you never have to do anything (though obviously, depending on the circumstances, things may go smoother with a certain level of cooperation).

      Hey, I grew up in a "papers, please" kind of country, some rights still give me the warm fuzzies.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    10. Re:Home of the Free by Enderandrew · · Score: 2

      Technically this is true in all 50 states, but the law doesn't require that you be a US citizen. It requires that you show proof you have a right to be in the country.

      My wife immigrated from Canada. She was required to carry her visa with her when she was on a visa, and she was required to carry her greencard (permanent resident card) with her at all times when she was a permanent resident.

      Everyone made a stink about Arizona's law, but we're all subject to it currently.

      The issue is that we have tons of laws on the books that no one intends to enforce, especially when it comes to immigration.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    11. Re:Home of the Free by klossner · · Score: 2
    12. Re:Home of the Free by I8TheWorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was in some pretty heated arguments over it (my wife is now a retired PO of 14 years) when the laws started going in at the state level. 9/11 opened the doors to "anyone can be suspicious".

      One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there. There was not other probable cause than that.

      Also, if a PO pulled a car over and asked the passengers for their ID they didn't have to cough it up. That changed at the same time. And quite a few states enacted the same law.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    13. Re:Home of the Free by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2

      and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?

      Funny, I've had this exact thing happen to me in California, except the cop wasn't undercover. I guess as long as they are advertising that they intend to oppress you that makes it okay, right? And before you think I am exaggerating, I am dead serious. My friends and I used to hang out at Denny's after we would go to the movies. We'd swap stories and tell jokes, but never got rowdy enough to cause a fuss in the place. Hell, the waitresses knew us by name and loved us. That never stopped the local police department from walking over to our table, asking us each for a form of I.D. (despite the fact that not all of us had our license at that point). The one time I asked one of the cops why he needed to see our I.D.'s, he responded it was because he was a cop and the law says you have to show your "identification papers" (I remember that part very well) if an officer of the law asks you to. I responded that I understood that, but what was it that we were doing that solicited such attention. His response was that we seemed suspicious, since we were teenagers out past dark (not late, it was only 10 PM).

      So there yah go, land of the free. Papers please, you've got shifty looking eyes.

    14. Re:Home of the Free by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2

      http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html

      According to this one, 24 states have "stop and identify" laws. They all require probable cause, but POs can make that up on the fly.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    15. Re:Home of the Free by molo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe you haven't heard of the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy? It is clearly unconstitutional, but goes on anyway.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-powell/stopping-stop-and-frisk-i_b_647298.html

      http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    16. Re:Home of the Free by digitig · · Score: 2

      Appending "tard" to words that describe people you don't like makes you look like a douchetard.

      FTFY.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    17. Re:Home of the Free by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 3, Informative

      "A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you"

      Yes, and that's why they all say "OK I'm gonna pat you down for your safety and mine, sir. Do you have anything on you I should know about?"

      Their "articulable reason" is "Well you might have a knife and I don't want you to stab me with it. Yeah, that's the ticket." Since anyone wearing any sort of clothing could conceivably conceal a weapon, they never have to think hard to come up with a reason to frisk you.

      As for having a reason to stop you in the first place, "I judged him to be acting suspiciously as he glanced at me and then quickly looked away while putting his hand in his pocket."

      Did you actually do that? Probably not. and even if you did, it probably wasn't because you're doing something criminal. But it's your word against the cop's. Who do you think the judge is going to side with?

      Plus you have to remember that there is such a thing as a "contempt of cop" arrest, where they put you in handcuffs simply because you pissed them off, whether you were breaking the law or not. It's illegal as hell, but they get to lock you up for a few hours (and of course once they arrest you they can paw through all your stuff either on trumped up probable cause or to "inventory it for later return." And most people, once released, won't sue because it takes time and money for a lawsuit that you stand a very good chance of not winning.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    18. Re:Home of the Free by HarrySquatter · · Score: 2

      But! But! Disregard the fact that Iran stones raped women, puts to death homosexuals, violently oppresses free speech and political demonstrations and has it's law system based on a backwards Middle Age set of moral codes, etc. Teh US has done bad things so it is clearly worse!!

    19. Re:Home of the Free by conspirator57 · · Score: 2

      read some glenn greenwald

      here's today's news regarding a us citizen who (it would seem) has done nothing wrong but who has been tortured by Kuwaitis and put on the US no-fly list so he can't get home to the US.

      for basic recent history i'm afraid the burden of citation is not on the poster reminding us of it, but rather that the lazy like yourself can use this thing called a search engine to find news stories about it.

      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/17/mohamed/index.html

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    20. Re:Home of the Free by conspirator57 · · Score: 2

      no, it's not clearly worse, mr strawman maker. please remove your words from my mouth.

      it is merely false to pretend that the US has some higher footing than other countries. it is also false to pretend that we are not backsliding towards those countries we vilify.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    21. Re:Home of the Free by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Two things:

      1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
      2. Cops are allowed to lie to you

      One more thing:

      3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop

      So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say to you and would like you to leave."

      I might prefer to live in a society where cops are only allowed to make contact for cause, and where cops aren't allowed to lie, but that's not our society. The important thing is that you still have the prerogative to assert all the legal rights of which you are aware.

    22. Re:Home of the Free by conspirator57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      given that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years alone, i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  2. Ummmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions

    So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?

    This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Ummmm ... by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      In recent news, the Iranian government have moved to telecommuting until they figure out what a proxy is.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Ummmm ... by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      Yes, indeed. Thus Google fooled the US government. And yes, our government is that easy.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Ummmm ... by phoenixwade · · Score: 2

      because international proxies apparently don't exist?

      because TOR doesn't exist?

      because satellite internet doesn't exist?

      from a technical perspective, both the export restrictions and the amelioration made by google are idiotic.

      in all fairness, they could already use those techniques to download the software.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  3. so naive by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is either astonishingly naive, or propaganda. I can't quite figure out which.

    From the US Government, I would believe naivete, given any of a large collection of equivalent moves that are demonstrably idiotic.

    From Google, I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to understand the very many ways that IP-based restrictions can be circumvented by anyone more talented than a sixth -- no, wait -- fourth grader. This is Google we're talking about who have brought us a large number of amazing things that require lots and lots of smarts to implement, and "Hey Muhammed, go to the internet cafe around the corner with this laptop and download Google Earth, please, the US pigs have blocked our government IP address," is something that will occur to the people there. So, Google must be doing this with a wink in order to either further some political agenda, or increase their customer base. Since I am not aware of any political agenda, I'm leaning toward greed. Propaganda either way.

    So naivite from the US, and propaganda from Google. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:so naive by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 2

      I concur. The export restrictions are frankly ridiculous in this case. If they wanted to, the Iranian government could just send someone to US to download Google's software for free. If Iran can import centrifuges to purify Uranium, they can surely use proxies to download the software directly too (spoofing their country of origin). It's probably a face-saving gesture for he more "senile" members of congress.

      Indeed, Google says they worked with US government officials before releasing the software with these restrictions according to TFA. They believe that releasing the software to Iranians will help promote the flow of information and help them exercise more freedom of speech and assembly, as shown in during protests of the 2009 election in Iran. Someone in the US government probably thinks so too.

      --
      It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
      - Jerome Klapka Jerome
    2. Re:so naive by gnieboer · · Score: 2

      But how embarrassing is it to how to leave the secure nuclear targeting center facility with cool security, fancy badges, and lots of plasma screen TV's, and have to leave to go to some random coffee stop to get imagery of Tel Aviv...

    3. Re:so naive by tukang · · Score: 2

      Maybe Google and the government are smart enough to realize that blocking Iranian government IPs is just as effective as blocking all Iranian IPs - in other words it's not effective at all.

      Do you honestly think that if anyone in the Iranian government wanted access to Google Earth, that they weren't able to get it? There are a ton of responses to this very story about how one could easily use a proxy to circumvent the IP blocking, well guess what, that was also possible before.

      If anything the ban was naive.

    4. Re:so naive by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Well, Google has to follow the law, and so they are following it. I doubt they really care much either way - if the regulator says that some completely meaningless but simple to implement control is satisfactory, why would Google argue with them over it?

      Lots of countries actually have these kinds of laws on the books. They're mostly a matter of national pride or sending a message.

      I know a guy who was working for a fortune 500 company and was setting up a plant in asia. They had a budget code for bribes. Why? Simple - the country forbid (on the books) the import of any device containing parts made in japan. They needed to import high-end laboratory equipment with computer controllers. There are probably three vendors making this type of equipment in total, and the number making ones without ANY parts from Japan is zero.

      The solution was simple - just bribe the customs official a nominal amount to not check the chips/etc inside.

      The local government didn't really care. They were just still upset about WWII, but they certainly cared about jobs and a big foreign plant more than national pride. Forcing companies to stoop to bribes satisfied their need to stick it to their former occupier and insult the Japanese government, and in the end the plant got built with the equipment it needed and employed lots of locals. The bribes were such a token amount that the company didn't care about them either. It was all about saving face, which matters in Asia.

      This law is just the US version of the same. Now, in the US bribes are not considered a customary part of doing business. Instead, the process is to make companies go through a lot of hassle and delay and to make them fill out 40,000 forms, and make a few design changes. In the end the deal still goes through, and the insult necessary for national diplomacy was delivered.

    5. Re:so naive by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      You're misunderstanding what happened here and completely missing the point.

      The IP blocking isn't Google's clever solution to circumvent US export controls. The sanctions in question here were lifted by the US government, and the new export controls require this IP blocking. Please read at least something beyond the summary.

      Second, the goal here is to get tools for sharing and communication in the hands of the Iranian people, to give them more options the next time their government decides to restrict access to information. Who the fuck cares that the government can find a way to use these apps too? That's not the point.

  4. citizens can use but the gov't can't... by gnieboer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's make a huge assumptions that this IP restriction actually works...

    What must it be like to download and use a piece of software that you can use but your own government isn't allowed to use? Takes a way some of the perception of the gov'ts power I'd imagine. A bit emasculating even. Which of course might be the reason the USG is allowing this to proceed. A sanction that is truly against the government, not the people.

    Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.

  5. Seems like a popular thing to do by glwtta · · Score: 2

    Good thing the export restrictions were lifted, I seem to remember a story from the other day about the US government "releasing software" to Iran.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  6. Message on the roof by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

    When I put new shingles on my roof, I spelled out "Fuck you, Ahmedinejad" (It's a long house). Glad to see this was not a waste of time and effort.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  7. Re:Uhmm... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, they actually just sent all Iranian, government IP addresses a real picture of Cheney's actual backyard which is basically the political equivalent of goatse. After that, the Iranian government said they, "didn't want to play anymore." And we wonder why other countries see us Americans as savages and infidels...

  8. Re:Petty BS by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    Not petty BS. Principle. The government of Iran is a brutal, mysoginstic, thuggish theocracy that jails and kills people because they speak out against it. Google is saying, "Here, people of Iran, use our stuff. Government of Iran? We're taking a symbolic step to point out that we consider you to be illegitimate and evil." What's wrong with that? Nothing.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. It's unconstitutional by mangu · · Score: 2

    One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there.

    In some places people have always been considered suspicious if they have a flat nose, dark skin, and curly hair. 9/11 or no 9/11, that's against the constitution. A police officer cannot pull a car over if there is no probable cause for it. He cannot ask for your ID without probable cause.

    The way police officers routinely act today in the USA is like Osama has won. He has terrorized a whole nation for ten years now. It's time to stop that bullshit. Th only problem is how. Any ideas?