In Censorship Move, Iran Plans Its Own Internet

Last Post! by Mikkeles · 2011-05-31 00:59 · Score: 3, Funny

in Iran.

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.

Re:Last Post! by HungryHobo · 2011-05-31 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sure it'll go really well when buisness owners can't get email and have problems communicating with the outside world to sell their products.
Re:Last Post! by Hadlock · 2011-05-31 01:09 · Score: 1

...Internet censors you?

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:10 · Score: 1, Informative

FYI
In British countries "The Last Post" is a bugle/trumpet salute to a fallen soldier (Similar to "Taps" in the US military services.)
At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them.
Re:Last Post! by Stele · 2011-05-31 01:19 · Score: 1

Outside world? Sounds like they don't want/need it.
How far down into the sand do you have to stick your head before you can't hear anything again?
Re:Last Post! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-05-31 01:27 · Score: 1, Funny

Would that be the jew infested US satan, or the rain stealing EU you think they want to communicate with ?

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Last Post! by captainpanic · 2011-05-31 01:46 · Score: 1

Well... with the current boycots imposed by (mostly) NATO, there is not too much business with countries with free internet anyway.
I guess they can always build one or two glass fibre cables to hook up to Russia and China, who do still trade with them...
Re:Last Post! by lexsird · 2011-05-31 01:52 · Score: 1

Haha! I doubt it though, the more you try to squash things, the more people struggle. Its the smell of stinky desperation and its a boneheaded idea at that. Three cheers for the paranoid idiots, they will push the throttle down all the way out of town. Good riddance. Iran has some great skiing country, no? Can't wait until the lunatics are out of power and the cool people of Iran are in control.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:Last Post! by obergfellja · 2011-05-31 01:55 · Score: 1

ask china.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:00 · Score: 1

Outside world? Sounds like they don't want/need it.
Actually, Iran desperately needs the outside world for two reasons:
1. To export petroleum. Even with Iran's petroleum sales, the economy is terrible. Without petroleum, they are a basket case.
2. To import petroleum. Somewhat counter-intuitive, given reason #1. Iran has virtually no domestic refining capacity. Iran imports large quantities of gasoline & diesel.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:08 · Score: 1

This stinks. Of all the Middle Eastern denizens, I feel the most pity for the Iranians. Most of the Iranians I've known were good people, it's not their fault that their government leaders are insane.
Maybe the US could try making peace in the Middle East by smuggling in satellite internet and servers.
Re:Last Post! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-05-31 02:12 · Score: 2

Unless the Iranians have suddenly lost an alarming number of IQ points in a completely inexplicable virus attack, I'm guessing that, as always, the internal internet will be for the little people and the people who have a need, and/or the right friends, will have the real deal.

There will, presumably, be some sort of licensing procedure, and known extra scrutiny on "outside lines"; but there is no way that they'd be stupid enough to deny access for business use. Even the DPRK, among the most authoritarian and autarchic countries on earth doesn't do that.
Re:Last Post! by MightyMartian · 2011-05-31 02:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Iran certainly needs the outside world to buy its oil and sell some of it back as refined and distilled petroleum products, seeing as the military and the Ayatollahs, who now amount to little more than a theocratic face on the military dictatorship, have basically let Iran's infrastructure rot.
Their plan is moronic and would only further marginalize their crippled economy. At least China is run by sane despots. Iran is being increasingly run by idiots.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Last Post! by MightyMartian · 2011-05-31 02:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Iranian people were betrayed at every step of the way; first by the US and Britain, which deposed a democratic regime and put the Shah back in charge. Then by the Shah, who, while he wanted to modernize Iran, did so in the age old model of having secret police torturing and murdering dissidents. Then by Ayatollah Khomeini, Mr. Holy Man himself, who actively deceived Iranian reformers, convincing them that he was only interested in being a distant figure in Qom, but in reality wanted to set up a regime every bit as tyrannical as the Shah's, but many times more incompetent.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Last Post! by Zedrick · 2011-05-31 02:40 · Score: 1

Both I guess. There are religious politicians in the US and the EU too, but companies run by normal people wanting to make money still operate in the real world.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:05 · Score: 0

It amuses me greatly how the utopians keep on blathering about how TEH INTARNETZ0RZ will promote freedom and free speech and everything else like that, and never at all take into account that the exact same technology can very easily be used for evil by the very same people they're trying to triumph against, exactly like this in Iran. Of course, if the utopians WEREN'T so short-sighted and blind to the real world, they wouldn't BE utopians in the first place, bless 'em.
Re:Last Post! by witch-doktor · 2011-05-31 03:35 · Score: 1

Betray me once, shame on you
Betray me twice, shame on me.
Re:Last Post! by anegg · 2011-05-31 03:39 · Score: 1

To what extent are the people of a country responsible for their government? Excepting the actions of external governments in internal affairs, how long does it take (can it ever happen?) that a people develop a focused-enough resolve and common understanding to push over an existing governmental structure and make a new one that works better, for them? Iran has (had?) a significant base of well-educated citizenry. How are they all being held down?
Or is it always hopeless to think that the many can take over from the few?
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:54 · Score: 1

Government scheme to generate cash:
1) Cut people off from the outside internet and establish your own national internet
2) Create sites that act as a man in the middle to e-commerce sites outside the national net
3) Charge 10% markup
4) Profit!
I really think this one could work, guys...
Re:Last Post! by delinear · 2011-05-31 03:57 · Score: 1

Just what I was thinking - I can see their predicament, what with the "Arab spring" effect at the moment, they're scared of this uncontrollable source of information and networking, but they're very short sighted if they can't see that trying to suppress this is just the sort of act that will trigger a rebellion, rather than quell one.
Re:Last Post! by MightyMartian · 2011-05-31 04:01 · Score: 3, Informative

They are being held down the old fashioned way, by fear. A man (or woman) will, no matter how much they want to see a regime brought down, think about their immediate family first and foremost, and as long as the regime can make the cost of a revolution in the blood of oneself and one's kin high enough, they can maintain the tyranny.
In reality, everything hinges on the army, and it's been that way in every state that has had a standing army, whether it be Rome, France, Russia, and so on. What wiped out the regimes in Tunisia and Egypt wasn't the uprisings. It was the armies of those two countries abandoning the leadership. You can ask a soldier to do a lot of things, but to ask him to open fire and his own people can be a risky thing for any regime.
Khomeini was a religious fanatic and monster, but he was also a very goddamned clever man. He reconstructed the Iranian army into two different groups, the regular armed forces on one hand and the Revolutionary Guard and Basij on the other. In other words he created a parallel military structure, with the Revolutionary Guard and Basij essentially the clerics' personal armed forces. So even if you had the kind of revolution that we've seen in Egypt or Tunisia, and the regular army decided to stay out of it, the clerics have a potent fist despite that, not to mention that the army is likely riddled with the Iranian Muslim version of "political officers" whose purpose to assure orthodoxy in the regular army units.
For a revolution to work in a modern state it requires the armed forces to either back it, or at least stay out of the way. Iran is a terrible situation where such a revolution would quickly evolve into a civil war. At least that's my opinion, any ways.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Last Post! by delinear · 2011-05-31 04:04 · Score: 1

You only need look at Lybia to see what it takes to try and remove an entrenched government. Words aren't enough. And the more competent the government, the harder they are to remove - imagine something like Lybia in the west, the governments are much better organised and supplied to prevent a popular uprising. Here in the UK at the outbreak of the fighting in Lybia we had the prime minister talking about how we supported their struggle and would help them every step of the way in establishing a democracy while the police here were out on the streets beating on teenagers who were demonstrating against being sold down the river on university fees. Every government, once it gains power, sees the people as a force it must protect itself from, it's just that some are better at putting a polished spin on the fact.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:15 · Score: 0

Religious folks just need to accept that they can't have it both ways. You can't force everyone to believe in and adhere to your religion and its strictures, while at the same time fostering the kind of innovation and motivation to build the kinds of companies that will lead to a strong economy. While the religious groups in the US certainly get more than their share of attention and deference, they generally know better than to get in the way of business. They only succeed in doing so when it's a small industry or one without much support from the general populace. The rest of the time they either get shouted down or ignored.
Re:Last Post! by SuricouRaven · 2011-05-31 04:38 · Score: 2

Do you think they would rather be in charge of a crippled economy, or not-in-charge of a successful economy?

There's an old expression: 'Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.' Looks like it translates across religions quite well.
Re:Last Post! by SuricouRaven · 2011-05-31 04:41 · Score: 1

"Maybe the US could try making peace in the Middle East by smuggling in satellite internet and servers."

Could try. But once word got around that the government was looking for antennas and internet users were being held indefinatly without trial, I imagine people would be less than willing to accept them. Hardcore political activists willing to risk themselves for their princibles are a rarity - most people just want to keep their heads down and get on with their lives.
Re:Last Post! by kheldan · 2011-05-31 04:47 · Score: 1

Why would anyone, businessman or private citizen, put up with this? At the very least I can't see why anybody would pay to use such a useless thing. It'd be worse than the old days of AOL!

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:Last Post! by MightyMartian · 2011-05-31 04:51 · Score: 2

Maybe, but at some point the tyranny coupled with the lack of economic development is going to end in revolution. It's inevitable. I hardly approve of the Chinese way of doing things, but one does have to give Deng Xiaoping and his heirs a helluva lot of credit for moving from ideological dictatorship (in China's case Maoism) to a pragmatic dictatorship. It isn't perfect, and China has a lot of work to do to raise the fortunes of the vast sea of rural and semi-rural populace, but the Chinese government is aware that China's fortunes, and by extension the longevity of the regime, are directly tied to a steady measurable increase in the standard of living and general economic welfare of the people it rules.
The Iranian regime seems to have taken the alternative point of view, that it can just keep threatening the populace forever. It's leadership is so self-serving, so motivated by its navel gazing (which includes an incredibly expensive nuclear program) that it basically has stopped giving a shit about even answering any of the natural desires of the Iranian people to raise their collective and individual fortunes. It has all the savagery of the Shah's regime, but no real vision beyond a sort of forced religious orthodoxy. That cannot last forever. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but at some point the cost of revolution that I mentioned above will be seen in the eyes of the man on the street as less than the cost of allowing the regime to persist. The Revolutionary Guard and its puppet Ayatollahs, unlike Deng Xiaoping's technocrat heirs, are creating the conditions for a really awful civil war, because they have basically painted Iran into a number of corners for which the only way out is a direct clash between the regular army when it finally grows a pair and decides to put an end to the theocratic republic and the fanatics and tyrants that currently control Iran. This won't be a bunch of university students gathering in town squares and chanting and demanding liberty, it will be an all-out war between the parallel military structures.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 06:06 · Score: 0

zzzzzzzzzz
Re:Last Post! by DarkOx · 2011-05-31 06:11 · Score: 1

The mistake was the British every giving it up. They had completely legal (bought and paid for ) control over the Iranian economy back in the 19th Century, the Monarchy their had essentially sold the country to them; so they could maintain their life style.
The entire world would be better off Iran was still / had stayed under British rule.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Last Post! by certron · 2011-05-31 09:52 · Score: 1

So it is going to be a really big private network...
They should call it...I-WAN.

--

fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Re:Last Post! by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-05-31 10:03 · Score: 1

The reason why Libya drags out for so long is not because the government is "entrenched", it's because it actually has a broad degree of popular support in some parts of the country. Early on there were many claims that Khaddafi's soldiers desert en masse and the only way he can maintain some fighting capacity is by hiring mercs; but these haven't been trotted out for a long time now, and it's obvious why - there's no way a merc army could hold out for so long, much less go on successful offensive even despite no-fly zone and strikes against ground targets (such as armor & artillery). Then, of course, there have been
Long story short, it's not a revolution in Libya so much so as it is a civil war. This will most likely drag on for a long time - even more so that ant-Khadaffi coalition is unified only in the short term (ranging from liberals to monarchists to Islamists), and quite likely they will turn their weapons against each other eventually, much like what happened in Afghanistan after Soviets left.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 15:07 · Score: 0

I am almost certain that all the Arab countries will join Iran. Religion and dictatorships are powerful motives for them to join.
Re:Last Post! by MightyMartian · 2011-05-31 16:09 · Score: 1

You are aware, I hope, that the Arabs and Iranians have long disliked each other. Beyond that there are substantial religious divisions between the largely Sunni Arab populations and the Shia Iranians. What you suggest is very improbable.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Last Post! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-05-31 17:58 · Score: 1

"Real companies" don't have a chance when their government actively pursues a policy of isolation from the rest of the world. They'd have as much chance of independently setting up business relations as would a company in North Korea or the old USSR.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Last Post! by Divebus · 2011-06-01 18:59 · Score: 1

We call it AOL.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Last Post! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-02 05:52 · Score: 0

LOL...Thats what she said.
Re:Last Post! by MaDeR · 2011-06-07 08:00 · Score: 1

Nah, China does just fine. Circus and bread. More like North Korea.

--
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Re:Last Post! by MaDeR · 2011-06-07 08:05 · Score: 1

"tyranny coupled with the lack of economic development is going to end in revolution. It's inevitable."
So what? Dictators are not most sane and/or reasonable lot.
"at some point the cost of revolution that I mentioned above will be seen in the eyes of the man on the street as less than the cost of allowing the regime to persist."
Like in Tunisia, Egypt and most dramatically Libya. Other examples seem to be destined to failure.

--
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".

Good for them. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:00 · Score: 0

Sometimes I feel that this one is completely fucked and we should start from scratch and abandon the first attempt to the spammers and the censors.

Re:Good for them. by xyra132 · 2011-05-31 01:13 · Score: 2

unfortunately this second attempt will be owned by the censors.
Re:Good for them. by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-05-31 01:16 · Score: 1

unfortunately this second attempt will be owned by the censors.
The censors would be both government and big business.

Can't stop the signal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:01 · Score: 0

Though I guess that won't stop them from trying. Good luck!

Tired of .. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:03 · Score: 0

Being hacked, Iran?? LOL you got PWNED!!

a national OS called... by heavyion · 2011-05-31 01:05 · Score: 2

MohammeDOS?

Re:a national OS called... by Skatox · 2011-05-31 01:09 · Score: 1

Maybe they'll named it just like the apple's one: iOS = iran Operative System.
Re:a national OS called... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-05-31 01:31 · Score: 2

AIX, the Advanced Iranian eXecutive

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:a national OS called... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-05-31 01:31 · Score: 2

Maybe they'll named it just like the apple's one: iOS = iran Operative System.
Does that mean 'gcc' will stand for "Government's Censorship Compiler"?
Re:a national OS called... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:39 · Score: 0

Poor guys, now they will have to take a lot of bullshit from fanboys complaining the IranManOS is too difficult cause they can't play windows with it.
Re:a national OS called... by Rogerborg · 2011-05-31 02:01 · Score: 2

MeccOS.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:a national OS called... by Combatso · 2011-05-31 02:23 · Score: 2

iSLAM
Re:a national OS called... by jd2112 · 2011-05-31 02:38 · Score: 2

Iran Online (IOL)
Every mailbox in Iran will soon be spammed with installation CDs with 30 day free offers.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:a national OS called... by Savantissimo · 2011-05-31 07:50 · Score: 1

Whatever they call it, it'll be programmed in Ali-OOP

--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry

Private Mesh Networking? by GooberToo · 2011-05-31 01:07 · Score: 2

Sure seems like the technological savvy of Iran would be pushing private, wireless, encrypted, mesh networking as a means to counter these efforts. For Iranians, censorship is but one of their their problems. Communication and control is the leadership's real desire. Censorship is just a means to an end - control.

Re:Private Mesh Networking? by HungryHobo · 2011-05-31 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you're living under a really opressive government those things don't really help.
pass a law making it illegal to run a mesh network(leave it vague so you can enforce it against whoever you like) and kick down the doors of a few people running "illegal network points" and justify it with something about terrorism or whatever enemy you like.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by drinkypoo · 2011-05-31 02:01 · Score: 1

Censorship is just a means to an end - control.
If they push a mesh network you can use it to get around them. Clearly they are interested in substituting one system of control for another. Nothing to see here.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by GooberToo · 2011-05-31 02:20 · Score: 1

Actually there is. When they own the entire network, they have absolute control. That's the point which you seem to be missing. They don't have absolute control now. A mesh network would make their control even more illusive.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by drinkypoo · 2011-05-31 02:23 · Score: 1

They don't have absolute control now. A mesh network would make their control even more illusive.
That's what I said, except I would have said elusive, since they're always trying to take it. Either way, though.
With a mesh network, you don't own the entire network — that's the whole point. But who cares? The internet is a network of networks. What they need to do in this case is what China has done; take over the internet in their own country, and control every point of *gress. Either way you cannot prevent people putting up their own internet gateways and the like, but you can take control over the network in your own country. Putting serious restrictions and controls on ISPs is a necessary component.
What citizens want is a mesh network. Governments most especially do not want you to have one. They enjoy being able to inspect the bulk of your traffic.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by GooberToo · 2011-05-31 02:25 · Score: 1

Well, that's the point of a mesh network. Its decentralized. It can be combated, but its much harder to do so. And if you have traffic off of their network, they don't know it exists without feet on the ground. So it can provide for alternative communication channels outside of totalitarian control.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by HungryHobo · 2011-05-31 02:54 · Score: 2

no I mean you can walk around with an dish and point to any houses with "subversives" in them.
People are easily scared and all you have to do is kick down a few doors and show you can catch people easily. Make a show of it and suddenly the network breaks apart as not enough people join it to keep it all connected.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by spectro · 2011-05-31 03:24 · Score: 1

Time to roll a communications satellite with free internet access over there. All they will need is to point a dish to the right place

--
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by SydShamino · 2011-05-31 03:32 · Score: 1

Iran, like China, has trucks that drive around triangulating unauthorized wireless signals. You can encrypt it all you want; that won't stop a few soldiers with guns from kicking in your door and shooting your wife.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by drinkypoo · 2011-05-31 03:41 · Score: 1

All they will need is to point a dish to the right place
...to jam the satellite, since it provides a single point of failure.
Oh, the "they" you were talking about wasn't their government? My bad.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by SuricouRaven · 2011-05-31 04:45 · Score: 1

A highly visible dish. The government will probably fly a helecopter around every major city from time to time, spot all the dishes, and dispatch whatever police department they have to make people disappear under mysterious circumstances. Even if you use a tiny little antenna (Yes, you can get briefcase-sized sat uplinks), they still leak a little signal - enough for a detector van to pick up and triangulate.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by Rufty · 2011-05-31 07:26 · Score: 1

What private, wireless, encrypted mesh networking is available that can do anything approaching the internet (say, 1200 baud)? Links, please!

--
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Re:Private Mesh Networking? by Divebus · 2011-06-01 19:12 · Score: 1

They can just hire Google to drive around and map the locations of all the WiFi routers.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.

"An anonymous reader writes" by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-05-31 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, that was in fact quoting the Fox News article verbatim.

Even if we don't like copyright, we like correct attribution, right guys?

Re:"An anonymous reader writes" by icebraining · 2011-05-31 02:03 · Score: 2

Actually the Fox News article is a verbatim quote of The Wall Street Journal article.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:"An anonymous reader writes" by 1u3hr · 2011-05-31 02:11 · Score: 1, Troll

The original story was on the WSJ, which is attributed. I can't get excited about the injustice of not citing Fox for writing the summary.

Iranian walled garden. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:10 · Score: 3, Funny

"disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world (summary of paywalled WSJ report)".

Oh snap.

Re:Iranian walled garden. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 05:33 · Score: 0

Touche!
Here's a link to the full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704889404576277391449002016.html
Re:Iranian walled garden. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 06:59 · Score: 0

Here's a link to the first three lines, after which you have to pay to see the full article.
FTFY! :D

IWW by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:11 · Score: 0

Iranian Wide Web

Tunneling, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:11 · Score: 1

What stops people from setting up tunnels into the worldwide internet?

Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by mangu · 2011-05-31 01:14 · Score: 1

What stops people from setting up tunnels into the worldwide internet?
The fact that there would exist no physical connection to the internet.
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by Rob+Kaper · 2011-05-31 01:23 · Score: 1

Nothing that RFC 1149 can't fix. And not just as a joke. Of course we're not talking about real-time streaming of Youtube here, but data will find a way to get in and out of Iran. You can prevent people from ever finding out about Internet (North Korea), but once they had it, it's impossible to take it away completely.
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:32 · Score: 0

North Korea has overly expensive access to the internet. They know it exists.
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by FreckledGruntBuggly · 2011-05-31 01:36 · Score: 2

I think you are mistaken. An Internet is formed by connections between many computers. But if none of THEIR computers are connected to any of OUR computers, they have their own Internet. Every connection has to go over some kind of wire or radio link. Those are mostly controlled by the state, apart from a few satellite uplinks. Then, they can make sure that the Iranian Internet addressing system conflicts with the "real" one, for example by reusing popular IP addresses for essential services in Iran. Same for the DNS servers. They would only resolve addresses within Iran. Heck, they could build their entire Iranian Internet on IPv6! Wouldn't that be fun! And if they change the protocols just slightly, it would make it very hard to interwork/tunnel with the rest of the world. There is nothing new in any of this. But it's hard to do, because you would have to develop a whole lot of stuff from soup through to nuts to make it work, and nobody else will have any incentive to help you with it.
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:45 · Score: 0

Satellites?
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by luis_a_espinal · 2011-05-31 02:08 · Score: 1

Satellites?
Bingo. Either that or a sneakernet (I'm sure dissidents dedicated enough to circumvent censorship will be more than willing to suffer very high latency for information they truly desire to get or disseminate.)
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 05:56 · Score: 0

they can make sure that the Iranian Internet addressing system conflicts with the "real" one, for example by reusing popular IP addresses for essential services in Iran.
This would make it a bit of a pain in the ass to run a tunnel, but nothing insurmountable. An example would be to use OpenVPN to run a layer 2 TAP tunnel on a /30 subnet in a virtual machine. You'd run this in a virtual machine, which would in turn be connected directly to the Internet. Your real machine would then be connected to this TAP tunnel through the virtual network interface on the host machine. I'm sure there are better ways to do this, but this is one way I can think of off the very top of my head.
Another simpler way that might not work with all applications would be to use a SOCKS proxy. Then if you want to communicate with the Iranian internet, disable it. If you want to communicate with the real world, turn it on.

Same for the DNS servers. They would only resolve addresses within Iran.
Not a problem, just use different DNS servers.

Heck, they could build their entire Iranian Internet on IPv6! Wouldn't that be fun!
This would actually make it easier to tunnel over, not harder, you could just run IPv4 in an OpenVPN tunnel on top of IPv6, and all your IPv6 traffic would go to the Iran internet, and the IPv4 traffic to the real internet.

And if they change the protocols just slightly, it would make it very hard to interwork/tunnel with the rest of the world.
Again - not true. OpenVPN would be fairly easy to make work as long as you could have some kind of TCP or UDP like connection to the other side. Failing that, OpenSSH could be used in a port forwarding mode or as a SOCKS emulating mode.

But it's hard to do, because you would have to develop a whole lot of stuff from soup through to nuts to make it work, and nobody else will have any incentive to help you with it.
There are plenty of people out there who like the idea of a free Internet enough to help these Iranians get the real Internet.
The main thing Iran could do to make it a real pain in the ass to tunnel anything over this private internet would be to disallow all kind of peer-to-peer communication, by only allowing people to connect to vetted servers, and not to interconnect with each other. This would be a true pain to get around. Even so, there are plenty of side and back channels in IP that could be used to set up a tunnel if you were motivated enough and you had two collaborating endpoints, and it also depends on what applications you want to run. Getting some basic e-mail support working would likely be easier than anything else. That, or you just find a nook and cranny inside one of the official Iranian servers to hide your communication.
In the end, Iran will have to resort to low-tech methods like detecting where traffic is flowing and catching individual operators running tunneling services, but that's going to require a lot of resources and harsh punishment to be effective.
Re:Tunneling, Anyone? by Guru2Newbie · 2011-05-31 07:03 · Score: 1

What stops people from setting up tunnels into the worldwide internet?
How about an Iran-sized tinfoil hat?

Pessimistic Prediction About the Rest of the World by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:15 · Score: 0

And so it begins.

cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 01:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

they cross breed and pollinate with each other, and therefore survive and prosper. when cultures wall themselves off in isolation, they wither and die. you can't preserve your country by locking it up. that's a recipe for obsolescence

iranian govt: you want persian minds to grow up in an echo chamber, unaware of the wider world. which simply means you want persian minds to be inferior minds. you are also extremely condescending and insulting to your own people: you don't think that they can handle exposure to other cultures. you think they will lose their persianness, as if iran is a weak thing that will go *POOF* at the first exposure to the decadent west. well, considering your street protests you brutally suppressed in 2009, you are close: the iranian GOVERNMENT is weak and will go *POOF* when it's people see how much better it is without your control freak nature at the helm. soon enough, you ignorant, arrogant assholes, your people will understand the problem is not the decadent west, but YOU

you would rather hobble your own people than liberalize the iranian government. all you do is hurt iran, just because you are insecure

long live iran: death to its feeble govt

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:cultures are living things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:45 · Score: 1

you would rather hobble your own people than liberalize the iranian government. all you do is hurt iran, just because you are insecure
Are you aware that the Iranian people overthrew a liberal US-backed monarchy and put the a theocracy in charge, don't you?
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 01:55 · Score: 1

a country in charge of its own destiny is far superior to a govt backed by foreign powers, no matter what positive attributes you can attribute to the puppet regime
without self-determination, there is no validity in a govt, and it is therefore weak and living on borrowed time. this, of course, is an argument against the current govt as well, so we will see nothing but revolution after revolution in iran, and every other nondemocratic country, until real democracy gets there
the problem is, a revolution is under no one's control. there WERE voices for democracy in the 1979 revolution. they just got beat out by the religious nutjobs. no matter, this is temporary. all non-democratic govts are inherently unstable: the agenda of the ruling class and the agenda of the people naturally part ways over time, in any country, after every revolution. at the time of revolution, the will of the people and the government are one. then what happens? only a govt that frequently submits itself to the will of the people, ie, a democracy, is able to survive long term and have legitimacy in the eyes of its people, and therefore real stability
so iran is doomed to revolution after revolution, until democracy takes hold. then there is no need for revolutions. the same holds true for china, which is a real estate bubble away from the chinese people losing faith in the distracting power of economic growth, and cuba, which to it's leaders' credit is taking baby steps towards plurality, and every other nondemocracy: you are a regime living on borrowed time. pandemocracy is the fate of the world

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:05 · Score: 0

they cross breed and pollinate with each other, and therefore survive and prosper. when cultures wall themselves off in isolation, they wither and die. you can't preserve your country by locking it up. that's a recipe for obsolescence
I'm increasingly coming to believe that Islam itself is a recipe for obsolescence ... or, at the very least, those running it are making it out to be.
In it's current form, Islam is used by a bunch of people who want to live in the stone age, and think that the culture of a specific set of Arabs actually corresponds to the religion of Islam.
They want no progress, they want the rest of the world to accept that what they say is true, and they're willing to destroy anything to get there. They mostly want to stagnate in their muck, and stay that way.
If Iran is a demonstration of what Islam is all about ... well, then it's time to nuke the entire area into glass and be done with them.
Any religion which wants to pass a law that says that it's a crime for people to criticize it ... well, that religion is completely irrational, and is being ran by madmen. Fuck you, fuck your religion, fuck your god, fuck your prophet, and fuck your mothers.
Re:cultures are living things by icebraining · 2011-05-31 02:10 · Score: 2

That was 30 years ago. Today, two thirds of the Iranian population is under 30. A percentage of the other third was too young to vote at the time.
The Iranians who overthrew the monarchy are not the same Iranians that form the majority of the population now.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:cultures are living things by SigmundFloyd · 2011-05-31 02:11 · Score: 2

iranian govt: you want persian minds [...] to be inferior minds.
Well, I guess that's the whole point, isn't it?

--
Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 02:17 · Score: 1

all religions are simply whatever the believers make of it
christianity, in terms of how it is defined by the majority of its believers, was once just as silly as islam's current crop of hotheads. but christianity went through centuries of religious wars in europe, killing millions, over exactly the same silly stupid ideas about power and dominance that islam is now going through
islam will survive, but those who believe islam in the future will believe a form if islam that is very different from the islam that is now dominant. more tolerant muslims need to wait for the moron muslims to kill each other off, just like what happened in christianity in the wars of religion in europe a couple centuries ago
unfortunately, i see no other way around this problem except for the tribal chest thumping muslims to kill each other off by the millions, because this is what they most fervently want to do: "you don't believe like i believe!? then die!" and die they shall, since the way of such barbarity is pretty straightforward and ends pretty predictably. just ask the europeans, they know how the stupidity of militant religious fundamentalism plays out from their own history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 02:39 · Score: 0

yes, there is a scary logic to that
kind of like republican policies in the usa that want less funding for education. more stupidity means more stupid politicians. win-win for social conservatism
keep people dumb and breeding like rabbits, and you will keep them divided and poor, and you will rule forever

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by peragrin · 2011-05-31 02:42 · Score: 1

China is an exception to that and i am still trying to figure out exactly why.
The communist government is almost exactly like the emperor's they had before. Just a different person at the top and they are no longer considered god like. china has been ruled in roughly the same way for several thousand years. I don't think they will change all that much.
Iran on the other hand like all other dictatorships revolution is the ONLY succession mechanism. It is very rare for a dictatorship(king, emperor, whatever) to go smoothly. there is always some confrontation that sometimes escalates and sometimes stays mostly hidden.
So every 50 years or so expect another revolution in the arab countries unless they start to open up their governments to the people. Europe already has mostly done so. the Kings and Queens are mostly figureheads now.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 02:50 · Score: 1

china is an exception because they are delivering on impressive economic growth. anyone can deal with less liberties as long as they keep getting richer
but no economy keeps growing forever, and there are ominous signs of a real estate bubble in china right now that could pop at any time. when that happens, and the economy deflates and stagnates, chinese people won't be distracted any more, and their attention will turn to "hey, now that we are as rich as the west, why aren't we as free as the west?"
and they won't get a good answer from their control freak govt, because there is no good answer besides "reform or get the fuck out of the way"
the playbook is clear: as soon as the economy in china deflates or stagnates, the people will clamor more and more for reforms. that will eventually reach a deafening crescendo. yes, the control freak govt pulls out all the stops to manufacture distractions. but the distractions that will lose their power over time

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:53 · Score: 0

Yes, because the current level of educational funding is doing such a bang up job of producing smart graduates, clearly we should simply increase funding further despite having no evidence that the current poor quality is going to improve at some magical spending point. Moron - or should I say, public school graduate?
Re:cultures are living things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:54 · Score: 0

False dichotomy. The problem is both.
I wouldn't want to live in Iran. But I also wouldn't want to live in the US.
Because I can't stand religious schizophrenia and NPCs.
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 02:59 · Score: 1

we are to assume you are a private school graduate? which is a model you are promoting for what? education only for the rich and upper middle class? what kind of society is that? certainly not a society of equals. take your classism back to medieval times, asshole
we need to spend on public school for all, obviously. if the funding fails, then we find out why the money is being wasted
but only a, let's see, only a moron would conclude we should simply stop funding education

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by Dog-Cow · 2011-05-31 03:04 · Score: 1

The amount of funding for education in the US is more than sufficient. It's not how much you spend, but how you spend it, that matters. Granted, there isn't a politician alive who knows how to properly allocate any funds, much less education funds, but that transcends Republics and Democrats.
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 03:10 · Score: 1

agreed. then the issue is to look into how the money is spent, and make that more efficient
but republicans instead say we should just fund education less, without looking at the allocation
that's the problem i'm alluding to

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by rubycodez · 2011-05-31 03:26 · Score: 1

many human cultures have existed in isolation for centuries without "withering and dying"; you made that up
Re:cultures are living things by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 03:51 · Score: 1

withering and dying is a relative term. for example, the cross-pollination that happened on eurasia left eurasians leaps and bounds ahead of the native american cultures in terms of technological advancement. sure, the people on easter island can live for centuries without contact and do just fine. it's a relative comparison. the point is, iran will not advance if it is artificially isolated

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:cultures are living things by Ltap · 2011-05-31 04:03 · Score: 1

That depends on the theory you ascribe to. The likeliest theory is the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" one. Mayan culture in particular was very advanced, it simply lacked many of the resources Eurasians took for granted. However, you are correct in that the Europeans used trade to their advantage, especially given the number of things that were invented in China and made their way along the Silk Road.

--
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Re:cultures are living things by gtall · 2011-05-31 04:05 · Score: 1

I hope you are right. However, the reason the theocracy was able to take over was that they were more brutal and more organized than anyone else in the country. Nothing has changed. They are also able to pull out the Allah card whenever they get threatened and in a Muslim nation, that carries a certain amount of weight. The next revolution, if there is one, will need quite a head of steam to win. And what would winning mean when there will be very well-armed Revolutionary Guards still around in the country. There's no way they'll all get rounded up and shot. It would be civil war that could take years to settle. And every time a plausible government could be formed, it's leaders will be assassinated. And if the end finally looks like it will come for those nutjobs, they'll pick a fight with Israel or the U.S. just to rally the people around an outside opponent.
Re:cultures are living things by delinear · 2011-05-31 04:27 · Score: 1

Islam, like Christianity, has been hijacked in the press by the vocal minority with their own anti-change agenda. You don't have to look far in the West to see religious leaders who would gladly see their country return to some theoretical glorious heyday and who blame technology for the ills of society. The biggest flaw of religion across the board is that it attracts people looking for answers at the same time as it attracts bigots who think they have all the answers. Put the two together and you're just creating a recipe for trouble.
Re:cultures are living things by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:39 · Score: 0

but republicans instead say we should just fund education less, without looking at the allocation
[citation needed]
Re:cultures are living things by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-05-31 10:06 · Score: 1

It should be noted that not all of the people who overthrew the monarchy wanted to put the theocracy in charge. A lot of them were liberals, and they paid dear for their mistake.
As well, I wouldn't exactly call the overthrown monarchy "liberal". No regime which has government-sanctioned torture chambers deserves such a label.
Re:cultures are living things by MaDeR · 2011-06-07 08:16 · Score: 1

Why? They as for now can deliver circus and bread and will be capable of this for any predictable future. Just that.

--
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".

Why is this a problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:19 · Score: 0

It's their country, let them do what they wish. I wish more people were independent and self sufficient like this. If it becomes a problem, the people will rise up and overthrow the government.

Re:Why is this a problem? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-05-31 01:40 · Score: 1

Who ever overthrew their government without outside help ? Even the US got some support from France (most famously from Lafayette.) We should care what happens on the inside.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

You mean, their own NETWORK? by Seumas · 2011-05-31 01:22 · Score: 1

The Internet is a specific network. It is this network. That we're communicating on right now. They're not making "their own internet" any more than Android made "their own iPhone".

Re:You mean, their own NETWORK? by AlecC · 2011-05-31 01:39 · Score: 1

One convention is that the Internet - definite article, capital I - is this one. An internet - indefinite article, lower case i - is any network connecting several different organisations without an overall controller.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:You mean, their own NETWORK? by nitehawk214 · 2011-05-31 04:55 · Score: 1

For that description, you win 1 internet.
Sadly it is an Iranian one.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

WSJ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:24 · Score: 0

I especially liked that the linked story on this matter is behind WSJ's paywall.

I'd bet that for the right kind of money you could get the "real" internet (with all its bootleg WSJ articles) even in Iran.

They could go all ipv6 by markdowling · 2011-05-31 01:27 · Score: 0, Troll

That would cut them off from the rest of the world nicely.

Political Correctness by TemperedAlchemist · 2011-05-31 01:27 · Score: 1

Iran, already among the most sophisticated nations in online censoring...

I read until I got to this, and then stopped, because of how ludicrously incorrect this is. Oh wait, it's from Fox news. That explains it.

Re:Political Correctness by corbettw · 2011-05-31 01:33 · Score: 1

What is incorrect about that statement? Does Iran not engage in online censoring? Are they not sophisticated about it? Or are they just not in the Top Ten of countries which do so?
If you're going to claim something is not true, you have to say what about it is false. Blanket statements and ad hominems do not prove your assertion.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Political Correctness by TemperedAlchemist · 2011-05-31 01:43 · Score: 1

Iran has poor online censoring, as evidenced by the Tehran protests a year or so back. Additionally, if their online censoring was really so top notch, then there wouldn't be a problem would there? China doesn't seem to think there is.
Re:Political Correctness by dogmatixpsych · 2011-05-31 03:51 · Score: 1

Even if the filtering was/is not terribly effective, it can still be among the most sophisticated in the world. That's not as much a statement of quality as it is a statement of grouping. How many other countries censor like China or Iran do? There aren't a lot. That's why you can have "good" but not completely effective censors and still be among the most sophisticated. :)
Re:Political Correctness by gtall · 2011-05-31 04:08 · Score: 1

Originally, it was from the Wall Street Journal, I read it this past weekend. It was either in Friday's or the Weekend edition.
Re:Political Correctness by corbettw · 2011-05-31 07:09 · Score: 1

"Among the most sophisticated" != "works every time"

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.

Were this to actually happen... by jv+lee · 2011-05-31 01:28 · Score: 2

Just file it under yet another example of the Iran's absurd, paradoxical sense of governance highlighting their poor sense of irony. It's almost as if they want to educate their populace and then send them abroad to work and live elsewhere. They encourage denial of employment to women, yet allow them to seek higher education. They encourage rigorous university standards to discourage men from using college to avoid conscription. Couple this with a failed economy and what do they get? A highly educated youth populace with nothing to do but emigrate or rebel. These days getting accepted to Tehran University is just a ticket to go abroad on scholarship, how is taking away internet going to help any of this? The government may think they're exercising a technocracy here, but it's only going to create more incentive for young Iranians to develop their subversiveness. And every day that the '79 revolution falls farther behind them, the old guard find themselves in less of a position to use propaganda to cover their asses. The future for Iran may look pretty bright yet.

Learn from China by BreezeC · 2011-05-31 01:28 · Score: 1

China is a good teacher in censoring internet.

Re:Learn from China by Sectoid_Dev · 2011-05-31 01:36 · Score: 1

True, just buy Cisco and get your internet censoring service for free, already built in!

Name by Rik+Sweeney · 2011-05-31 01:28 · Score: 2

I know, you could call it

*long drawn out drum roll*

Iran-ternet

--
Summation 2

Re:Name by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:31 · Score: 0

And it's subnet, Tehran-ternet.
Re:Name by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-01 13:34 · Score: 0

Terannet

iOS / APP store by thijsh · 2011-05-31 01:29 · Score: 1

Iran Operating System with Ahmadinejad Permitted Program store?

selective accountability leaves top crooks on top by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:32 · Score: 0

targets, long time, 'choice', jobs, all in the unspecified long term (decades) 'future'. all we want is a voice & a job, they say? (we want safe thriving babys & older folks all over the world) if everybody gets killed (by mistake, bad weather...), we'll still be ok? the chosen ones' lifeocidal weapons peddlers jobs are safe, as well as our last rights to remain silent. oppositions will be destroyed if they respond violently to being violently colonized & wind up like the genuine 'american' natives, who were subjected to inhuman treatment by the royals discovering colonizers, way back then, & even way before that.

disarm. please read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. no more even wetter wednesdays for us? thanks again. this is not a practice run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGb7Bs1OdtI
'Three wars, millions suffering not 9/11 justice'

Choice between gas and brakes by retroworks · 2011-05-31 01:34 · Score: 1

Can't have it both ways. You either have science and the advantages of the internet, or you have censorship control. The more of the latter, the less of the former. This is why Germany and USSR had so many scientists defect, the lesser educated people (thugs) get into government command and control, and the more educated (professors and scientists and students) dislike the jock overlords. They find ways either out or around. Then both the thugs and the scientists go home for the day and try to find out how to download Israeli porn.

--
Gently reply

Re:Choice between gas and brakes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:46 · Score: 0

hitler wasn't a jock, he was an (over)sensitive art fag.
Re:Choice between gas and brakes by ErikZ · 2011-05-31 03:35 · Score: 1

This is why Germany and USSR had so many scientists defect, the lesser educated people (thugs) get into government command and control, and the more educated (professors and scientists and students) dislike the jock overlords
Interesting. So you think lesser educated people like jock overlords?
Or perhaps, those scientists were valuable to countries outside of Germany and USSR, and those countries would make an effort to get them.
Unlike plumbers and brick layers.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

If they want to cut of their population by dk90406 · 2011-05-31 01:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

from the rest of the world, no one can stop them. But the rest of the world should, as a consequence, stop routing ANY traffic to Iran or Iranian controlled entities. That would also isolate the Iranian government and business. As a concequence:

Any international business can only be done over phone and Fax
Any international advertising for Iranian businesses can only be in papers
Any international communications must be mail, phone or fax. Including communication to embassies
It would affect international travel booking
... (you get the picture)

The country and regime couldn't survive that. But if they want to: Good luck in your little bubble Iran.

Re:If they want to cut of their population by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:55 · Score: 0

How can we encourage Nigeria to do the same?
Re:If they want to cut of their population by hodet · 2011-05-31 01:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes this is what I want, governments all over the world getting together and manipulating the internet for political reasons. Today Iran, tomorrow any other country deemed undesirable. Ok well that's enough heavy lifting for today. Let's come back tomorrow and agree on some criteria. Should be easy right?
Re:If they want to cut of their population by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:59 · Score: 0

North Korea has managed.
Re:If they want to cut of their population by I'm+Not+There+(1956) · 2011-05-31 03:01 · Score: 2

That's shit! Why are you suggesting new sanctions and why everybody +1-ed this as "Interesting"? The government here doesn't give a shit about any of these and the only ones who actually suffer these restrictions are us Iranian people who live in the country. Our government already does enough silly things to us, why do you suggest accompanying them with more powerful, international silly things against us?

--
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
Re:If they want to cut of their population by dk90406 · 2011-05-31 03:22 · Score: 1

TFA suggested that Iran wanted to create a separate, isolated "Internet" for its citizens. That the Iranian government wants to cut YOU from the rest of the world.
My post was trying to point out a threat that would prevent the Iranian government doing that.
Re:If they want to cut of their population by dk90406 · 2011-05-31 04:06 · Score: 1

Please go somewhere else with your propaganda, exaggerations and lies. First of all, I am from Europe, so I suppose I am no so disadvantaged on other nations and cultures. A lot of people (in Europe at least) really feel sorry for the people living under some of the middle eastern oppressive regimes.
I would like to see more democracies in the middle East. You choose your form of representation. I don not advocate you choose the US system, which I consider broken. Only two parties limits real choice, and the way seats are granted in states limits real fairness. Look at other models - many reasonable multi party systems models exist in Europe. Ohh, and do NOT allow lobbyism.
By having the right model (and no lobbyists) you can prevent the coorporate world to gain too much power, and with the right parties, you even get to regulate their behavior.
As for your Axis of evil countries are without central banks, conspiracy theory: All countries that Bush named "The Axis if Evil" (Iran, Iran, North Korea) have central banks and have had that for decades. Iran wast the last country to get one, in 1964.
In the last paragraph you write "Tread slowly but surely". I agree here somewhat, but the rest of the paragraph, I interpret as: "Do not tread YET. Wait patiently like a good boy, while your current government government continue to sell your countries rices and keep the wealth for themselves (in foreign bank accounts)."
Re:If they want to cut of their population by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:50 · Score: 0

Why do you think anyone here gives a shit about the Iranian people? Most of the people posting here are American which puts them at a disadvantage on what concerns knowledge about other peoples and cultures for starters. And then they think Muslims are, for some obscure reason, more fundamentalist than Christians. It must be the same reason that has them supporting Israelis that don't even let their women pray at their holiest sites.
And you think that all Americans think this. Talk about stereotyping people....
Re:If they want to cut of their population by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 22:37 · Score: 0

That's right but incomplete : stop routing also phone, fax and mail ... plus of course forbid any kind of relationship with Iran :)

OS by tortovroddle · 2011-05-31 01:35 · Score: 1

They will call the new OS Khomeinix.

Re:OS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:49 · Score: 0

They had better comply with GPL and release the source. I know I want to run what will most likely be the definitive linux distro.

Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by RobotRunAmok · 2011-05-31 01:43 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Let them dig an electronic moat around themselves. Christians, Jews, Homosexuals, Brave Women, Free Thinkers -- everybody hop on the Underground Railroad and follow the setting sun to salvation, contentment, education and prosperity. Let these backwards mutherf*ckers intellectually inbreed themselves into complete drooling impotence and irrelevancy.

Sign of stagnation by AlecC · 2011-05-31 01:44 · Score: 1

History suggests that deliberate isolation is a route to stagnation. North Korea today, pre-1850s Japan and so on. Which agrees with my intuition. The do not see how central sharing or date (much of it trivial, but some of it crucial) has become to modern industry. I see it as (another) sign of a pretty sick government.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.

Bender approves! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:45 · Score: 0

Make my own internet. With hookers. and blackjack.

Wait. forget the hookers and blackjack. those are illegal in iran.

Re:Bender approves! by CharlyFoxtrot · 2011-05-31 01:53 · Score: 1

Make my own internet. With hookers. and blackjack.
Wait. forget the hookers and blackjack. those are illegal in iran.
No but you mary someone for half an hour (in exchange for an appropriate "dowry" of course) then go out into the street for some three card monte. So it's all good.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.

Good time 4 USA to attract more Iranian immigrants by cryfreedomlove · 2011-05-31 01:51 · Score: 1

Some of the best and brightest people I know are from Iran. They work hard, pay lots in taxes, stay married, and raise loving stable families. The USA is a better country because they are here. Hopefully this nonsense in Iran will help us attract even more great Iranians to live their lives here, contributing to the USA rather than the Mullahs in Iran.

please, Let's ban religiions, religions are toxic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:52 · Score: 0

please, Let's ban religiions, religions are toxic

Islamic Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:55 · Score: 1

There already is a Linux distro called Sabily Linux which has Muslim software and internet filtering software on it. Maybe they will use that one lol.

Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 01:58 · Score: 2, Funny

How many IPv4 addresses will this free up?

Re:Good riddance by dead_user · 2011-05-31 03:50 · Score: 2

About 12.

Desperate by Pecisk · 2011-05-31 02:01 · Score: 1

Well, nothing shrieks of despair like such move. In fact, we should not say that "Iran" does it, it is it's desperate "we will have Islam superstate yo" regime. They are so removed from reality that it feels like they are on their way to become second North Korea (hate ideology, armed to teeth, etc.)

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!

Hmm... by Just+Brew+It! · 2011-05-31 02:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Does this mean we can reclaim their IPv4 address space? Forget their oil, we want their IP addresses!

Re:Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by Rob+Kaper · 2011-05-31 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Iranian people are generally nice and progressive, it's their government that sucks. So go fuck yourself, I'm sure your country (whichever) has some assholes in charge itself.

It's sort of a conundrum... by rsilvergun · 2011-05-31 02:05 · Score: 1

how do you have the sort of educated populace that the super wealthy want to take care of them and build cool stuff for them, and keep them poor and ignorant? I guess this is a good start. China's having a big problem with their huge (250m+) middle class. If you educate them enough that their brains work for stuff like liver transplants and doing the architecture on your 15000 sq/ft mansion then they usually start questioning why you've got it so good and their living in a dirt shack...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Obligatory Futurama by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:05 · Score: 0

Will there be blackjack and hookers?

Re:Obligatory Futurama by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-05-31 02:15 · Score: 1

"Oh yeah, we'll just make our own internet, without blackjack or hookers. Oh, wait, why would we do that?"

Iranian replacement for Windows? by denyAll · 2011-05-31 02:08 · Score: 1

"On Friday, new reports emerged in the local press that Iran also intends to roll out its own computer operating system in coming months to replace Microsoft Corp.'s Windows."

Iranix?

Futurama by mordejai · 2011-05-31 02:10 · Score: 1

We're gonna create our own Internet! With blackjack and hookers!
In fact, forget the Internet and the blackjack! ...And the hookers! we're a theocracy, dammit!

Thinking too hard by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:10 · Score: 0

The reason governments do these things isn't because they are "over-protective" and only want the best for the people. These are merely the smokescreens they want you to believe. And you seem to have bought it.

There are no misguided intentions in the business of government. There are no honest mistakes. There are no "over-protective parents". There are only rats, hawks, and snakes, and they all have the same agenda: MONEY.

So let's call a spade a spade here. This isn't an exercise in national security or pride or culture or any other bullshit excuse you can name -- this is an exercise in justifying revenue. Spending. Borrowing. Leveraging one's position of power for profit without being noticed.

They're raking it in. Swimming in it. Laughing all the way to the bank. THAT is the objective. They couldn't give a damn about "national pride", let alone "islamic morals". They want money. Money alone.

Not quite as romantic as you hoped, is it?

To the intelligent ruler, power is nothing but a means to achieve riches -- and a convienient way to mask one's true agenda. That is the name of the game, and that is exactly what you are witnessing in Iran (and simultaneously within every single other country on the planet).

Only foolish rulers are in it for power.

Re:Thinking too hard by circletimessquare · 2011-05-31 02:28 · Score: 1

you do realize that governments are made of human beings, just like you, and not some alien species. because you speak of govt as if they have some sort of money grubbing gene the rest of us don't have. no, there's nothing special about these thuggish regimes in the world like in iran. look in the mirror: everything you despise about government is inside you, inside all of us. government is us, all of our follies, writ large. when it succeeds, it is because of our best qualities, our common best qualities. when it fails, it is because of our own low qualities as well, just as common. there's nothing bizarre or exotic about govts in this world. these thuggish leaders wake up each morning and sit on a toilet, just like you. it may be a gold toilet, but that just means their ass is colder. don't exoticize power. it's really quite mundane when you get right down to it

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

To paraphrase futurama by Coraon · 2011-05-31 02:14 · Score: 1

You going off to start your own internet? hm? without hookers and blackjack?

--
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.

Government controlled gateways by AbrasiveCat · 2011-05-31 02:15 · Score: 1

Well, if you think you can improve the odds of truly controlling access to the Internet, then a government controlled gateway(s) from your network, with its own protocols, to the Internet might be a way to try. But what is the Internet, but a network of networks. As soon as there are gateways, and there will be, then it is functionally part of the Internet. Maybe just with slow access (oh boy!). Some win for not invented here control freaks.

Re:Pessimistic Prediction About the Rest of the Wo by lennier1 · 2011-05-31 02:17 · Score: 1

How will it end?

Re:Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by hat_eater · 2011-05-31 02:18 · Score: 1

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who doesn't like the way his country is ran should just leave?
Just sever the ties that link them to the homeland - to the relatives, the job, the environment they grew up in - the culture, language, the graves of ancestors - leave behind the old friends and old enemies, take their family and memories and become... who?
A fugitive? Unwelcome guest? Jobless, homeless, at the mercy of international organizations, with unclear prospects and still a family to care for.
Of course there are those who managed to build a new life after leaving their country. After a time, most emigrees adapt. But at what cost? How many nights sleepless from worry, how many insults thrown at them and their children, how many degrading job interviews where your exotic medical diploma is worth less than a local plumber's certificate?
And that's after one manages to flee the country, not a simple task in itself.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats it! by Combatso · 2011-05-31 02:20 · Score: 1

I am gonna make my own internet with gambling, hookers and booze.... actually, forget the gambling

Re:Burn the Koran by pandrijeczko · 2011-05-31 02:30 · Score: 0

I think Slashdot should reveal your real ID on that posting as a joke - because I'd love to think about you shitting your pants in fear when it happened.

It's amazing how little courage you need hiding behind AC.

--
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.

Arab isolation is nothing new by cvtan · 2011-05-31 02:40 · Score: 1

I read somewhere that there are more books translated into Spanish in a year than have been translated into Arabic EVER. How else can you keep your 16th century mentality intact? (With apologies to my Iranian friends who don't deserve the current political situation.)

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

Re:Arab isolation is nothing new by Opyros · 2011-05-31 03:16 · Score: 1

Iranians aren't Arabs, though.
Re:Arab isolation is nothing new by gtall · 2011-05-31 04:14 · Score: 1

They speak Farsi, mostly, not Arabic. Not sure what the translation rate if for Farsi but I'm betting it isn't high...probably higher than Arabic though. When your education system has been turned over the religious nutjobs such as Saudi Arabia, you don't need no stinking outside influences. Does anyone know to what extent the Iranian education system has been brought under the control of the religious police?

Re:Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:47 · Score: 0

You've got a good (valid) point, very childishly said. Wow, tell him to go fuck himself. Way to be a peace-keeping hostile asshole with a true viewpoint. You are obviously smarter and better than every one else.

Did you ever consider that maybe most of us with half a brain already factor in that the people are mostly ok, whilst talking of governments and politics? If I used your childish tactics, right here is where I would tell YOU to go fuck yourself, or call you a dumbfuck. But I'm a little more evolved than that.

But hey! Way to be a hero with your text.

Re:Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by russotto · 2011-05-31 02:49 · Score: 1

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who doesn't like the way his country is ran should just leave?

Leave, put up with it, revolt, die, or be killed. There really aren't a lot of good choices.

Re:Burn the Koran by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 02:53 · Score: 0

I am not the GP, but I agree with his message.

- Avi Shevin

well it worked for china. by Gravis+Zero · 2011-05-31 02:56 · Score: 0

oh wait, nevermind.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

What about the hardware? by RevWaldo · 2011-05-31 03:10 · Score: 1

This will require hardware to set up, and Iran sure as hell doesn't make their own. Is it any way feasible to keep the manufacturers and resellers from providing / supporting the gear?

.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Re:Good time 4 USA to attract more Iranian immigra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:10 · Score: 0

Oh god, you're such a pussy... Just shut up.

Re:Let Them Go. Just... Let Them Go... by hat_eater · 2011-05-31 03:13 · Score: 1

How about: work to bring about a change?
On a sunny Sunday in the 1980s I was sitting on a park bench pretending to read a sf novel. Actually I was counting people coming into the election office. After an hour I went home and I assume someone else took over. I called a friend and mentioned a number in the conversation. The data was relayed further, and together with other bits of information collected from other inconspicuous looking young people it gave the underground opposition proof it needed to verify that the turnout was way lower than the government claimed. And to spread the word around the country and the world.
I was just a little pebble in the way of an avalanche. I didn't overthrow the regime.
But together, we did.
We wouldn't have had a chance to do it had we left the country, although many of those who emigrated contributed to the work in other ways.

National Operating System? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:18 · Score: 0

Irun?

Fine with me.. can we do some others... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:22 · Score: 0

I see no problem...

PULL THE PLUG NOW!

I can provide a list of others.... and it is 99.9999 of the region..

Iranian internet smut by benjfowler · 2011-05-31 03:22 · Score: 1

I can just see it now. What'll they do over there after they have their squeaky-clean halal Internet? What'll they do for entertainment?

Imagine that -- Iranian camwhores, scandalizing the nation by lifting their burkas a whole inch above their ankles, to the shock and amusement of all.

Re:Iranian internet smut by gtall · 2011-05-31 04:16 · Score: 1

Iranians do not wear burkas. That's mostly Sunni tradition. They do require women cover their heads though, 'tis a sign on their enslavement (to borrow a concept from Harry Potter).
Re:Iranian internet smut by Chris+Gunn · 2011-05-31 14:46 · Score: 0

Burkas originated with the Zoroastrians in Persia.

as long as our troops are there... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:38 · Score: 0

they will get theri pr0n

IslamNET? by v1 · 2011-05-31 03:40 · Score: 1

I think this is actually a good idea. I'm not a supporter of censorship, but if you can set the whole censorship idea aside, think about it. They are essentially considering making an islamic internet. A darknet, relative to the common global internet. This isn't really such a bad idea for them. It would allow them to regulate the content on their internet, to create their own "walled garden" as the popular catchphrase of late describes. I could see other conservative islamic states like saudi arabia etc linking in to this and it flourishing.

Lets face it, right now they have a system of values that's not very compatible with the non-islamic world, and the internet is all about free exchange of information and ideas, which makes it something of a blessing and a curse at the same time. It connects them together in a way they want, but to the world in a way they [b]don't[/b] want. IslamNET would solve that problem for them. Remember, this isn't a case of the government trying to censor off what the majority of their citizens want. (like China) Here, MOST of them would prefer it this way. Us trying to stick our heads into this discussion really isn't appropriate. You may not agree with it, but that's the values system they've been raised in and that's how their society works, and we need to respect that, even if we don't agree with it or don't think it's what's best for them.

It wouldn't be too difficult to make gateways on the internet for passing specific traffic, business-related things etc. It'd be like a firewall with a default-deny policy. Really the whole concept isn't too different than a company's intranet. Complaining about IslamNET isn't too far off from complaining about your company's firewall not allowing you to get on IRC.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:IslamNET? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:34 · Score: 0

I'm not a supporter of censorship, but... [if the majority believes something, they rightfully can suppress all dissenting opinions]
"I'm no racist, but I f***ing hate n***ers."
Re:IslamNET? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:52 · Score: 0

Except this is Iran we're talking about. If the Iranian PEOPLE were pushing for this, it would be one thing. But this is the Iranian GOVERNMENT pushing a "solution" to the free exchange of ideas and veiling it with propaganda fluff about "preventing the spread of western corruption". They see how the Internet allowed people to rally around overthrowing Mubarak and others, and they're scared to death it will happen to them. Iran has an increasingly large population of young, disaffected, intelligent people who are fed up with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad's policies. Couple this with lingering resentment over the dubious electoral results in 2009, and you have a population that's sitting on a powder keg, just waiting for someone to light the fuse. Creating a seperate internet is the government's desperate attempt to throw water on everything. However, could be one of the many things that just pour a ton of gasoline on an already volitile situation.

HUGE difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 03:53 · Score: 2, Informative

There's a HUGE difference between a theocracy (and an islamic theocracy *stones* people, mainly women) and a few (or even a lot) religious politicians.

You know the stoning story from the Bible ? Where Jesus saves the woman. Well here's the islamic version :

Abdullah b. 'Umar reported that a Jew and a Jewess were brought to allah's messenger who were accused of committing adultery. Allah's messenger came to the Jews and said: What do you find in Torah for one who commits adultery? They said: We darken their faces and make them ride on the donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction (and their backs touching each other), and then they are taken round (the city). He said: Bring Torah if you are truthful. They brought it and recited it until when they came to the verse pertaining to stoning, the person who was reading placed his hand on the verse pertaining to stoning, and read (only that which was) between his hands and what was subsequent to that. Abdullah b. Salim who was at that time with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Command him (the reciter) to lift his hand. He lifted it and there was, underneath that, the verse pertaining to stoning. Allah's messenger pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned. Abdullah ibn 'Umar said: I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him (the Jew) protecting her (the Jewess) with his body.

Now imagine this being law. And that's just the beginning.

Never let a muslim tell you differently : following the paedophile prophet means following that story. It is the duty of every muslim (if he's male) to impose those punishments, everywhere, which obviously includes western countries, and there is -zero- disagreement under muslims about this. There is disagreement, however, on whether a muslim can lie about this to protect himself, 3/4th of islam thinks it is, the taliban "school" thinks it isn't.

Btw why don't we call the religion by it's English name ? "islam" translates simply to "submit" in the sense of "conquer" (as in, the actual word generally used is "submit", but not self-submission, which is another word, "islam" is a command you could give to someone that means he is to force someone to submit. If a general were to order some refugees out of a country, and he would order his soldiers to do whatever it takes to force them to comply. That order could be given in arabic by the word "islam")

Re:HUGE difference by sesshomaru · 2011-05-31 07:08 · Score: 1

Wow, this got rated 2 - Informative.
We are truly living in a golden age... of knowledge!
I look forward to hearing about the finer points of birth certificate legitimacy from this poster... or one of the guys who modded him informative.

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."

Hawt Dang! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:07 · Score: 0

And nothing of Value lost...

Wow you are naive. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 04:18 · Score: 1

Do you really think the military will go "oh noes, this network is decentralized, they've foiled our plans!".

Wake up from your fluffy game world. All it takes to combat this is to start making examples of people, using pain and death. You are isolated from that, so you think it is real easy to simply press a few keys. They have to deal with the very REAL possibility of torture. Your armchair bravery shows a real lack of understanding of serious world matters.

All Nonsense. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-05-31 04:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Iran "bans" satellite television, too. But everyone there has a dish, and they all saw Iron Man II before you did.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Sattelite? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2011-05-31 04:33 · Score: 1

Wasn't there a company that was trying to buy a satellite so they could move it into geostationary orbit over repressive countries to give the people there internet access?

--

Technoli

Justification by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 05:08 · Score: 0

Since when does the Iranian government need a justification? Forbidding access to a private infrastructure is obviously for the "greater good" as defined by the overlords.

Iranian Slashdot! by Smigh · 2011-05-31 05:15 · Score: 1

How useful is the internet without its content? If they're making their own internet, then we're talking more than just blocking content, the only content available will be hosted in Iran so basically it will be useless until they develop all the content. Hell, they're probably working on the Iranian Slashdot right now!

In Iranian Slashdot: by Hartree · 2011-05-31 05:23 · Score: 1

In Iranian Slashdot content blocks you!

Re:Pessimistic Prediction About the Rest of the Wo by Soluzar · 2011-05-31 05:25 · Score: 2

"In fire."

Their own Operating System by sabt-pestnu · 2011-05-31 06:06 · Score: 1

So, something like IranOS, Windows for Mullahs, Persia120 (like Xbox360, but with a smaller angle and the novel new BLACK ring of death)?

Or perhaps a custom version of Linux called Red Turban? (China already has Red Flag Linux, so there's precedent...)

Quoting bender (almost) by Meneguzzi · 2011-05-31 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm gonna build my own Internet, with Blackjack and Hookers. In fact, forget the Internet.

--
www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe

Re:Quoting bender (almost) by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-05-31 10:11 · Score: 1

Actually, in this particular case, it rather goes the other way around - the point is that they want to build their own Internet without blackjack and hookers!

Screw you guys! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 06:36 · Score: 0

We'll start our own internet, with no blackjack! And no hookers!

So you know where this is going... by hesaigo999ca · 2011-05-31 06:53 · Score: 1

I guess each country will have their own internet ...which will have most of what is wanted by the people's search minus "tainted" information.
Each country will then think to offer another countries internet stuff, by charging more....just another way the big pig companies to make their money

Re:Pessimistic Prediction About the Rest of the Wo by MRe_nl · 2011-05-31 07:07 · Score: 1

But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

If done right- could work! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 10:42 · Score: 0

I don't think an national network for ordinary citizens would kill the economy. If anything it could boost it. You simply would need licenses to get on the Internet if you are a business that needs to deal with the outside world. How many small businesses or individuals really need to communicate internationally? The language barriers alone stifle most international communications. How many people order product from China? Most small businesses go through an intermediary as navigating the international market is something only medium to larger businesses can really handle. I bet you would license less than 5% of the population to get on the Internet. For the rest sticking to a national network would suffice. There could be a intermediary for things like email where a government agent read communications too. Twitter, facebook, and such things could be easily duplicated internally. Those wishing to phone or video chat could be required to go through a central video service. As I said before anybody with a real business need could get on the real Internet (which can also be censored-with the exception of the handful elite who control/run the country).

Mimeographs Also Forbidden by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-31 14:28 · Score: 0

In the darker folds of the old Iron Curtain, things like typewriters and mimeographs were forbidden. You needed state permission to have one. And any use was supervised. Failure to comply meant inqust, torture, gulag gaols - the lamentable "usual".

So were jeans, western cigarettes, video cassetes and satellite TV. But smuggling started at the top. And trickled down.

Iran sits in between Afghanistan, Turmenistan, Azerbaijan, the Gulf, etc. And can't control it's drugs problem. And it thinks it can have an exclusive closed internet?

In Dictatorship Move, USA Plans Control Internet by luk3Z · 2011-05-31 16:39 · Score: 0

It's rather something like this: In Dictatorship Move, USA Plans Control Internet. In Freedom Move, Iran Plans Its Own Internet.

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)

"Wilful mandate vs imposed silence"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-01 15:20 · Score: 0

Could pressure by certain interests to hush Iranian Journalism explain a "going private" announcement?
Journalism on Presstv.com has exposed all sorts of issues and revealed all kinds of problems in the governments and questioned the integrity of some of the past and current government officials in many countries [East and West] over the past few years. I am not a supporter of Iran or its ways but the journalism and reporting on that website has, in my opinion, been far superior to western journalism since 9/11.

I know of no announcement by the government or media of Iran that it intends to restrict its journalism or its voice to the eyes and ears of its own people or that it intends to deny Iranian's access to global information sources? What verifiable facts support such a claim?

Slashdot Mirror

In Censorship Move, Iran Plans Its Own Internet

206 comments