Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran Plans To Unplug the Internet, Launch Its Own 'Clean' Alternative

Posted by timothy on from the good-thing-they're-not-western-imperialists dept.

suraj.sun writes "Iran topped a recent list of repressive regimes that most aggressively restrict Internet freedom. The list, published by Reporters Without Borders, is a part of the 2012 edition of the organization's Enemies of the Internet report. One of the details addressed in that report is the Iranian government's bizarre plan to create its own 'clean' Internet. The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine called Ya Haq (Oh Just One) that is intended to replace Google. In order to obtain an account on the state-approved mail service, users will have to register their identity with the government." The "clean Internet" part, at least, was also mentioned earlier this year; Iran is one of the recurring champions when it comes to such dubious honors.

16 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Conservatism by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... taken to its logical conclusion.

    And the Iranians have only themselves to blame for fostering and tolerating religious and political extremism in their midst.

    America, take note.

    1. Re:Conservatism by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but in this case we're definitely talking religious social conservatives here. Now obviously the social conservatives in places like Iran are a lot more extreme than the ones we typically find in the US, but they're still coming from the conservative side of things, as they're attempting to rule by a set of ancient religious laws that are designed in part to stifle progression and return life to a time long ago (that probably never existed) when society was morally pure.

      The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things in different contexts and in relation to different countries and political systems, and mean even more different things when you throw in the differences between social, fiscal, and general governmental policies. A conservative in Iran is not the same as a conservative in the US, so there's really no need to take offense if you identify as a conservative and that word is used as a pejorative when describing a group in a different country and culture.

    2. Re:Conservatism by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have

      I don't think this is a left or a right thing, just a person thing.

      Disallow certain words? For every left-winger pushing the newest thing to call blacks or midgets, there is a right-winger burning offensive classical literature.

      Awkward moments in history? For every useless sidebar in a history book extolling the role of some obscure woman in order to make the book more diverse, you have a dumbing-down of the causes of the US Civil War so that it seems like the South wasn't essentially fighting for slavery.

      Power of the state? For every gay equality law there is a school board trying to define science as "whatever the bible says".

      It's annoying no matter who is doing it - if you ask me, the left and the right wingers have gone far enough to meet each other on the other side of reality.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Conservatism by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you find that totalitarians of any political bent are the ones who want "top-down, society-comes-from-the-government policies. " Yes, in America the liberal whackjobs are more likely to call for totalitarianism. However, when it comes to actual government leaders and what it is that they actually do with their power, I think you will find very little difference between "liberal" and "conservative" in the march towards increasing government control. They only differ on the route they take, supposed liberals take the welfare/healthcare/gun-control route while supposed conservatives take the military/DHS/War-on-Drugs route. The "conservative embrace of a constitutional republic's checks and balances" is only embraced by the conservative voters, not the people they elect to represent them. Ron Paul being the exception that proves it. Look to effect of the NDAA 2012 combined with the Enemy Expatriation Act and the level of bi-partisan support for those Constitution destroying bills.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Conservatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Remind me the last time someone on the US left spectrum tried to ban a group of people from partaking in an activity, or to ban books/subjects (or force subjects) in schools (educational subjects mind you, not religious topics). Your experience is bogus sir. The only thing we've tried to have the power of state do is stop anyone like you from dictating anything to anyone - whether it be religious outlook on what people should and should not be able to do in private, who should and shouldn't marry, who should and shouldn't be allowed to have access to public and social support resources, etc. Collectivism, not exlusionism. Seems like you ignore the conservative push regarding all the aforementioned, using government resources I might add - I assume since you are on slashdot you need no google links for references. Please let me know if this is a bad assumption - I can easily provide you with hours of reading material. But the conclusion is always the same - yes, we on the left WILL use government to stop the old boys club from oppressing people based on their gender, color of their skin, or sexual preference - see we prefer civilized discourse to excercising our 2nd amendment rights.

      But DO let me point you in a general research direction on the difference between economic liberalism and fascism, and how those are A) separate and B) not mutually exclusive from the totalitarian/libertarian gamut of world views (IE - one can be economically left wing AND libertarian - I am one of these people for instance).

      "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

    5. Re:Conservatism by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Conservatives are against taxes

      No. Conservatives are againt profligate government spending, and then seeing taxes raised rather than spending less in the first place. Conservatives see spending less as the way to keep taxes low, not taxing more as a way to try to pay interest on endlessly growing national debt in order to keep spending limitless.

      Conservative means stingy, liberal means generous

      No. Conservative means stingy with other people's money, liberal means generous with other people's money.

      Christ was for generosity

      So they say. I didn't notice any famous scripture that mentions taking money from other people in order to be generous with it.

      Conservatives are intolerant

      No. But liberals are certainly intolerant of conservatives, as you're demonstrating.

      A Christian may try to talk a gay man out of committing homosexual acts, a conservative would like to see him in jail or dead.

      You're confusing religious crazies with conservatives. On purpose, of course.

      When prohibition was instituted it was the conservatives who fought for that change

      No, it was religious people - and mostly women - who did so. Try to keep up.

      Conservatives are against aid to the poor

      No. They are against forcing you to spend part of each day working for the poor. They, on the other hand, are (look it up!) far, far more generous to the poor than liberals. The overwhelming majority of charitable donations, and the charitable organizations with the most stream-lined, low-overhead operations, are run by conservatives and business-funded foundations. Liberals are the least charitable with their own money. This pattern has been true for many decades.

      Conservatives hate homeless people

      No, conservatives would rather that everyone work and have their own home. Liberals prefer a state of dependency, where there is a perpetual legion of people who exist on hand-outs, so that there can be a full-time profession of taking money from one group (keeping some, as a fee for running the operation by career Nanny State professionals), and giving it to other groups. Liberals like there being ignorant, homeless, hungry people - because without them, they'd have to focus on doing something actually productive, instead.

      I don't think conservatives even read the bibles they thump.

      You don't even know what a conservative is.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Conservatism by hazah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, I'd be interested... but you stopped short of explaining it. Too bad.

  2. Simple to do ... by Skapare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... just cut the international trunks. What will be more interesting is if they start to use duplicated IPv4 address space, or continue the move to IPv6. The "Iranian Spring" will come, and this action is likely to speed that up. Then it will get connected back to the world, again.

    Of course, someone will still set up some secret gateways.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Simple to do ... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      revolution is not inevitable

      look at north korea: a committed government, with enough fanatics at its disposal, will turn their country into a prison. revolution becomes difficult to muster. outside force is required to make real change

      this is what happens if you defy the regime in Iran:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Simple to do ... by chonglibloodsport · · Score: 4, Insightful

      North Korea exists only with the support of outside nations. It is not a self-sustaining regime.

  3. Sounds familiar by McGruber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine

    So it is the Iranian version of Facebook.

  4. Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the best possible news for freedom in the here in the US. What? You want to cut off parts of the internet, why that would make us just like Iran! We can't have that! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  5. We all need to be vocal! by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks for that link, if people have not stopped to read it.. shame on you. If you have, welcome to the real world. The only way for us to maintain some semblance of freedom is to be vocal when things are being done to stifle that freedom. Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening. Sadly, companies like Wiki and Google can't do that crap every friggin day. It's up to us, the Netizens of the world, to educate and inform everyone around us.

    I know, most of you /.ers do that anyway right?

    off my soap box, carry on with your day.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  6. Do non-Iranians have a voice? by one_who_uses_unix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it is silly for any government to do something like sensor "the internet" - but is what Iran does in their country my business?

    I find it amusing that we (the US in my case) often feel we have a right to tell other countries how to govern themselves, how to run their industry, how to run their elections, etc. Where does any country get off thinking it can tell another country what to do? I am not defending the criminal heads of state - just saying that we wouldn't take kindly to another country deciding how things should work in the US, deciding who they would allow to serve in elected office etc.

    When will people realize that we need to leave people alone. If the Iranians want a different government then it is up to them to make one. Every single time the US tries to force other countries to behave it results in piles of corpses and enormous debt and a giant dose of hate directed at the US by BOTH sides of the conflict in the foreign country.

    --
    KK4SFV
  7. They do agree on one point by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Insightful

    US Conservatives and Wahabi-style Islamists have common ground: all women are sluts and must have every facet of their lives controlled by men.

  8. Re:Historically, all politicians like to impose ru by xaxa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the USA left and right...

    Sorry, but in the USA you don't have left and right. You have right and further-right. (On a world scale, anyway.)

    But anyway, economic left/right views should be considered separately from the social authoritarian/libertarian views. Have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org/