Slashdot Mirror
Iran Plans To Unplug the Internet, Launch Its Own 'Clean' Alternative
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.
the organization's http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.htmlEnemies of the Internet report.
For those who can't use copy/paste - Enemies of the Internet report.
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"
Oh, Just One. It's right there in the name.
The "Iranian spring" already came. It started the whole protest cascade in the middle east. It was called the green revolution, and it was crushed without mercy.
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.
Burkabook. No faces allowed!
I am always amazed at how the "good" guys are so willing to fight and kill and torture and steal, while the "bad" guys want only one thing, to be left alone. Amazing, ain't so?
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.
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.
You've been listening to too much propaganda. Here in reality, elected conservatives have never held back from expanding the role of government when given the chance to do so. It's what politicians do. They see it as their job.
In the USA left and right both have zero tolerance for the practices of those they perceive as their cultural enemies. Conservatives lead the charge to persecute artists, flag burners and gays, liberals lead the charge to persecute gun owners and racial separatists. Both sides are willing to trample individuals at the drop of a hat - remember, we're talking about reality here, not rhetoric. Conservatives and liberals all voted for the orwellian Patriot Act.
If you believe in the right to own military-grade weapons, but you aren't a racist; and you think abortion kills an unborn child, yet still should be safe and legal, and you think the tax code should be progressive and tax-free institutions should not be allowed to sponsor foreign nations; and you think the government should return to strictly limiting the terms of existence for corporations and intellectual property, there is no party for you.
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.
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/
I never could understand how a Christian (not other religions, obviously) can be a conservative. Conservatives are against taxes, Christ said "pay your taxes". Conservatives are gun-toting self defensers, Christ said "he who lives by the weapon, dies by the weapon". Conservative means stingy, liberal means generous. Christ was for generosity. Conservatives are intolerant, Christians hate the sin but love the sinner. 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. When prohibition was instituted it was the conservatives who fought for that change (oh, the hypocricy!) while liberals fought for prohibition's overthrow. Christ said to the church officials "John the Baptists came neither eating or drinking and you say it means he had a devil, the son of man comes eating and drinking and you call him a glutton and winebibber." Conservatives are against aid to the poor (but seem to have no problem with aid to the rich) while Christians hate to see people go hungry. Conservatives hate homeless people, Jesus WAS a homeless person.
I don't think conservatives even read the bibles they thump.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Here's a couple examples of Jesus speaking on generosity:
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” the man inquired.
19 Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- Matthew 19:16-23
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
- Matthew 25:40-46