Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran Blocks 'Illegal' VPNs, Google, and Yahoo

Posted by timothy on from the governments-of-the-world-unite dept.

First time accepted submitter voul writes "Iran is at it again. Taking a page from China's playbook, Iran has moved to cut off illegal VPNs. 'Quite aware of the censorship they face, many Iranians use proxy servers over virtual private networks to circumvent government restrictions and mask their activities,' CNET reports. 'However, officials now say they have blocked use of the "illegal" tool.' Slashgear reports that users are 'unable to access social networks like Facebook and Twitter, or use services like Skype to make phone calls. Along with the blocking of the VPNs, the Iranian government have also blocked access to Google and Yahoo.'"

176 comments

  1. With Friends Like These, Who Needs Sanctions? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, we are going to handle the physical sanctions and the Iranian government is going to handle the internet sanctions. Sounds like a great plan!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Sanctions? by alantus · · Score: 0

      How the hell did this get modded insightful?

      For the clueless moderators, its kind of implied that internet won't be limited to the elite ruling Iran, but to the general population, just like in Cuba, North Korea, and other autocracies.

    2. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Sanctions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the physical sanctions are deliberately porous too, what is your point?

    3. Re:With Friends Like These, Who Needs Sanctions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mean to be argumentative, but I can't imagine how that is "kind of implied." The Free use of the Internet will be limited to those in power. The general population will be scared to use it for gathering factual news, and scared to use it to share the details of their plight because even the attempt to do so could land them in very unfriendly jails.

      The GPs point is that it's the general population that is hurt by the physical sanctions and it's they who bear the cost of the data sanctions. The Presidential family will not lose their jobs due to a shortage of import-restricted car parts; they can gather news from everywhere and communicate with anyone.

      Whether the sanctions are effective and appropriate is a long, difficult conversation, but who they most punish is not.

  2. Iran cut off from the Internet... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    ...and nothing of value was lost. (Unless you happen to live there, that is.)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Yeah if you lived in the Internet, how would you get back to Iran for food?

    2. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...and nothing of value was lost. (Unless you happen to live there, that is.)

      What was lost was a nation of people that could contribute their creativity to the rest of the internet. We have lost quite a lot.

    3. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by r1348 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You fail at history.

    4. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also barely a C- at trolling. I miss the days when the bridge-dwellers put some effort into it, back when it was easy to get banned from places for obvious shit-stirring.

    5. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, now there's one less nation to ask for things that offend their beliefs to be taken down from the Internet, what a loss.

    6. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by DFurno2003 · · Score: 1

      As an American, I normally jump at the chance to badmouth Iran. I strongly urge you to look at the history of that area before making a statement like that. Iran was once a very westernized place and before that it was many other things.

    7. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Iran, as Persia, was a pretty civilized country before the Muslims overran it. Once they became Islamic, it was all over. The AC who stated that the only good thing they have to give is oil is correct - and the same is true about Iran's neighbors, like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Emirates, Qatar, et al.

    8. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by fearofcarpet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not just history, but current events. A combination of a bloody, eight-year war with Iraq and policies that encouraged large families have lead to a glut of young people; something like 2/3 of the population is ~30. That generation is not particularly religious (particularly not by the standards that most Americans use to hypocritically stereotype the Middle East), is very pro-Western and anti-isolationism, well-educated, and very aware of the world. The policies of the country, however, are dominated by a small, ultra-conservative minority of old assholes. Decades of turmoil and common sense drive smart, young people out of the country rather than driving them to stay and launch some sort of up-rising that may result in an even worse regime. They watched the "Arab Spring" and took away the lesson that the arabs didn't really improve their situation. Those that see the sanctions as the fault of their government's stubbornness want out, those that see them as the fault of the imperialist West don't; everyone agrees that the sanctions hit ordinary Iranians the hardest.

      When you see sweeping generalizations about intolerance, religious fundamentalism, and insane foreign policy, just remember that the Bush administration arrested and tortured people in secret prisons with no trials. Does that mean that all ~300,000,000 Americans supported that policy? Should the world now treat all Americans like paranoid war-mongers that embrace pre-emptive war and a police state? Was Bush v Gore definitive evidence that Americans can't hold fair elections? If you answered yes, then feel free to un-hypocritically pass the same sort of judgements against the entire population of another country with crazy political leaders. Otherwise, put yourself in the shoes of a 28-year-old with an advanced degree that is fluent in English and that has to use an "illegal" VPN to exercise your curiosity of the outside world--would contribute to society by risking everything to join a violent rebellion or by trying to get out and establish a career and citizenship in the West?

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    9. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Pro-feet · · Score: 2

      And what about the people, they all turned extremist and dumb all of a sudden? I find this all quite insulting to the several Iranians I have met and worked with. They (also women!) typically are well schooled, well opiniated, and very different from the neighbours you mention.

    10. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you say westernized? Is it wrong to say Iran was a modernized country? It was not westernized - Iran still had it owns culture, traditions, way of doing things etc.

      Just because the women were free to wear hijab, means it was westernized? Just because women could dress like they wanted, it means westernized? Does west have a patent on this or something?

    11. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      When you see sweeping generalizations about intolerance, religious fundamentalism, and insane foreign policy, just remember that the Bush administration arrested and tortured people in secret prisons with no trials. Does that mean that all ~300,000,000 Americans supported that policy? Should the world now treat all Americans like paranoid war-mongers that embrace pre-emptive war and a police state? Was Bush v Gore definitive evidence that Americans can't hold fair elections?

      As an American, yes, yes, and yes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It was western, all right, but civilized... I mean, how much do you have to oppress a people until they go out on the street facing almost certain death and even consider a nutjob like Khomeini a better alternative?

      Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure part of what hit the streets in '79 was islamist, but I highly doubt that the majority was. He was simply the lesser evil... at least he seemed like it. And judging from the difference, I'm still not sure whether this is really the greater evil now. Sure, from the US point of view, but from inside?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the several Iranians I have met and worked with. They (also women!) typically are well schooled, well opiniated, and very different from the neighbours you mention.

      Then why haven't those several people used their articulate, educated, smart-people powers of persuasion to help drag their beloved country back from the depths of medieval Islamist theocratic thuggery? Because not enough Iranians want that. Obviously it doesn't help when activists who are actively seeking and working towards a more forward-looking, democratic Iran are put in jeopardy by having their names and families identified by idiots like Bradley Manning. Yay, noble leaker of hundreds of thousands of documents he couldn't be bothered to read! Yay!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by AnonyMouseCowWard · · Score: 2

      Moderate Islam? No, Islam is the religion, with its list of dogmas and its holy book. Most religions, to me, seem to be founded by nutjobs and have their share of crazy things, but not every believer thinks everything in their holy book is real and must be followed to the letter. That's why we have moderate Muslims.

      Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

      Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

      If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

      They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

      But you know what? Most Christians and Jews are moderate, and don't seek to put my head to the sword.

    15. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You already have the answer to your question. The well-schooled ones with liberal tendencies worked with you because they *left* Iran. And there is a reason they left. If it wasn't the Shah, it was the mullahs. I went to school with a number of Iranian kids whose parents used their brains and jumped ship as soon as it was clear who was steering it.

      As far as extremist or "dumb", rural support has always been important to these religious leaders in Iran, and those folks have always been a lot more religiously conservative and less well educated. This doesn't make them dumb, but it does make them ignorant, and of course, the very definition of the word "provincial".

    16. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Khomeini in-charge was a result of two things: he was a symbol of resistance which made him a household name and then, the hubris of the educated liberal groups in Iran in thinking they could control him.

      They thought they were getting a Dalai Lama sort of person, albeit a much more conservative sort, and instead, they got.... well what the Dalai Lama used to be, the ruler of a theocracy. Surprise!

    17. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      To be honest the Iranian oil is not so good. Full of sulphur. But a blanket statement covering an entire culture and geographical area like that is rather silly. Some good things came from Persia, and I know a lot of cool persians.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The only thing good to ever come out of Iran was the oil. When that's gone it will return to being the shit hole that it always was before the oil was found.

      Actually, the Sassanian silverware was pretty nice. But they stopped making that a *long* time ago.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Otherwise, put yourself in the shoes of a 28-year-old with an advanced degree that is fluent in English and that has to use an "illegal" VPN to exercise your curiosity of the outside world--would contribute to society by risking everything to join a violent rebellion or by trying to get out and establish a career and citizenship in the West?

      The answer to that question depends on your level of national pride and self-sacrifice. Most will choose what benefits the individual, however it only takes a few of the right people to destabilize a regime.

      You need a critical mass of patriots with courage, vision, education, and capability to pull it off though.

    20. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      Khomeini in-charge was a result of two things: he was a symbol of resistance which made him a household name and then, the hubris of the educated liberal groups in Iran in thinking they could control him.

      They thought they were getting a Dalai Lama sort of person, albeit a much more conservative sort, and instead, they got.... well what the Dalai Lama used to be, the ruler of a theocracy. Surprise!

      Basically, what happened is the same thing that has happened with many revolutions in the last hundred years or so: a coalition gets together to overthrow a dictator, and once this is accomplished, the most-motivated, most-trained, best-organized subgroup of the coalition takes over, turns out to be worse than the dictator who was just overthrown, and starts executing or at least suppressing its former coalition partners. In Iran, this subgroup was Khomeini and the Islamists. In Russia, this was Lenin and the Bolsheviks. (And wouldn't either of those be great names for a band?) Right now, the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming (or already is) this in Egypt.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    21. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      You already have the answer to your question. The well-schooled ones with liberal tendencies worked with you because they *left* Iran. And there is a reason they left. If it wasn't the Shah, it was the mullahs. I went to school with a number of Iranian kids whose parents used their brains and jumped ship as soon as it was clear who was steering it.

      Iran has had a huge brain drain problem, starting in 1979. A lot of smart people left, and also a lot of them were in the West getting their degrees, and never went back. As someone who is part Iranian, this saddens me. Had the Revolution stopped with just deposing the Shah, and the government been fully in the hands of Bazargan or Banisadr, Iran would probably be the most democratic country in the region now, and have a tech industry along the lines of India's, though not as large owing to the smaller population.

      As I've told others, if you want to see where Iran was heading, culturally, prior to Khomeini taking over, visit Tehrangeles in Southern California.

      As far as extremist or "dumb", rural support has always been important to these religious leaders in Iran, and those folks have always been a lot more religiously conservative and less well educated. This doesn't make them dumb, but it does make them ignorant, and of course, the very definition of the word "provincial".

      Part of the problem is that they're less-literate, so they have to trust the akhonds (lower-level clergy) on religious questions instead of being able to read the Koran for themselves. Therefore, when dealing with anything that might be subject to interpretation, all they have to go by is their local akhond's interpretation. Further, quite a few of the akhonds are themselves functionally illiterate, and are only passing on what their teacher told them the Koran says.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    22. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      Why do you say westernized? Is it wrong to say Iran was a modernized country? It was not westernized - Iran still had it owns culture, traditions, way of doing things etc.

      Oh, they were quite westernized. In some ways, horribly so. This was during the disco era, and they loved it. I can still hear "Disco Duck" in my head, after 35 years. Please, please, make it stop.

      Just because the women were free to wear hijab, means it was westernized? Just because women could dress like they wanted, it means westernized? Does west have a patent on this or something?

      When you speak of culture rather than technology, "modernizing" means more or less the same thing as "adopting Western societal norms regarding individual freedom of behavior." That's not to say that Western countries are perfect, or that non-Western countries have no good points, but "letting women dress like they wanted" is just a subset of "letting people do what they want", which was developed primarily in the West.

      Again, that's not to say that no one was (or is) ever oppressed in the West, or that no one was (or is) free at all elsewhere, but you're kidding yourself if you don't admit that tolerance for non-conforming behavior didn't develop much more strongly in the West before it caught on in other places.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    23. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Gob+Gob · · Score: 1

      "...Should the world now treat all Americans like paranoid war-mongers that embrace pre-emptive war and a police state?...."

      Yes.

      (At least that is what many US posters claim when talking about politics, gun control and "occupy" on Slashdot)

      Governments go to war not people.

    24. Re:Iran cut off from the Internet... by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      Nice black-white thinking.
      The people tried, at least in the cities, after the elections in 2008. Remember that uprise? Many risked (and some lost) their lives. It was not just a small minority, but it was suppressed.

      I was in Esphahan just before those elections and the ordinary city people I met were in general very open, interested, longing for change.

  3. MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Soon as MPAA realizes everyone went VPN to escape six strikes, they'll want a similar law here in the US

    Of course all corporate VPNs will be exempt as long as they're willing to report any "suspicious" activity

    1. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dang, how do I add to the score for this post. It's exactly what will befall the internet in all countries for various reasons. And, if you try to create your own mesh to escape the filters and controls you'll be shut down like a pirate radio station.

    2. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by julian67 · · Score: 0

      If you wish to boost the credibility of the post by expressing your support then it helps to begin your eulogy with a word other than "Dang".

    3. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exclamation to get attention that shouldn't be found offensive by anyone except those who realize that such exclamations are used in place of a thing more vulgar or profane. Would it have suited better for the guy to say "SHIT!!!"?

      Instead of focusing on the rather innocent little exclamation you should be more worried about the fact that even though things like Tor, VPNs, hired proxies and the like are held up as solutions and workarounds for almost all these internet blocks, we have here, in Iran, a real world demonstration that such things are useless against deep packet inspection and filtering.

      Such techniques will be used in the States, in Canada, in the UK, anywhere, either under the direction of the intellectual property owners or to protect us all from terrorism and any attempt to use such techniques or others to circumvent the blocks to certain types of files or information will be considered a criminal act.

      For smaller files, encryption of the files within other files can be used but for larger files, streams or participation in open conversations of prohibited subjects will become harder over time.

    4. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by xenobyte · · Score: 3, Informative

      Instead of focusing on the rather innocent little exclamation you should be more worried about the fact that even though things like Tor, VPNs, hired proxies and the like are held up as solutions and workarounds for almost all these internet blocks, we have here, in Iran, a real world demonstration that such things are useless against deep packet inspection and filtering.

      Sure, but we're not there yet. The blocking in Iran is nothing more than basic port and protocol blocks; just block 1723/tcp and protocol 47 (gre) and you've blocked PPTP VPN, the most common form of VPN. IPsec VPN can be blocked by blocking 500/udp and protocol esp+ah. The more rare SSL-only form of VPN is probably blocked using blacklists as no form of deep packet inspection can see inside encrypted packets and there's no other way to find out if it's a regular SSL connection or something like VPN. But then maybe they simply block all use of SSL across the borders.

      Such techniques will be used in the States, in Canada, in the UK, anywhere, either under the direction of the intellectual property owners or to protect us all from terrorism and any attempt to use such techniques or others to circumvent the blocks to certain types of files or information will be considered a criminal act.

      For smaller files, encryption of the files within other files can be used but for larger files, streams or participation in open conversations of prohibited subjects will become harder over time.

      I agree with you there.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    5. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, how do I add to the score for this post. It's exactly what will befall the internet in all countries for various reasons. And, if you try to create your own mesh to escape the filters and controls you'll be shut down like a pirate radio station.

      I hope they don't notice my hidden gigantic satellite dish in my back garden pointing to a foreign satellite to get my internets...

    6. Re:MPAA Hopefully Not Paying Attention by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      They don't need to: these days, relatively few VPNs around the world can be trusted to not throw users under the bus at the first hint of trouble from the **AA or US government, and there's no way to really know whether the 'trustworthy' VPNs were being totally honest. Outlawing VPNs would drive the users to companies or resources that are less **AA/government-friendly; if they're smart about it, they'll mimic lobbyists by giving nice large gifts to helpful VPNs as tokens of their gratitude.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  4. USA is at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA is at it again. Taking a page from the old Roman imperialist playbook, USA has moved to put more sanctions in place to further rig the economical climate in their favor.

    1. Re:USA is at it again by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear! China is not the threat some make it out to be... truly Iran is our economic rival!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:USA is at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what economical climate is in Iran?

      we have goats, sand, and a bunch of ignorant fucks running the country, thanks but we dont need to import that from you.

    3. Re:USA is at it again by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      what economical climate is in Iran?

      we have goats, sand, and a bunch of ignorant fucks running the country, thanks but we dont need to import that from you.

      While I would not want to disrespect the economic and cultural nirvana that is modern Iran,
      I would point out that we can export to you things like:
      women wearing shorts that actually spread their ass cheeks,
      thong underwear and even better,
      thong swim suits,
      camel toes that have nothing to do with actual camels,
      college age girls that have "Daddy issues"
      and the fact that getting laid regularly will seriously decrease the probability that you will end up dying in the hope of spending eternity with 72 people who by definition can not give a reasonable blow job.

      Long Live Cultural Diversity!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:USA is at it again by mrclisdue · · Score: 2

      ....with 72 people who by definition can not give a reasonable blow job.

      Blow jobs have nothing to do with virginity or sex. The best law Bill Clinton ever introduced to mankind.

    5. Re:USA is at it again by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      Blow jobs have nothing to do with virginity or sex. The best law Bill Clinton ever introduced to mankind.

      Well, it's not exactly a law, but it is one of the few positions that has wide bi-partisan support amongst politicians.

    6. Re:USA is at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      import from iran to the USA moron

      we have goats, sand, and a bunch of ignorant fucks running the country

      why would we need iran?

    7. Re:USA is at it again by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Bigot fight, woo-hoo!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:USA is at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is nothing bigotry about it, iran offers nothing in the world except for goats, sand, and ignorant lunatics

      not our fault

    9. Re:USA is at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI Iran does not have more sand, goats and also ignorant than the US. US has more of all three.

    10. Re:USA is at it again by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      there is nothing bigotry about it,

      Sure... What, do you think that bigots ever admit to being bigoted?
      Of course you believe your own bullshit, that's why you are a bigot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. Why is illegal in quotations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it or is it not legal to use unauthorized VPNs in Iran?

    1. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Is it or is it not legal to use unauthorized VPNs in Iran?

      'State sanctioned' VPN's are the only 'legal' ones. I suppose changing ports wouldn't matter, since the Iranian internet is all run by the state.

    2. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by wmac1 · · Score: 2

      There are hundreds of private ISPs but all of them pass through the government controlled gateways.

    3. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's illegal to use a VPN that the government can't decrypt and monitor the traffic on. And they're not just wanting access "in case they need it", they run software 24/7 that flags "items of interest" for human review. If they find you're breaking any laws, as defined by their legal system (clerics and thousand year old books), or doing anything that threatens their control over their sheep (not the hoofed variety) then they lock you up or behead you or whatever they feel is appropriate.

      Considering the broadness of their laws, the harshness of their penalties, and the almost complete lack of legal protection the average (non wealthy) citizen has over there, it's basically dangerous to use the internet over there, for any reason. A week of monitoring you, regardless of what you were trying to do or not do, and they are likely to have enough dirt to hang you (literally) if they feel like it. It's a scary place to live.

      Web search for some goat milk recipes. Click a link. Wow look at that, the banner ad on that page is showing titties! Your computer has just downloaded porn, which is illegal to possess. That's all it takes over there to lock you up. I can't imagine how you'd go about actually using the internet over there without setting yourself up. It's a shame really, all these controlling countries (be they religious or just plain dictators like NK) are forced to create an environment of stagnation to maintain their control, and they care more for that then the future of their country. Quite sad for the people. I look at it and it's like being in the supermarket and watching some mother just scream at her kids, treating them like crap, and wishing you could do something about it, but you can't. Depressing to watch.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is simply a story about a government enforcing the laws of the country as they pertain to banned internet sites. Kinda like when the DoJ goes after international gambling sites. Yeah?

    5. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I guess they go around looking for satellite dishes too? I mean, how is Iran going to stop someone talking to a Hughes satellite?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      It is easy to track illegal gateways if you provide services to public. But I guess if you use it for yourself no one can easily find (unless the dish is very easy to identify among the millions of satellite dishes in Iran).

    7. Re:Why is illegal in quotations? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well you SSH to me, and I beam up to the satellite. I don't see that being any different than you and me having a chat. Of course unless we invite the "wrong person" to our little group, then we're fucked.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Heh. by detritus. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let's see them try to block SSH and have a functioning internet.

    1. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point?

    2. Re:Heh. by kobaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People (even Iranian people) need to be able to manage their networks. Block too much and there wont be a functional Iran Internet for much longer.

      --

      The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    3. Re:Heh. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Block too much and there wont be a functional Iran Internet for much longer.

      I not quite sure that that is one of their top concern.

    4. Re:Heh. by PNutts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Correct. Their primary concern is to *not* have a functioning Internet.

    5. Re:Heh. by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      You can use SSH to create a SOCKS Application Proxy or a VPN. If you create a full VPN with SSH it is a bit slow because it uses TCP but is otherwise effective. It uses OpenSSH and the TUN driver. Plus, you might be able to set the SSH port to some more obscure, less used protocol.

    6. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Plus, you might be able to set the SSH port to some more obscure, less used protocol.

      Setting the SSH port to something than other than 22 is already widely used to mitigate brute force attempts, and you can't change the protocol by changing the port.

    7. Re:Heh. by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And don't miss the opportunity to sockify a whole tunnel of TCP connections, instead of socksifying programs, to use with your ssh -D connection. The tun2socks program does this, and can do UDP with a remote side helper program.

      They will have to shut off ssh to block it. They might, but that ends up breaking a lot more stuff and getting more of their population angry at the government.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    8. Re:Heh. by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Block too much and the unemployed youth will finally revolt.

      They know what they are missing from talking with friends in Europe.

    9. Re:Heh. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Well, they don't care whether it functions or not.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:Heh. by ikaruga · · Score: 1

      I hardly consider an already heavily censored internet "functional". Still better than NK's, though.

    11. Re:Heh. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I think they do care whether it functions or not. They want it to not function.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    12. Re:Heh. by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Because there's no unemployed youth in Europe. And even those few who are, generally don't spend time on the Internet.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    13. Re:Heh. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      And even those few who are, generally don't spend time on the Internet.

      Sorry were you being sarcastic? I have plenty of unemployed Euro buddies I talk to and play games with regularly. There is not much to do in between job interviews and collecting the unemployment/welfare handout, so most of them are indeed on the internet. Laptops are cheap you know, even in Europe.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Heh. by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was being sarcastic, I hoped it would be obvious but I know it's hard to tell on the internet. As a student of physics, I don't have these problems, and all my classmates have either jobs or paid PhD programs (as in, we'll be paid for working on the PhD) lined up. However, the situation is quite different for other young people.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  7. Haha - The Tehran Chronicle by RussR42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Tehran Chronicle article about this mentions recent bans on Facebook and Twitter, then has links to them both after the article...

  8. facebook twitter and skype by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    If I did not know better I am not sure its really a bad thing

    1. Re:facebook twitter and skype by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, as a VOIP service that's well-known & easy among non-techies, Skype is too useful for lower-income people that want/need to have long voice calls with people that live in a country that it costs a hefty amount to call. If worthwhile encryption is an option with it, then it could be particularly useful for finding out what's going on in reality (as opposed to government claims) from a trusted source without getting caught going onto "illegal" websites.

      Besides, Skype isn't near-impossible to avoid on the Web like the other two; if someone's like me and either dislikes or doesn't have a use for it, we simply don't use it. It's not like there are many (if any) sites that requiring a Skype-based login to comment, scripts of theirs everywhere slowing systems down by tracking users, and so forth...

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  9. It must be a Microsoft conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Since they can only use Bing to search....

  10. Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 2

    There are war mongers -- and then there's Slashdot,
    and I for one would like to keep it that way.

    1. Re:Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Slashdot blocked in Iran? If not, they haven't blocked all the criticism.

    2. Re:Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. The slashdot crowd is one of the only voices of reason keeping the warmongerers at bay. The CIA would love to stage another coup, but slashdot is always there, with simpsons quotes and star wars references, to shut them down.

    3. Re:Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      dont forget car analogies

    4. Re:Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already

      So, when the Iranian government imposes yet another new repressive measure to build on its existing repressive measures against the Iranian people that result in death, mutilation, torture, and other atrocities, your concern is that people on Slashdot don't criticize - don't say harsh things against the Iranian government? I think there is a word for that, Mr. Liberty.

      If you think the Iranian government is for peace, you aren't listening carefully.

      All Iran is saying,
      is give cutting people into pieces a chance.

      Iranian Women Prisoners Detail Torture

      Iran as continual regional menace
      Iran's Menace in Azerbaijan
      15,000 Elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria ---- Iran confirms it has forces in Syria ...
      Gulf states lash out at Iran 'interference'

      The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said in a statement that Tehran's actions were threatening regional security and stability.
      The GCC said it "rejects and denounces" Iran's "continued interference" in their internal affairs and Tehran must "immediately and completely stop these actions and policies that increase regional tension and threaten security and stability".

      Iranian Bomb Suspects 'Targeted' Israelis, Thai Police Say
      Report: Turkey thwarts Iran weapons shipment to Hezbollah
            Why Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 rockets and missiles ...
                  Iran and Hezbollah: The Balance of Power Shifts in Lebanon
      Afghanistan war logs: Iran's covert operations in Afghanistan
      Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel

      Discussing the record of Iran's actions and behavior doesn't constitutes "warmongering."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The CIA would love to stage another coup, but slashdot is always there, with simpsons quotes and star wars references, to shut them down.

      And cavalry, don't forget the cavalry and infantry that sweeps all before it. Compared to that power, CIA is just another bunch of paper pushers.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  11. How Can We Be Supportive? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    Is there a way for the world at large to help out, without imposing ourselves? Can we support efforts to provide technical workarounds? Can we find ways to make it harder - and costlier - for governments to censor their citizens?

    1. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could try facebook.

    2. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by nomad63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can run a VPN server at your home. Those governments can only block so many IP addresses and they have the big VPN providers in their crosshairs. If you and another few thousand of you can spare few gigabytes per month from your bandwidth cap and somehow find a way to reach out to those people and direct them to use *your* VPN service (free of charge of course), you can safely say that you have done your part.

      --

      __________
      The more I know people, the more I love animals
    3. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Cito · · Score: 3, Informative

      the largest "tool" that was blocked is Tor.

      Tor has thousands of exit nodes, and all were blocked, they don't have to block specific ports they use deep packet inspection to identify if it's a proxy request or direct request and can deny all which is why at the moment Tor don't work from Iran

    4. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's obfsproxy, a tool put out by the Tor project, designed to get around the Deep Packet inspection Iran was doing about a year ago or so. Running an obfsproxy tor bridge is probably one of the best things you can do to help. And for those not versed in Tor, running a bridge is NOT the same as running an exit node, nor does it come with the risk factor of mistaken identity resulting in excess hassling.

      https://www.torproject.org/projects/obfsproxy.html.en

    5. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One problem with this: Iran has a history of doing Deep Packet inspection and dropping all encrypted connections (or at least, non-whitelisted encrypted connections). For now, obfsproxy gets around this. Running a simple VPN will not.

    6. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      Can we find ways to make it harder - and costlier - for governments to censor their citizens?

      That's kinda the whole point of Freenet, but you'd need an internet connection to the outside world for that to work. If governments and corporations keep interfering with the free flow of ideas over the internet, I'm sure a technical solution will found. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. I wonder if in a few years when wireless networks become ubiquitous if we can abandon large ISPs altogether in favor of many decentralized services or some sort of peer-to-peer network.

    7. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > somehow find a way to reach out to those people

      There is an actual automated and "mass-produced" mechanism to do just that, called Tor Bridges.

    8. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to make an encryption mechanism that tokenizes hash values with passages from the Coran!

    9. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. I don't know about Iran, but for the past few months, China has been detecting and blocking OpenVPN connections on the fly. And seeing how China has a tendency to support similar autocratic governments like Syria, if only to preserve their own legitimacy, I wouldn't be surprised if they sold or were considering selling such technology to countries like Iran. It's harder to single out one country when "everyone" is doing it.

    10. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have blocked all VPN ports. PPTP, L2TP, SSTP all are closed. so technically that approach wont solve the problem. The blocked IP's list has become so huge that they have decided to white list. It's not Internet anymore.

    11. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by cdp0 · · Score: 1

      Those governments can only block so many IP addresses and they have the big VPN providers in their crosshairs.

      You obviously haven't considered DPI. I have been to Iran in the past and OpenVPN to my own server in Europe was entirely blocked, no matter what protocol/port combination I used. I could see the initial packet exchange (tcpdump), and after a short while the connection was identified as illegal and dropped, and the protocol/port combination entirely blocked from there on.

      However, they did allow PPTP (possibly because it's so insecure), and SSH. As a side note, I haven't seen any try to do MITM on SSH.

    12. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't considered DPI

      DPI can be fixed by steganography - although there may be a significant cost in bandwith.

      To the censors, it looks like "lots of cute kittens". Boring web pages. But the low bits in all those tiny images encodes the encrypted tunnel in one direction. In the other direction, the tunnel is encoded in the pathnames of the GET requests. It does not look suspicious - big image archives often enough have folders and files with numerical names.

      An above-average agent determined to pin someting on you, might find it strange that you download thousands of pictures of the same 50 cats. Day after day. But DPI won't catch it. All normal http, as the filter sees it. No visible encryption, no 'bad keywords'. Of course, in Iran they probably don't need to 'pin something on you'. If they are determined to get you, you go down just because they say so.

    13. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Tor has thousands of exit nodes, and all were blocked

      This makes no sense. The client isn't talking directly to the exit node. The exit node is communicating with the server, and when both are outside of Iran and their communication isn't going through Iran, then any blocking of the exit nodes by the Iranian regime, won't have any effect.

      They can try to block the communication between Tor clients and the entry point to the Tor network. But there are secret entry relays. A user can acquire a small list of some of the secret entry relays. But it will be difficult for the regime to acquire the full list, thus they can't just block all the secret entry relays. Additionally the traffic between client and entry relay can be disguised as https traffic.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    14. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      For a second there, I thought you wanted to tokenize hash values with passages from "Conan". That would be much more hilarious, although completely nonsensical.

    15. Re:How Can We Be Supportive? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Right. You need to prevent them from discovering you to begin with. There is no matter of proving anything in a court of law. If they are interested in you, you've already lost.

      However, going on the experiences from the Gestapo, the people you really need to protect yourself against are people close to you and around you. It is said that the Gestapo had so many denunciations from people about their neighbors that they could only deal with some small fraction of them with the staff they had on-hand, even in Germany itself.

      In this case, your best protection is to use the most secure method that is reasonable, but to also tell *no one* what you are doing who actually knows you.

  12. They're all crappy websites, the Iranians lose not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're all crappy websites, the Iranians lose nothing of quality.

  13. Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bing? by asserted · · Score: 2

    This seems inconsistent.

    So, of the three search engines only Google will actually use SSL, even if you go to http://google.com/ the form is submitted over https. The other two not only won't do that, they will *downgrade* you to http even if you explicitly navigate to https://yahoo.com/ or https://bing.com/. Iranians can easily use DPI to spy on Yahoo and Bing users, only Google presents a problem. So I'm not surprised Bing didn't get blocked, it's not clear to me why Yahoo did.

    The only explanation i see is that Iranian gov't is stupid - DPI is too hard, let's hijack the domains or blackhole a couple AS and go shopping (or shooting, or praying to almighty allah, or whatever). As to why Bing was left out, it's either
    a) Iranian gov't is stupid, they were just unaware of Bing's existence. Unlikely.
    b) Bing just doesn't work well enough in Arabic for the gov't to care. Also unlikely, given that Yahoo is powered by Bing and it got banned.
    c) they contacted Microsoft and reached some kind of a deal where Microsoft bends over backwards but doesn't get banned. getting caught dealing with Iranian gov't is a big risk for Microsoft, but the potential reward of being the only game in a not-so-small country of 75 million people (mostly young and active adults) is just too high.

    hmm...

  14. Governments are all headed in this direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Korea (not the North, but the democratic south) has been on a massive censorship push as of late. Unless you know about really obscure sites, currently VPNs and torrents are basically the only way out if you want to get at porn, but in a country that likes to censor everything down to frank discussion in the LGBT community or criticism of the government, and even innocuous things like images of knives and cigarettes on TV, it's only a matter of time before those are gone as well.

  15. Sorry to bring it up... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    I'm curious how this will affect BitCoin in Iran...
    My understanding is that any blocks generated in Iran after 20 hours (120 blocks) of a network split would be lost when the network rejoins. So even if no one tried a double spend attack, there could be "lost money" that has been spent.
    I realize that it isn't likely anyone here would know, but are there currently routes around the firewalls that people are using to avoid this situation. Or is BitCoin still connecting fine from within Iran?

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:Sorry to bring it up... by kasperd · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that any blocks generated in Iran after 20 hours (120 blocks) of a network split would be lost when the network rejoins. So even if no one tried a double spend attack, there could be "lost money" that has been spent.

      I don't know enough about bitcoint to give a definitive answer. But it certainly is an aspect that could be handled. In case of double spending, there is obviously a need to decide which one is official. And the way bitcoint works, it would most likely be the one from the largest chunk of the network.

      But for any transactions with no double spending, it should be possible to pick up the transactions from the smaller part of the network once the network rejoins. All the transactions are supposed to be signed. And if there is no double spending, then once the signature eventually makes it to the larger part of the network, it should be possible to pick it up.

      Mining is similar to double spending. Thus any coins mined in the smaller network after the split will likely be lost when the network rejoins.

      Other electronic coin schemes are designed to leak the identity of the responsible person in case of double spending. But that approach wouldn't work for bitcoin as the only identity there is to leak is the secret key for a wallet, which by the time double spending is noticed might already be empty. In fact if you are going to attempt double spending, you might as well spend the entire wallet the first time around. That way even if double spending might cost you the entire wallet, then that isn't any loss.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  16. Maybe a little help is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real story should be about the success, if any, in circumventing the blocks (not just in Iran).

  17. social networks and repressive governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why would you post anything on social networks if you lived in a country with a repressive government? It's bad enough in the civilised world, but if your government has bad habits surely you would censor yourself to avoid trouble with the authorities?

  18. history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, there was a time when the Chinese government blocked opium, too, and look what happened.

    1. Re:history repeats by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But back then someone had an interest of this not happening. What's the world's interest in the Iran not blocking VPN?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you are not cosidering us iranians part of your "world"?

    3. Re:history repeats by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The Chinese blocking the Opium import led to the Opium war between China and the British Empire. I kinda doubt the US start a war over the Iran blocking VPNs. Right now it would seem they'd rather go "hey, good idea".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by julian67 · · Score: 2

    Arabic? Iranians aren't Arabs. Their language is Farsi which, unlike Arabic, is one of the Indo-European languages.

    Your a,b,c conjectures are equally unrelated to anything factual or likely.

  20. Persian Spring by Skapare · · Score: 1

    They are probably sniffing every network connection for that string (in multiple languages). Spring is just a few weeks away.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  21. Bing ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the boys and girls at M$ are still up to no good. Typical.

  22. Anyone Know Which VPN Types are Blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that China successfully blocks OpenVPN servers after a week or two once the DPI sniffs them out, but PPTP has been going strong for my China friends for many months. I hear that in China, L2TP\IPSec also does well but haven't confirmed that this is still true or not.

    Does anyone have any idea if any of the major VPN types (OpenVPN, PPTP, or L2TP\IPSec) are all actively being blocked by Iran or only specific protocol ones like China?

  23. I believe that is the point. by onyxruby · · Score: 2

    Their has been talk in the news about Iran building a giant Iran wide Intranet just for their own use. This would help ease the transition into their Intranet by removing the appeal and usability of the Internet. Effectively cutting their people off without actually cutting people off would probably fit very well in their political landscape.

    1. Re:I believe that is the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could achieve this by flipping what private and routable addresses are in IPv4. Then they will truly be cut off from the rest of the world. Maybe they can export that to other OIC countries so that things like the Mohammed movie on the internet will be impossible to view for their citizens

    2. Re:I believe that is the point. by onyxruby · · Score: 2

      They could achieve it by cutting the cables or any number of other technical means. For political purposes they need to first degrade the experience to make it less valuable for their citizens. By removing the ability to have privacy, Google and other feature that they don't want their citizens to have access to they diminish the value of the Internet before flipping the switch.

      What they don't want is their own Arab spring, something are keenly aware of (is anyone better at stirring up dissonance in the middle east than Iran?). So far the track record for Muslim countries that have cut of the Internet and face revolution is pretty damn high. While cutting off the Internet is hardly causation many of their citizens would simply assume that it meant that it was time for their revolution to start. They have huge internal strife right now and have to be very careful about how far and how quickly they push their citizens.

      I have no doubt they will cut off the Internet in some kind of technical fashion within the next 18 months. However I don't think they are going to do so before making the Internet suck so bad that nobody will miss it.

    3. Re:I believe that is the point. by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      Of course the won't have Arab spring, they aren't Arabs.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    4. Re:I believe that is the point. by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I can't argue the point about their not being Arabs any more than someone from Turkey. The Arab spring is a regional concept more than an ethnic one though. My fundamental point about regional instability and people rising up against oppressive governments stands though.

    5. Re:I believe that is the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran is not like North Korea. It has good relations with several countries and it would be very hard and costly to manage such a complex, non-autonomous system for authorized links to outside their borders. They're fooling themselves if they can truly have a secure intranet.

  24. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft doesn't have a large number of employees in Iran, thus not much Bing traffic.

  25. Which VPN types are being actively blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this like China where pretty much only the OpenVPN type servers (including those running on standard ports) are eventually detected through Deep Packet Inspection but the other types of VPN (like PPTP) can still make it out? Are we talking just port blocking here or is DPI involved too? I would be interested in hearing from our Iranian friends which of the following are actively being blocked by the government successfully:

    - OpenVPN
    - PPTP
    - L2TP\IPSec

    1. Re:Which VPN types are being actively blocked? by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Iran does have DPI facilities. I have seen them personally 7 years ago. It was around 20 Standard racks of equipment at that time (in the main site I saw). I guess the size of equipments has increased by many times now (to cover the whole country).

      But I read in a news website that they have closed VPN "ports". If that means blocking standard ports then it will be easy to change ports.

  26. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by cffrost · · Score: 3, Informative

    [O]f the three search engines only Google will actually use SSL, even if you go to http://google.com/ the form is submitted over https. The other two not only won't do that, they will *downgrade* you to http even if you explicitly navigate to https://yahoo.com/ or https://bing.com/. Iranians can easily use DPI to spy on Yahoo and Bing users, only Google presents a problem. So I'm not surprised Bing didn't get blocked, it's not clear to me why Yahoo did.

    https://duckduckgo.com/ and https://ixquick.com/ both support SSL/TLS. The latter allows viewing searched content through their embedded HTTPS proxy service.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  27. You gets what you pays for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    When retarded priests rule, there will be retarded laws.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:You gets what you pays for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      aka: "The 13th Imamaluke".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:You gets what you pays for by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Wait until the media companies force the same to the US (they will reason that people use VPN to avoid ISP warnings).

    3. Re:You gets what you pays for by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      They must have reasonably high IQs to still be in charge, and the law is clearly intended to help them stay that way; what they actually are is sickeningly controlling and unethical... Just slinging common insults like "retarded" reduces the conversation to the level of little kids that lack the vocabulary/maturity to be more specific on their own. Slashdot can do a hell of a lot better than that.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    4. Re:You gets what you pays for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They must have reasonably high IQs to still be in charge

      You think the Kim's in North Korea have "reasonably high IQs"?

      Anyway, I didn't necessarily mean intellectually retarded.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  28. Wow. Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. They banned Yahoo! I'm surprised they even bothered. That's gotta make the Yahoos pretty happy. Mayer's comeback plans for YHOO have clearly got somebody's attention.

  29. I thought living in Iran couldn't get any worse... by arob28 · · Score: 1

    But now they're stuck using Bing?

  30. Slashdot Alert. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    timothy has learned the expression "taking a page form X's playbook". Slashdot readers with a low tolerance for repeated idioms are advised to add a two-week block to their cringe-safe filters.

  31. why live there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    honestly.. what is the point of even living there anymore

  32. No Google? by tomofumi · · Score: 1

    So that means no Android phones in use in Iran? Or they just use the phones in offline mode? ;)

    1. Re:No Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sad truth is lots of people have android phones in here (Iran), but there is no phone network internet access at all (well except shitty and expensive GPRS) to raise the question of which sites are not filtered. also if you manage to use wifi, google and other service providers will ban you from services (like market).

  33. So, its the same as the rest of the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They block shit here too (EU) because it is "illegal" information, TPB and others. And they plan to do it even more (total porn ban in the EU). What is really the difference? The people in power decide what information the "masses" can handle and what they should be allowed to access... People rip on Iran and china but it is the same all over. (to varying degree)

  34. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arab are people from a certain part of the world, Farsi is a language. One does not effect the other. I am from Sweden; If I taught my children to only speak American English would that make them American?

  35. Not entirely by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://nos.nl/artikel/483130-ahmadinejad-onder-vuur-om-knuffel.html

    For those unfortunate enough not to be Dutch, the article claims Ahmadinejad is under attack from the religious leadership for hugging/comforting the wife of Chavez. In Islam, touching women is forbidden, unlike say goats. Not even the president, acting in an world with many cultures escapes this. There are of course many rules which only apply to the ruled but some dictatorships manage to suppress everyone, except those who like the suppression.

    NK is rather famous for going after even Generals who don't show the right amount of grieve. There are systems where even the holiest are not immune to the system.

    This is not saying these systems are nice but to understand them, you need to understand that the idea of the evil overlord at the top controlling all is best left to the movies. Most of these systems have become self perpetuting, it is the system that rules the people, not people. Of course, the system is people in the end but what I mean is that those doing the dictating are just as much dictated as the rest. That is why these systems endure for so long. Because if one leader should falter, the system simply replaces him or pulls him back in line. Dictators change, the system endures. And it isn't creepy guys meeting in secret, it is grannies who spy on their neighbors and are first in line at the stonings. That is why the west has been unable to "liberate" Iraq or Afghanistan. Because they shot the "leaders" who are just puppets of the systems and left the grannies who tell their grandsons they will go to heaven and stone their granddaughters for not obeying their grandmothers little empires, alone.

    Want to fix the world? Kill the people behind the curtains watching and reporting.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Islam, touching women is forbidden, unlike say goats.

      Wow, what do you have in your skull?

    2. Re:Not entirely by flyingfsck · · Score: 0

      Yup, the only way to fix a religious dictatorship is to nuke the whole country. While there is a single stone left that hasn't been pulverized the whole mess will just re-invent itself again.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dictatorships only bother people inside their own countries. Totalitarian warmonger countries like the US affect and ruin the whole world. By your logic, how about we start from the US?

    4. Re:Not entirely by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      No, you're much better off targetting Isfake first.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    5. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That won't help since it isn't where the problem lies. That is why so many anti-Semitic areas turn into or are hellholes - people there don't address the real problems but go after scapegoats, like the Jews, and now the Americans. If your country doesn't fix the sewers, it doesn't make sense to blame the stink on the Jews, but people engage in that sort of stupidity.

    6. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unfortunate enough not to be Dutch" - please check your Dutch arrogance at the door.

    7. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In truth, he's talking about the same thing.

    8. Re:Not entirely by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Goatse. Ain't it obvious?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those dictatorships like:

      Saddam Hussein who attacked Iran and Kuwait.
      Pol Pot who attacked Vietnam
      Stalin who attacked Finland before WWII

      History is full of examples of dictators who attack other countries. I know you're just trolling, but could you at least try a little harder?

    10. Re:Not entirely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America a scapegoat? Yes, poor "innocent" America.

    11. Re:Not entirely by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's what the Poles said in 1939. And the Austrians in 1809. Et cetera.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Not entirely by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yup, the only way to fix a religious dictatorship is to nuke the whole country.

      So ... starting with Kansas, Louisiana, or Texas?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Not entirely by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Hmm...the website offers you a cookie if you'll learn to speak freaky deaky dutch. :D

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  36. Keep up the censorship bashing already by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny, I was under the impression that a large majority of Slashdot participants were in favor of unfettered communications and against censorship, especially when it comes to the Internet. There is a story category named "Your Rights Online." Should it be renamed to "Your Rights Online Unless You Live In A Country The US Considers Bad, In Which Case We'll Pretend Everything Is OK"?

    Censorship should be criticized, whoever does it and wherever it is done, period.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    1. Re:Keep up the censorship bashing already by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It was actually named that way, but it didn't fit into the subject line.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh shut up already. I am not Iranian. But I know that Arab people are those that descended from the nomadic tribes that existed in the Middle East. Iranians on the other hand are descended from Persians/Babylonians. They are not ethnically the same people, culture or language group. So if you are Swedish, then you are geographically almost in the Arctic region - doesn't make you an Eskimo, does it?

  38. Almost by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You are close but you keep getting stuck in the Hollywood idea of a super villain at the top controlling everyone. So nice isn't it that when Palpatine went down the drains, the empire just collapsed and the day was won and good triumphed? All those generals and moffs and whatnot were just under the control of this Sith and just gave up their power. All those officers, sergeants and even corporals just gave up their little empires and went for democracy and freedom because that is what people do. NOT!

    In Europe it is rather easy to meet people who lived under such systems, the German re-unification makes those stories very easily accesible. And the Stazi was NOT the government, it was the people. Who betrayed Anne Frank? There are three suspects and none of them are important, they were just little petty minded people looking out for number 1.

    Who does the controlling? Who throws the first stone? Who votes in the council of village elders? Nobodies controlling tiny empires nobody cares about except them and which they protect with a fierceness that no emperor has ever shown protecting his empire. Ghengis Khan knew about mercy. A grandmother throwing stones does not. It is here that oppressive regimes find power. Not in the ruthlessness of the overlord but in how well he manages to get little people to have a tiny amount of power they will not let go off. It is the commisar approach, the slave with a whip, the zulus. A commisar has no real power but he has more then those below him and he will see to it that it stays that way, no matter how miserable he is, he will make sure others stay more miserable. No beating of a slave will be more savage then that by another slave who knows the whip he is holding might well be applied to his back if he doesn't keep his position of power save. The Zulus are blacks who happily sat in between the whites in south africa and other black populations, happily helping suppress the NCA (Nelson Mandela's party) in exchange for a slightly better position in the hierachy. Brown people, like Indonesians are not well liked by white supremacists either but they made an existence in South Africa by not being as black as the blacks.

    GUESS how these groups reacted to the end of apartheid, to the end of their little empires of misery?

    That is why change ultimately always has to come from within. Because Afghanistan isn't just war lords, it is the grannies controlling their families because without that control... actually it doesn't matter what they WOULD lose, it matters that they prefer the world as it is over a new world and will do ANYTHING to stop it. It is no different then a manager stopping the promotion of an underling because if HE doesn't get to go up, nobody does. Remember who circumcises little girls. It ain't men in black vans, it is mothers and grandmothers whose mothers and grandmothers did it to them and damn if they are going to change things. Quite recent a woman was burned alive for "witchcraft". LOOK at the vidoes of the people. There are no overlords, no shadow governments, not one single person who could die at the end of the movie and everything will be alright. Every single person there is the evil overlord in their own little world.

    You can see it in Republican senators who benefitted from government handouts and so they don't want anyone else to have the benefits they have.

    Remember that research recently that showed those leaning to the right feared change? Well that fear is what creates stagnation. It has been shown time and time again that people CAN overcome, can rebel, can overcome evil governments BUT the desire to keep the status quo by the other half is far more powerful then any army a dictator can wield.

    Hell, revolutions only "work" if the people in the army, from the private to the general, decides that the opportunities in a new world are better then the little power they got in the old one. You can see this quite clearly in the "arab spring". Many a general switches side but keeps his troops. Exchanging one

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A disturbing but almost certainly accurate summing up of things.

      To use another example, look the the Catholic sex abuse in Ireland. This wasn't a cowered population, powerless to stop these abuses; the state was complicit, as were ordinary people who ignored or actively aided the abusers. They'd rather support their nonce of a priest than risk the wrath of Rome, who among other things, could deny them their eternity in Happy Land. The Church was the defacto ruling party, and its clerics the party reps who could bring ruination down on anyone who crossed them. They had broad support, and no shortage of people willing to fuck-over their neighbours if it would earn favour with the clergy.

    2. Re:Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Just because your priest was a pedophile doesn't mean you knew he was one. Also, just because he was a pedophile doesn't mean he was diddling you or your kids.

      This was a problem because those who were abused were abused a) by people who are in a position of high moral responsibility and b) more to the point, the hierarchy covered it up. If someone told me that Father Whoever was trying to get it on with their son, I would certainly want some proof of that accusation, but no more so than I'd want it for anyone. It's a serious accusation, and it demands proof. If they could not provide it, I certainly wouldn't berate them for it, but I would expect that it be dealt with by competent authorities like the police.

      If I actually knew my priest was doing this, I'd call for his removal immediately. And certainly he should be jailed. The fact that the Church hierarchy determines doctrine does not mean they can violate it themselves. There is no advantage to me or anyone else by currying favor with a priest, except in that by aiding them with their proper duties, you're following your religion. I have never been taught as a Catholic that priests make the rules. At best, they clarify them, but they can't make sexual abuse "okay". I don't think you truly appreciate the extent to which you can hide people who do this stuff from the general population when you are in the hierarchy.

  39. Nothing new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how many Governments throughout the western world have so far censored websites e.g Pirate Bay. Seems that Governments across the world like spoiling everybodys fun!

  40. Re:They're all crappy websites, the Iranians lose by wmac1 · · Score: 1

    Blocking Facebook is indeed good for countries, universities and companies. Wherever I go in our university (libraries, computer labs, ...) most of the students are wasting their time on Facebook and similar websites.

    If Facebook was available 2000 years ago, we possibly would raid donkeys now and newton was updating his Facebook status instead of doing research.

  41. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bing is the 28th most visited website in Iran. Google and Yahoo are the two highest.

    http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/IR

    And I see the website I created a few years ago stands at 13th. I was forced to sell it for $4000 (with 50,000 members) because I was fearing they might block it and I get nothing. Last year a company wanted to buy it from current owners for $7 million (with 1.2 million members).

    Btw I am struggling to earn money to finish my PhD in another country now.

  42. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much confusion because of the similarity of the Persian alphabet with the Arabic alphabet.
    The Persian alphabet is based on the Arabic one but contains major changes.
    In turn the Persian alphabet is the base of the Urdu alphabet used in India.

    I think it a limited amount of confusion between them be tolerated, i.e. it can be said that in Iran they use the "Arabic alphabet",
    although it isn't technically true. The reason I think it's tolerable is that it describes the most important characteristics of the script:

    1) right to left
    2) ligatures
    3) letter shapes change whether they are in the initial, median of final position
    4) usually vowels are not written
    5) words are separated by spaces

    So it clearly defines a family of scripts that share a lot of things.

    Most of the peculiarities of the script are handled by the OS, input layer and font renderer.
    A given website (like a web engine) that receives a query written in an arabic script will just contain a sequence of characters
    in natural order (let's say utf-8). Text direction switching marks can be mostly be ignored for the purpose of parsing the text I guess.

    However the index must take care of the optional vowel issue, with appropriate stemming and synonym expansion, and this could affect index
    precision in a noticeable way if the search engine doesn't have specific support for the language

    This has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people using this script, any mention of that implies serious lack of education so often
    associated with the the american middle class, although I ensure you that I found equally ignorant people in other parts of the world.

  43. Unless he will send plagues because they didn't... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    God can see what's in the VPN -- he doesn't need power- hungry mens' "help".

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  44. Re:They're all crappy websites, the Iranians lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blocking Facebook is indeed good for countries, universities and companies. Wherever I go in our university (libraries, computer labs, ...) most of the students are wasting their time on Facebook and similar websites.

    If Facebook was available 2000 years ago, we possibly would raid donkeys now and newton was updating his Facebook status instead of doing research.

    Accounts of Newton's life would suggest otherwise. His was a very interesting and driven personality, which would probably not have been spent posting pictures of cats to Facebook. The fact is the majority of people, in any age, spent day-to-day life engaged in activities that in the grand scheme of things would be pretty mundane.

    What else would these students being being if not posting on Facebook? Sitting in an oak panelled study, dissecting the Brothers Karamazov? I'm sure in distant history there would have bee nay sayers bemoaning people wasting an afternoon at the Globe Theatre watching bawdy plays.

    Blocking Facebook in the hope of encouraging some Star Trek world, in which everyone automagically embarks on voyages of self-improvement, is intellectual snobbery.

  45. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by asserted · · Score: 1

    re: arabic vs farsi - aw, that's embarrassing. thanks for the correction.

    re: explanations as to why bing was left out - AC below suggested that bing was left out simply because it's just not popular enough. i don't know, it's still a major search engine which is bound to become popular real fast if it's not blocked when two of its competitors are. what do you think?

  46. didn't work entirely for Pol Pot or Mao, did it? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Want to fix the world? Kill the people behind the curtains watching and reporting.

    Hmmm...Pol Pot did as you suggest, so did Mao. When you attack the ideological infrastructure of the regime you are trying to overthrow, as you are suggesting, you leave a vacuum that has to be filled. If you can replace that ideological infrastructure with one more commensurate with your own, fine -- but you have to get your own in place and then protect it so that some other ideologue can't displace you by attacking you in the same way, which is where Pol Pot and Mao failed. The lesson to be learned from their failures? Control the sources of information about competing ideologies. Whacking ideological opponents was a viable strategy, back when suppressing competing ideas was merely a matter of killing the brains where those ideas resided. Technology (starting with writing, then the printing press, then radio and TV, and then the net) allowed ideas to slip from brain to brain faster than the regime could kill off the contaminated brains. Pol Pot killed teachers and parents (by the millions) and successfully inserted his own ideology into a new generation, but failed to keep competing ideologies out, resulting in his ultimate loss of control. Mao made the same mistake at first, but realized (too late, perhaps, but he did try to correct course) that keeping opposing ideologies out was impossible when you had over a billion vulnerable brains to protect. His course correction resulted in complete state control of information, culminating in the Great Firewall of China, which at least delayed the onset of ideological rot, which in theory would give time for the regime to devise a way to innoculate all those vulnerable brains. Iran is doing the exact same thing by clamping down on the sources of ideological rot. It remains to be seen whether or not regimes like Iran and North Korea can delay it long enough to survive, but I kinda doubt it, though ideologues in the US seem to have found a way that might work -- make it easier for your subjects to get the information you want them to have while simultaneously attacking the sources of information that oppose your ideology. Rupert Murdoch may be a multi-billionaire capitalist running dog in Mao's eyes, but he is Mao's spiritual heir none-the-less.

  47. private server space anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - find someone selling domains and a little bit of storage place
    - install an ssh server
    - route 443 to that server proxy (they can't block all https connections)
    - share it with all your friends
    - be happy
    - spend ~1$/month

  48. Next: Russia by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

    As Russian "government" is fond of Iran, China and Syria, this practice will soon be implemented there. There were already voices to ban "circumvention" of recently introduced blacklist, meaning ban of VPN, proxy, TOR and any other technology which might be a nuisance for the ruling criminals.

  49. Old news by toby · · Score: 1

    Actually the serious crackdown on VPNs began as far back as 2005.

    --
    you had me at #!
  50. In other news... by odysseus_complex · · Score: 1

    The Iranian government has outlawed independent thought. All citizens will be required to only think the phrase, "There is only one god and his prophet is Muhammed," repeatedly during the day.

  51. Community Wireless Network? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they all switched to building their own network and use something like wifi for long distances. A bit like what Air-Stream does http://www.air-stream.org/ then get links over the border. Also things like HF radio are good for independent long distance communication.

  52. Re:Blocked access to Google and Yahoo, but not Bin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im iranian and I confirm Bing is not popular at all here. from yahoo services, only yahoo mail and chat are very popular. all Google services (that have not been banned by google itself), are very popular.

  53. Sshuttle: better than VPN without VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle

  54. Use unknown protocols by Sami+Lehtinen · · Score: 1

    Or you'll simply create protocol, which is not known by deep packet inspection. Of course blocking this would require blocking all unknown protocols, which is naturally one option. http://www.sami-lehtinen.net/blog/simple-protocol-obfuscator-protoobfs-concept