Slashdot Mirror
Iran Blocks 'Illegal' VPNs, Google, and Yahoo
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.'"
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.
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
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.
Yeah if you lived in the Internet, how would you get back to Iran for food?
Let's see them try to block SSH and have a functioning internet.
The Tehran Chronicle article about this mentions recent bans on Facebook and Twitter, then has links to them both after the article...
If I did not know better I am not sure its really a bad thing
...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.
... Since they can only use Bing to search....
There are war mongers -- and then there's Slashdot,
and I for one would like to keep it that way.
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?
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.
You fail at history.
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
....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.
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...
There are hundreds of private ISPs but all of them pass through the government controlled gateways.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
[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
When retarded priests rule, there will be retarded laws.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
Bigot fight, woo-hoo!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But now they're stuck using Bing?
So that means no Android phones in use in Iran? Or they just use the phones in offline mode? ;)
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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.
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).
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
Actually the serious crackdown on VPNs began as far back as 2005.
you had me at #!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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."
"...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.
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.
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.
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