Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Businesses Google Government The Internet Politics

Iran Blocks, Unblocks Access to Google 197

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can-jeeves-rise-to-the-challange dept.
morpheus83 writes "Iran has blocked access to the Google search engine and its Gmail email service as part of a clampdown on material deemed to be offensive. Hamid Shahriari, the secretary of Iran's National Council of Information did not explain why the sites were being blocked. Google, Gmail and several other foreign sites appeared to be inaccessible to Iranian users from Monday morning. Iran has tough censorship on cultural products and internet access, banning thousands of websites and blogs containing sexual and politically critical material as well as women's rights and social networking sites." That didn't take long. Iran has now unblocked Google claiming the censorship was an error.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran Blocks, Unblocks Access to Google

Comments Filter:
  • As has happened many times before, What starts as a simple censorship of a website ALWAYS turns into more nastier things while the 'people in charge' are trying to control the masses.

    How stupid are these governments - really. Do they honestly believe that the problems of their country can be solved by stopping someone having a GMail account, or preventing them looking up camel porn on google?

    Iran is in a desperate attempt to return to old school biblical times (great if you are not a woman - "Iran has tough censorship on internet access .... as well as womens rights") and are now clutching at straws - it can only result in resentment from the citizens.
    • I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government? I know, I know... the bad guys have the guns. However, if they can get the guns (and more importantly, ship them to Iraq), surely those Iranians who want regime change can take matters into their ow

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by kevmatic (1133523)
        Yeah, that's a great idea in theory, really.

        But, ya know, it doesn't ever seem to work out so well. I think it has some to do with the way the government handles it, and some to do with how the people inside handle it.

        We did it in Afghanistan, and it made a massive mess. We did it in Cuba, didn't work (I blame THAT 100% on the US government, but I doubt it would have worked anyway).
        Did it to a lesser extent in Poland in WWII, everyone ended up pretty much dead.

        It could work, but man, that'd be risky (what i
        • Isn't that really Stalins fault? I mean he did basically order the Red army to sit outside Warsaw while the Germans killed the resistance. He was just pissed about us helping the Polish resistance in the 1st place, not to mention the fact he wanted the polish Resistance dead. He gave orders that allied air craft dropping supplies in Warsaw be shot at.
      • is that iranians were more religious under the pro-western "decadent" shah of iran. because it was subversive to be religious. now, after the 1979 revolution, in a theocracy, where religion is obligatory, young people are less religious in iran. it's a theocracy! (slasps forehead). young people in iran are less religious today than they are in say, turkey, right next door, which is a secular government

        this should teach something the current crop of violently militant religious fundamentalists who wish to li
        • by witte (681163)
          >religion and government don't mix.

          Oh, but they mix very well.
          But the results are always detrimental.

          Religion worries me because it is prone to get hijacked by manipulative bastards for their own gain.
          • but you ar enever going to get rid of religion. so you have to get used to deal with it, and stop thinking it can ever be cut out of the equatio nsomehow. it can't. it's part of human nature. if you magically got rid of all of the abrahamic faiths: judaism, christianity, islam, ie, the world faiths with the most venom and potential for venom, all that would happen is other religions would magically spring into being to fill the psychological and sociological void. perhaps worse cults/ faiths

            so make peace wi
            • by witte (681163)
              Responding to extremism with equal extremism is.. well.. extreme :)
              And it will provoke exactly the kind of reaction that you don't want : further polarisation, more extremism.

              Instead, setting up conditions in which extremism cannot thrive seems a better plan : good local economy, good education that promotes independent critical thinking, etc.
              Why is this not happening more today ? My guess is that too many people derive their power from the current situation to the detriment of a lot of those they have pow
              • is not itself intolerance

                in fact, if you tolerate the intolerant, you are in fact working for the extension and deepening of intolerance

                society needs a muscular response to these militant fundamentalist assholes. there is nothing that can be won by placating them
      • by dbolger (161340) on Monday September 17, 2007 @09:35AM (#20636149) Homepage
        That logic can be applied both ways. Imagine right now, on Tehrandot.org:

        "I heard on Al Jazeera last week, from an American protesting in Washington, that there are a large contingent of the population is is pro-peace, and who are looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?"

        I'm looking at this from an outsiders perspective, but it seems to me that in both countries (United States and Iran), there are a reasonable, sane majority of people just trying to get on with their lives, who are being pushed into war by a vocal, fundamentalist minority.

        Rational people on both side look out, and see only the extremists. Joe Washington doesn't want war but everything he hears regarding Iran is negative - they want to wipe out Israel, they want to build nukes. Joe Tehran has a generally pacifist outlook too, but when he reads about America, it is usually because of attrocities like Abu Ghraib, or some other massacre. Time passes, and the crazies on both sides get louder and louder, while the rational people - constantly exposed to this propaganda, start to feel that even though they want peace, the "other side" is giving them no choice but to go to war.
      • by andreyw (798182)
        Heard it over NPR? That's some... uh.... alternative media source you have there. In other news, I've heard on NPR that Iraq had WMDs.

        You seem to have taken the bait for another mass hysteria effort that is aiming for an invasion of a sovereign state. Here, have a cookie.
        • by Billosaur (927319) *

          Gee... all the news outlets were reporting that Iraq had WMDs... I believe they got their information from the US Government...

          • by andreyw (798182)
            ...which made that particular bit (and many more) of information up. Why should I believe them about Iran?
        • You must be mistaking Fox news for NPR. NPR is pretty liberal, and would never report that Iraq had WMD. NPR doesn't have commercials, so they don't need to worry about "offending" their main source of income, like many other commercial news sites do. Your point about the news causing mass hysteria may be valid, but NPR is hardly guilty of being "pro-war".
      • by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday September 17, 2007 @10:19AM (#20636815) Homepage Journal

        I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government?

        Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:

        In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.

        [...]

        With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[73] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction-- second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war

        Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops.
        • by Deadplant (212273)

          Because their government, as awful as it is, stands between them and the enemies of their people. It just so happens that they know for a fact that the US and its imperialist buddy the UK have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be enemies of the people of Iran:

          I totally agree. The most effective thing we can do to help Iran move towards liberal democracy is to stop attacking them.
          I realize this is going waaay too far the current US administration but a commitment to adhere to international law in our dealings with Iran would be a good first step.
          That alone would rule-out "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes; something Bush has so far been unwilling to do.

      • by eyeye (653962)
        Yeah, Iranians want the US to invade them, nice meme.
        • by Billosaur (927319) *

          Strangely, I never said anything about the Iranians wanting the United States to invade their country. I said that according to the report, many Iranians are "pro-American". They would rather have peaceful relations with the United States than the current nuclear brinksmanship that is being practiced by their government. I was just wondering: if that's the case, why aren't they taking bigger steps to do something about it?

      • TBH it would be better if they were pro-west then pro-American. The problem with them being Pro-American is that when the USA bombs the hell out of them in the next few months the hard-liners will get more people supporting them.

      • Perhaps a lot of Iranians remember that the overthrow of the Shah, himself a vile, repugnant, murderous man, only lead to the installation of Khomeini, another vile, repugnant, murderous man. I imagine that many hope that their government will evolve towards a more free, open and democratic society.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WED Fan (911325)

      As has happened many times before, What starts as a simple censorship of a website ALWAYS turns into more nastier things while the 'people in charge' are trying to control the masses.

      But, not to worry, Google will provide the Iranian government a complete list of users and their searches.

      So, President Ahmacompletewhackjob can sleep at night knowing his has fulfilled his duty to the mullahs.

    • Iran is in a desperate attempt to return to old school biblical times

      Koranical times
    • by andreyw (798182)
      "failed regime?" - why, because your chimp in chief said so?
    • Iran is in a desperate attempt to return to old school biblical times
      I'd just like to point out that the Islamic theocracy in Iran has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. If you disagree, try reading the Bible and contrasting its ideas regarding women to those in the Qur'an.
    • This is a bit off topic, but every night at 8:30pm I loose access to Google. My provider is Comcast. I've tested it on many computers. I've also used a wireless to check it out on my neighbors internet access and it is only my network at 8:30pm that is locked out. I can access every other thing without issue.
  • Unblocked (Score:5, Informative)

    by gravos (912628) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:34AM (#20635351) Homepage
    Actually, it has been unblocked [news.com.au].
  • by ratnerstar (609443) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:34AM (#20635353) Homepage
    I think it's a great idea. After all, Google can give you plans and instructions for making a nuclear weapon! We wouldn't want that information to fall into the wrong hands.
  • Google doesn't have the bomb, do they? I'm pretty sure Disney does...
  • by dusanv (256645) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:37AM (#20635375)
    Censorship of Google is the least [iranfocus.com] problem there today unfortunately.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by JRGhaddar (448765)
      I can't believe you cited IranFocus.com That website is really questionable.

      http://www.iranian.com/Milaninia/2005/August/MKO/ [iranian.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fredrated (639554)
      From iranfocus.com

      "Iran should stop executing children"
      Bad, but we try an increasing number of childern as adults, and states keep lowering the age at which children can be tried as adults.

      "Iran hangs three in south-west"
      We are in good company here, not only do we execute plenty of people, but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?

      "Western countries on Thursday voiced concern at the rising number of executions in Iran"
      Didn't Bush and Texas execute a horrific number in his term
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Iran should stop executing children"

        I realize you're stupid, but execute doesn't mean the same thing as incarcerate.

        "but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?"

        No. No, "we" don't.

        I realize drawing moral equivalence between Iran and the US is what keeps you people going, but pretending what happens here is as horrific as what happens in Iran is unrealistic and intentionally inaccurate.

        Why do you go so far out of your way to make the things that happen here look as bad as what
        • by fredrated (639554)
          As I said in my post, in fact the key point of my post, something your pee brain was apparently unable to process, "Remove the beam from your own eye before worrying about the splinter in your neighbors eye".

          Another quote from the Christian mythology: "Judge not lest you be judged"

          Why is it that in this so-called 'Christian nation' that me and my athiest friends believe in Jesus' teaching more than the Christians?

          "Why do you go so far out of your way..."
          Wow, clicking on a link and posting a few sentences is
          • by operagost (62405)
            Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
          • by elrous0 (869638) *
            In this case I think the beam is in Iran's eye. Iran is actually pretty good by Middle Eastern standards, but to compare its human rights with an industrialized Western country is still pretty laughable. The U.S. is far from a paradise. But compared to a country that still follows Sharia, we're in pretty good shape.
        • I realize you're stupid, but execute doesn't mean the same thing as incarcerate.

          "The United States Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for offenders under the age of 16 in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), and for all juveniles in Roper v. Simmons (2005)." (source [wikipedia.org])

          Better late than never...

          "but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?"

          No. No, "we" don't.

          Actually, that one is true [wikipedia.org].

      • by dusanv (256645)
        There's a difference. US doesn't hang people off cranes in downtown (leaving them there for a week so nobody misses it) or force them to drink their urine if they didn't dress according to Sharia code or chop off their hands for theft. I don't support the death penalty at all (anywhere) but the fact US does it doesn't mean I am going to stop criticizing Iran (or Saudi Arabia). And again, US != Iran, as bad as the death penalty is. There's no comparison.
      • by stdarg (456557)

        From iranfocus.com

        "Iran should stop executing children"
        Bad, but we try an increasing number of childern as adults, and states keep lowering the age at which children can be tried as adults.

        There is no bullshit like this [iran-press-service.com] in the US, where a 16 year old girl is executed on "vague charges of un-Islamic behaviour." That is why people are so abhorred by Iran's executions.

        A gang of 16 year olds who beat a homeless guy to death is a different animal than a 16 year old girl who is raped but doesn't have 4 male witnesses to testify on her behalf. So let's not equate all "child" executions.

        "Iran hangs three in south-west"
        We are in good company here, not only do we execute plenty of people, but don't we have the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world?

        I don't know how you leapt from hanging in Iran to "incarceration rate" in the US. This page [amnesty.org.uk], though not about Ir

    • Yeah, look at all the suicide bombings and unrest in Ira.. oh, I thought we were talking about Iraq.

      Why is this not a big problem for Iran again?
    • I find it quite interesting that while Iran gets lots of flak these days for their Sharia-based legislature and lack of democracy and liberty, Saudi Arabia, where conditions are actually quite similar, is almost never mentioned. I wonder why ...

      P.S. Saudi Arabia actually rates lower than Iran by some standards: Example [bbc.co.uk].

  • At some point along the line we Americans got a bit funny about making fun of other people. Some call it political correctness, others call it cultural sensitivity, and even others call it complete hogwash. Whatever it's called in your neck of the woods, times have changed, and tactics for dehumanizing the enemy have changed.

    In the obvious run up to the war with Iran, it seems like the media is all too happy to paint them with the bigot, sexist, and totalitarian brushes. We are doing this with China. We did
    • by Sciros (986030)
      Okay so in other words you're not happy we frown upon what some consider ethnic slurs. Moreover, you think it's unfair to call Iran's regime totalitarian and sexist. ... What is wrong with you?
    • by mwvdlee (775178)
      It's a coping technique.

      Who would you pick on if you were part of a group of social misfit? The complete loners, ofcourse!

      So why pick on a country with practically no human rights?
    • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:51AM (#20635567) Journal
      Wow. I have seen a couple instances where you take fact A add it to fact B and come up with false conclusion C. This is another one.

      Fact A: The US has a history of stereotyping other cultures
      Fact B: The US executive administration wants to go to war with Iran.
      False Conclusion C: We are not allowed to paint Iran as bigoted, sexist or totalitarian.

      The fact that the US has problems does not correlate to Iran being pure as the wind-driven snow. In fact with all of our problems, I'd much rather live here we have the opportunity to fix our problems.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by neoform (551705)
        While you're right, the problem is that we're focusing on Iran because of the people higher up want war with them.

        Why not take a look at all the other horribly run countries in the world? China is acting far worse towards it's people than Iran is.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TommyMc (949670)
        Yes, but by not adhering to your "False Conclusion C", you're alienating the people in Iran who are reasonable and, being a part of their total population, who are in the best position to effect change.

        I was in America visiting family when the mass-media collectively decided they 'hated' the French, and between the outright bigotry of the right wing Radio, and the 'jokes' of the Television comedians very very few people actually addressed what the French government had said..

        It's like a positive fee

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by packetmon (977047)
      I'm just so glad I have 5 moderator points. Now I will block you before you poison the minds of millions of /.er's
    • by faloi (738831) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:59AM (#20635657)
      In the obvious run up to the war with Iran, it seems like the media is all too happy to paint them with the bigot, sexist, and totalitarian brushes. We are doing this with China. We did this with Iraq. Now, with Iran in our sights, they also get the black tar treatment.

      Oddly enough, I find it hard to be sympathetic toward a country that hosts a Holocaust Denial [go.com] seminar. Maybe I really am part of the problem.
      • by vertinox (846076) on Monday September 17, 2007 @11:53AM (#20638437)
        Oddly enough, I find it hard to be sympathetic toward a country that hosts a Holocaust Denial [go.com] seminar. Maybe I really am part of the problem.

        Actually, due to the fact that the US is partly responsible for the current Iranian government (Operation Ajax blowout with the Shah) I would have to say us Americans are part of the problem. We replaced a socialism sympathizer with a dictator who brutally ruled his people and then we get all uppity when he gets replaced by a theocratic revolution. Then we back Saddam in hopes that he'll take care of the problem and it all goes to hell.

        Things would have been find and we wouldn't be talking about Iran's nuclear program today had we not interfered with a legal election.

        Speaking of which, in theory, 9/11 would have never happened because we wouldn't have been arming Saddam against the theocratic Iran which later lead to the invasion of Kuwait which lead to Osama getting all pissy about American bases in Saudi Arabia.

        This is what we call "blowback". We've been over there for 50 years interfering, overthrowing people, supporting dictators, and selling weapons to everyone and you wonder why they hate us.

        I don't approve of Holocaust denying and hope that Israel will be recognized as a sovereign nation by all, but to say we didn't make this bed in Iran and share some responsibility of it is just not learning history correctly.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheEdge757 (1157503)
      Maybe it is all spin... but I still don't want my wife or sister to live there. Do you seriously think that Iran as a nation is not sexist? I have an idea, lets make Hillary Clinton wear a veil, and then ask her if she feels a sense of equality.

      Women are not equal under Iran's constitution, adopted in 1979 after the revolution that overthrew Shah Reza Pahlavi. The constitution mandates that the legal code adhere to Sharia law, the Islamic moral code based on the Koran. Article IV of that constitution stat
      • by dbcad7 (771464)
        Maybe it is all spin... but I still don't want my wife or sister to live there. Do you seriously think that Iran as a nation is not sexist? I have an idea, lets make Hillary Clinton wear a veil, and then ask her if she feels a sense of equality.

        Why do you want every culture and country to have exactly the same rules as you ? ... and I doubt you, your wife, or your sister have any intention of going to Iran or any other middle eastern country.. and I would question whether you have even been out of the US

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Supergood-ape (959376)
          "Why do you want every culture and country to have exactly the same rules as you ?"

          Why do you attribute an argument to him that he never made?

          "The veil thing happens to be part of the religion, So you don't want freedom of religion.. if it differs from yours."

          And if you're a woman who isn't muslim, what then? Is it still about freedom of religion when you can't opt out?

          So you don't want freedom of religion... at all.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by TheEdge757 (1157503)
          Yes, I'm speaking from the perspective of a person who has spent time in the middle east, and who's sister has actually spent time in the middle east. Freedom of religion? Why don't you try doing some research about the persecution of Christians in middle eastern countries. Or wait, how about Jews? Seriously, http://www.cnn.com/ [cnn.com] - Try it, it'll help. Now, I don't think that there are universal morals that everyone should follow, and that every country and culture should have exactly the same rules as o
        • by stdarg (456557)
          So if you criticize any single aspect of any culture ever in history, then suddenly you are saying every culture should be identical and no other cultures have any value?

          What's wrong with saying "Iran could have a nice culture if they weren't so sexist?" You are actually implying that Iran's sexism is their defining characteristic. Is that what you meant?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And if you buy into any of this at all, you're the problem with this country.
      What should or shouldn't I "buy into" in this case, exactly? The fact that Iran has a massive government Internet censorship programme, run by "Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance", which happened to block Google, even if for a short time? Or the judgement of this fact as one indicating the totalitarian atmosphere of the present-day Iran?
    • it's really this simple: make a list of your complaints about governments in the west

      now judge the government of iran on the basis of those criticisms

      in other words, on the basis of the principles on which you vocally criticize the west, you should be loudly criticizing tehran

      "And if you buy into any of this at all, you're the problem with this country."

      ok, there's a criticism of yours: the drumbeat up to war, the propagandizing of a populace towards conflict

      dude!

      ever since 1979, the government of iran has been on propaganda full alert about demonizing the decadent immoral great satan of the west. constant rhetoric, demonstrations, down with the great satan. all through the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s

      so on YOUR BASIS for criticizing the west: dmeonization of another people for a drumbeat up to war, on YOUR BASIS!: tehran comes out orders of magnitude worse than any criticism you could level at london, paris, washington dc, etc

      using YOUR RATIONALE, you should be 10-100x angrier at tehran than any government in the west

      so go to the front of the line sir, and hurl some of your venom at tehran, unless you want to forfeit your claim to intellectual honesty
  • by downix (84795) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:45AM (#20635479) Homepage
    The loss of information is a step in the direction of cultural collapse. If you constantly treat your citizens as children, you either a) stop being productive or b) get a bunch of very angry citizens.

    Iran, you might have a culture that demands things, but if you force them onto your population, you will create resentment, resentment becomes anger, and anger begets revolution. Remember the Shah? The current government is running along the same path, and will meet with the same end.
  • Is it just me, or would it be somewhat hard to implement a good block-nationwide accidentally on Google?

    If you have a regime set up for such censorship even, you'd imagine that there would be enough red-tape to make sure that such things don't accidentally happen. This is one of those things akin to the nuclear weapons being flown over the US that just don't logically seem to be things that within reason can occur by accident.
    Moreso Google has so many IPs, portals, links into them from Google Search on
  • I'm sorry, why am I supposed to care again? First, off, I'm not some xenophobic "woohoo my country is the best" zealot.

    I just don't get why I'm supposed to care about the internal problems of every nation on Earth.

    Did you know that in America [and Canada] that two responsible gay people can't live together without contempt, or marry in a willing church? Did you know we still permit affirmative action to take place. etc, etc, etc. How about we concern ourselves with our country, they concern themselves w
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706)

      How about we concern ourselves with our country, they concern themselves with theirs, and we're all set.

      "We"? "They"? I'm sure people in Iran read slashdot, in which case this article is relevant to their country. I'm sure plenty of people in Germany (or wherever) read Slashdot, in which case the North American stories, by your metric, are irrelevant. So, are you arguing that all stories which are specific to a certain country should be expunged from Slashdot?

      I just don't get why I'm supposed to care abo

      • That's hardly true and you were so wordly you'd know it.

        For example, in France it would be illegal for me to post on a blog "I support the Nazi party, hail hitler!". Yet here in Canada and the USA it's perfectly legal [maybe not acceptable but it's legal]. If the Internet is so "global" why is it not illegal here too?

        Oh that's right, because you're full of shit.
      • by Dr. Cody (554864)
        Whoa, slow down there... Slashdot has long since been banned in Iran, a casualty of the Goatse Wars.
    • I just don't get why I'm supposed to care about the internal problems of every nation on Earth.

      But then people will do "man on the street" surveys and declare "Americans is stoopid" because an insurance claims adjuster in Kansas City doesn't know that the current Vice President of Burundi is Martin Nduwimana. Don't you see? All this important and scientifically precise research must be done to paint the one of the most diverse citizenries on the planet as a pack of groupthink doubleminus troglodytes. Shame
  • They're Right! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brianerst (549609) on Monday September 17, 2007 @10:39AM (#20637161) Homepage
    I've got a stupid little blog that digs a bit of good-natured fun at self-evident research results.

    In a "recent" post [blogspot.com], I included a link to a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's not even posted to the blog - it's just a link.

    Well, hot damn! I start getting hits from all over the world, especially Asia. And what are they for? You got it - they're lookin' for hunky body builder pictures! And the first one was a Google hit from Alborz in Khuzestan, Iran looking for pictures of weight lifters.

    I actually have a (different) post on the blog that mentions a town in Iran by name (Masshad, Iran). How many Iranians stumbled on that post? Zero!

    Looks like the Iranian government is right - their pervy little citizens just use Google to find hot pics of buff studs.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, how else are we going to find that picture of Vanessa Hudgens... um, for "research"!

  • One branch of the government baned and cut off all access to Google.

    All other branches of government were suddenly unable to use the WWW/Google as a research too.

    Original branch of the government turns Google access back on.

  • Great article. Way to make a big deal out of nothing. I used to work for a university's IT department, and we'd accidentally block and delete stuff all the time. This entire thing is blown way out of proportion.

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...