Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Your Rights Online

Iranian Government Cuts Off Internet Access Again 374

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-i-wouldn't-wanna-live-there dept.
AlbionTourgee writes "It is reported that Gmail and Yahoo mail at least have been blocked in Iran, along with many English-language sites. While news of demonstrations seems to be getting out of the country, the government appears to be trying to prevent people within Iran from communicating and from learning what's happening. It remains to be seen whether TOR and Freenets can be effective to combat this sort of effort to block communications, and whether the general circulation of information about the protests around the world will help."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iranian Government Cuts Off Internet Access Again

Comments Filter:
  • by PLfag (1613207) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:39AM (#29490431)
    They have internet in Iran?!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Christ.

      You need to get out of the house more often, don't you! :-)

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Christ.

        You need to get out of the house more often, don't you! :-)

        If I was Christ I wouldn't leave the house either. Sweet Beelzebub just look at what has gone down in the name of Christ in the past millennium.

        • Not to mention all those assholes wearing crosses around their necks -- isn't that kind of like walking up to Jackie Onassis wearing a sniper rifle pendant?

          NOTE: This joke was created by the late, great, Bill Hicks and paraphrased by yours truly.
    • by log0n (18224)

      Time to stop dehumanizing our fellow humans.

      http://tehranlive.org/ [tehranlive.org]

    • They have internet in Iran?!

      Until recently. It was iRan, see?

  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:48AM (#29490557) Homepage Journal

    All they have to do is block the known Tor entry points or set up their own hacked TOR routers.
    There really isn't any technical reason why Iran couldn't stop covert communications over the Internet they could even go to a white list system if they really needed to.
    The only thing preventing is their own population. I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by brian0918 (638904)

      I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.

      People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...

      • by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:24AM (#29491037) Homepage Journal

        Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.
        You might have seen the protests on the streets a while back. I think you may be under estimating the actually people. Now the current government is lower than what I scrape off my shoe but I think the people are better than you believe.

        • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

          by kill-1 (36256)

          But you neglect that most of the Iranian population is rural and poor. These people voted for Ahmadinejad because he actually supports them with his politics. Another thing most Westerners neglect is the fact that the opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran after the Iranian Revolution and that he supported terrorist attacks on the US like the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

          I'm not a supporter of the current Iranian regime but I find it terrible how much misinformation is spread aroun

        • by Narpak (961733) on Monday September 21, 2009 @10:15AM (#29491765)

          Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.

          At least the people or Tehran, and the other larger cities of Iran, have a fairly high educational level. Though the large rural areas of Iran still have a much lower average level of education and standard of living. Consequently the people of Tehran tend to be more more liberal and westernised, while the inhabitants of the districts tend to be more dogmatic in their believes. At least this is the way things have been presented to me; though personally I have not visited Iran to verify.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jungle guy (567570)

          Actually a lot of population of Iran is well educated and some what more liberal than a lot of Arab nations.

          Iran is not an Arab nation. They are persians.

      • by Nadaka (224565) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:29AM (#29491117)

        I just don't think they would tolerate becoming prisoners in the their own nation.

        People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...

        Quite possibly "riiight". Its not necessarily the people teaching unquestioning submission that would tolerate becoming a prisoner to the state, its that those same people coming to power may use the state to force that unquestioning submission on others. I fear that America has far more in common with Iran than a lot of us would like to admit.

        • I fear that America has far more in common with Iran than a lot of us would like to admit.

          In one of those countries, common people are unable to determine exactly what they law says because the law is obfuscated by those who create the law. As such, the people are required to depend on a smaller subset of the population to "interpret" the law because it has been so obfuscated, telling the people what the law means. Those interpreters of the law change slowly over time, but ultimately they determine even what laws the other parts of the government can enact. Of course, those interpreters are d

      • by Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) * on Monday September 21, 2009 @10:41AM (#29492067) Journal

        People who preach unquestioning submission would *never* tolerate becoming prisoners. Riiight...

        Just look at the events in Iran this entire year! So many young students have died protesting. People as young as 12 and 13 have been killed by the government-backed militia. It's sickening that anyone that young has to die for their rights, but much like any country that wants a democracy, there needs to be dissent, revolution, and bloodshed. You can't have freedom handed to you on a silver platter.

        No matter how you get there, there will be lives lost. This theocracy has been going on in Iran for only 30 years, and it has quickly reached a boiling point with the people. Yes, this theocracy is a relatively new thing in Iran. Here was Iran in the 1970s, before the Islamic takeover [funnytogo.com]. The last picture shows you what Iran looks like today in contrast to the previous pictures, which were all taken before the 1979 Islamic revolution.

        In any other nation where people simply preach submission, they would have rolled over and played dead the minute Ahmadinejad was announced as the winner. The people of Iran have stood up for their rights and have been protesting non-stop since the elections. We need to give them at least that much credit.

        Keep in mind, all forms of weapons are banned in Iran, thus the people have no way of fighting back. They are simply too scared. The Government-backed militia has weapons and numbers on their side and they're pretty ruthless when it comes to killing people. This isn't some stereotypical Hollywood-made Middle Eastern nation where every house comes equipped with an AK-47 to shoot at infidels. Simply owning a weapon can get you into hot water over there, let alone actually using it against the Government.

    • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@@@slashdot...org> on Monday September 21, 2009 @10:24AM (#29491853)

      Well, as long as there is any way at all to get data out of the country, you can get everything trough that hole. It does not even have to be slow.

      If I have to, give me a day, and I set up a TOR router trough a (deliberately misused) obscure low-level protocol like ICMP or BGP.

      And if they actually block all communication, my last message will contain a encrypted info, where on the outside of the border to set up a can-amplified wlan router (of course still strongly encrypted), so I can do the same on the inside, and become the master tor gateway to the outside. The first I'll do, is agree on where to put more such gateways.

      Sure, this may be very dangerous. But I expect life in such a country to become worse than dead anyway. Why else would they block communication?

  • test (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tei (520358) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:50AM (#29490597) Journal

    well.. It seems tor is showing is usefullness for us, these that love freedom.

    maybe could be a good idea to start building a system better than tor, for.. you know, if theres something like a race arms, and tor is blocked / detected. :-I

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:51AM (#29490601)
    They are the Government of that country, whether or not we happen to agree with their policies. If they want to ban automobiles and have everyone ride around on horses, it is their perogative. We can get our undies in a bunch as much as we want, and hem and haw and harrumph about the situation. They are a sovereign nation and may make their own laws as they please. If you don't like it, revolt. Oh that's right, you don't live there but would like to impose your views and laws on them.
    • by cryfreedomlove (929828) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:02AM (#29490763)
      No, sorry, I disagree. The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator. Whether you believe your creator is God, Mother Nature, your Mom & Dad, I believe this in this idea with all of my heart. For hundreds of years it has inspired oppressed people everywhere that their rights are independent of the capricious whims of the current dictator in charge. The Iranian people have a natural right to communicate with one another even if their current turd of a leader does not respect it at this time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Pah. The US government didn't mind wiping their collective arses with "inalienable rights" when they coined the term "enemy combatant" and stuffed a bunch of people in that oubliette called GitMo.
        I think that the founding principles of the USA are fantastic.
        I also think that anyone who believes that the USA actually still functions on those principles is a deluded moron.
      • by BhaKi (1316335)

        The Iranian people have a natural right to communicate with one another even if their current turd of a leader does not respect it at this time.

        Of course, that is a natural right. Nobody should question it. I think the other person was referring to USA's big brother role.

      • by oodaloop (1229816)

        The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator.

        That doesn't mean everyone has to believe what you do, nor does it give you right to force your opinion on anyone else. The US was also founded on the premise that a nation should choose how to govern itself, and not let a foreign government across the ocean do it. So let Iran do the same thing and govern themselves.

      • by King_TJ (85913) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:11AM (#29490875) Journal

        This is true, but there's also a thing called "personal responsibility". The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.

        I wish the people of Iran the best in this situation, but it's really THEIR fight to fight. If there's a small way people in other countries can assist with technology (hosting Tor servers or proxies or what-not), that's great! But individual rights and freedoms are only as "valid" as one's willingness to fight for and demand them. (Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The United States has gotten itself into a massive debt (weakening its status in the world in the process), in no small part because of our propensity to try to protect those inalienable rights for people who aren't even our own citizens.

          If by "people who aren't even our own citizens" you mean corporations that the legal system has declared to be people, then I agree with you. If, however, you are referring to foreign aid you need to crunch your numbers again.

          (Even United States law recognizes that people typically have the opportunity to "sign a right away", if they wish to waive it.)

          Perhaps you should take an intro to U.S. law class. Signing a contract that negates an individual's inalienable rights is always ruled as an unenforceable contract provision unless specifically limited in scope and directly compensated. The most common example of a person waiving their

      • by ph1ll (587130) <`ph1ll1phenry' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:18AM (#29490957)

        "The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator."

        Unless you were one of the million or so Africans who were shipped over to live and die as a slave.

        Some perspective, please...

        • by 0racle (667029)
          Or Native American. Or Irish. Or Asian. The US was founded that there were inalienable human rights endowed to White, Northern European, Germanic descendants.
        • by Nadaka (224565)

          Given perspective, most Europeans/Americans at the time didn't consider slaves to be human. Of course they were later shown to be wrong. but that is besides the point.

      • All I heard in my head while reading this comment was "Americuh! F*ck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah!"

        The Middle East is not your playground. You are not the world's moral compass. We do not see you as something to aspire too, but simply another way of doing things. You're doing such a bang up job in Iraq and Afghanistan; Please, beseech your leader to enforce the indomitable will and unwavering ideology of Western Society on another Middle Eastern territory. They're completely ready to move away from
        • by Dotren (1449427)

          All I heard in my head while reading this comment was "Americuh! F*ck yeah! Freedom is the only way, yeah!"

          I don't believe the parent's post was really meant in that way. The parent was speaking more of inalienable rights that belong to humanity as a whole, rights that each of us would have with or without governments as they are completely separate and independent of government. You may argue that it is not on anyone to decide others have these rights, but I really believe living, breathing, eating, enjoying something, communicating with your fellow human beings, love, hope, etc are all rights every living pe

      • by cashman73 (855518)
        Yes, in the USA we do have certain inalienable rights. But also, if you read your history books, you'll see that our early foreign policy was primarily that of staying out of Europe's affairs and the affairs of other nations. In at least the first half of our nation's existence, we most certainly weren't the "world's policemen", and actually, our economy was more agriculture-based; we mostly wanted to tend to our own farms, enjoy our freedom, and let the Kings and Queens of Europe battle things out themselv
      • So then let those people move here so they can have that kind of freedom like so many Americans before them have. Oh wait, we don't want them because they take up our resources...
    • Sure, because all Iranians agree with their government, and no one accused the government of forging votes.

      I'm completely opposed to using force to change the government of other countries, but we have he right not to make commercial and other agreements (and convince others to do the same) with countries that violate our view on Human Rights.

    • Trying to defend your "right" to own slaves and lynch blacks, AC? Your bullshit version of ethnocentrism may be popular at Berkely but even Iranian citizens don't agree with you and appreciate the help and support of outsiders.

    • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:13AM (#29490905)

      They are the Government of that country, whether or not we happen to agree with their policies. If they want to ban automobiles and have everyone ride around on horses, it is their perogative.

      If we follow that logic, then it would have been wrong for Germany's neighbors to make a fuss about how it treated Jews during WWII.

      Are you sure that your policy is a good one?

      • by Dog-Cow (21281)

        Very few countries cared in the slightest what Germany did to the Jews. That includes Great Britain and the United States.

        I think most European countries were far more concerned about Germany's invasion or plans for invasion of their countries.

        • Very few countries cared in the slightest what Germany did to the Jews. That includes Great Britain and the United States.

          I think most European countries were far more concerned about Germany's invasion or plans for invasion of their countries.

          You may be right (I have no idea), but we were talking about what policies a country should adopt, not what they have adopted in the past or their reasons for having done so.

    • by Robert1 (513674) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:15AM (#29490933) Homepage

      Sorry, no. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Some things are morally wrong ABSOLUTELY. One of them is supressing your populace's ability to communicate. I'm sick and tired of people justifying morally corrupt behavior just because it's state-sanctioned. Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable. Denying them basic human rights is absolutely not acceptable. Persecution of homosexuality is absolutely not acceptable. EVEN IF ALL THESE THINGS ARE STATE SANCTIONED. I'll take that one step further and say that it is even absolutely morally unacceptable for a radical state to possess nuclear weaponry, even more absolutely morally unacceptable for such a regime to have such unabashed hatred based on another people's religion.

      The difference between a state and a mob is that one controls the military and one does not. Simply being a group does not magically grant anyone moral superiority or the ability to redefine basic human rights. Saying that its ok for ANYONE to do that is fucking retarded, and something that is continued by apologists. Your moral 'relativism' is the reason why atrocities like this are allowed to perpetrate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by oodaloop (1229816)
        Who decides what is absolutely unacceptable? You, or the native voting population? You may be surprised that Iranians don't like meddlesome foreigners telling them what they should do.

        Oh and BTW, Muslims think it is absolutely unacceptable that American women go to school, and since your argument is that foreigners know better than the natives, they must be right.

        Moral absolutism is complete bullshit, served up self-centered narrow-minded bigots who are unable to see things from anyone else's point of vi
      • Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable.

        By the same logic one could say forcing women or men to wear clothing at all is not acceptable. It's the same thing, except regarding different clothing taboos.

        That's not to say I disagree about moral relativism, just that one must be careful if they're making declarative statements. Are you campaigning for nudist rights?

  • Protests (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Drunken Buddhist (467947) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:53AM (#29490627) Homepage

    Unfortunately, given the current socio-economic state that the US and it's allies are in, Iranian leaders -- very possibly not being the caricatures many americans would assume them to be -- may be making a large bluff in this and other moves it has made. The US can ill-afford a continued string of wars in smaller powers that do not offer a consumer incentive; i.e. any war that doesn't have us retooling our auto companies to make tanks, telling our people that if they ride alone they ride with the ayatollah. If we're to go to war, it needs to be a manufacturer's war, not a war of attrition fought by a people that have sufficient stores of it's most important tactical resource (people) to not care about when it "wins".

    Iranian leaders, if they have any semblance of intelligence, knows that we cannot call their bluff unless a larger ally steps in and makes the war "interesting". For now, despite the horrible situation in Iran, the best thing that we can do is encourate the Iranian people, and let them know that their voices are being heard, that they have the power to revolt and change their own destinies. Most of all, that if they take the initiative, we will respect any free government they impliment in the aftermath.

    But we cannot help them with guns. We cannot help them with bullets. We cannot help them with manpower. Any fight we make on their behalf, is fighting their cause. Every bullet we fire at an oppressive Iranian government, we fire at Democracy. If we have learned anything from Iraq-ganistan, it is that a policy of policing the world leads to later generations of peoples turned from ally to staunch enemy with the memory of american guns killing their people outweighing the memory of american guns killing their enemies.

    May God and Allah see eye to eye in this conflict.

  • That's ok Google will just leak the contents of everyone's email to everyone else in Iran!

    What's that you say? Gmail is blocked?

    Missed it by that much....
  • We don't care (Score:3, Insightful)

    by petrus4 (213815) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:55AM (#29490671) Homepage Journal

    The only people who do care, are gullible, interventionist Americans.

    I'm fed up with the Middle East. The region is this planet's equivalent of a high school oval. It's the traditional venue that pretty much everyone goes to when they want to have a fight. There is conflict of some sort happening there constantly, on a literally second by second basis.

    These endless conflicts also are not ours. The rest of the world very rarely has any real stake in them, for the most part. Oil is about the only legitimate interest anyone else has there. Semitic monotheism, and who owns a particular mosque or church or whatever, is utterly meaningless as a legitimate incentive for war.

    If the Iranian government wants to completely exterminate its' constituency, let it. If the Arabs and Jews want to mutually remove each other from human memory, let them.

    At least if that were to happen, the rest of us might finally get some peace and quiet.

    • Re:We don't care (Score:4, Interesting)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:20AM (#29490983)

      If the Iranian government wants to completely exterminate its' constituency, let it. If the Arabs and Jews want to mutually remove each other from human memory, let them.

      I suppose that is the Iranian government's *own* right but it's not what the majority consider a global right and thus the concern. Do you believe that it's acceptable for the head of a household in the next town to kill all but themselves and one other family member to cleanse their household?

      While the majority of us would probably say that's not ok, I really want to know if that's ok to you.

    • Re:We don't care (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Warhawke (1312723) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:25AM (#29491053)
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

      - War and Peace

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MobyDisk (75490)

        That generally refers to the population of said country. Not people living on the other side of the globe with no stake in it. That quote should be directed to the good people of Iran.

      • Re:We don't care (Score:5, Interesting)

        by petrus4 (213815) on Monday September 21, 2009 @11:02AM (#29492359) Homepage Journal

        - War and Peace

        The irony inherent in this being quoted here is incredible.

        1984 mentioned the very concept of endless war which America's government has always sought to implement; and which now, with the War on Terror, it has finally succeeded in implementing. That book, which you are quoting from here, also laid bare the consequences of such a doctrine of endless war, at least in political terms.

        Yet none of you see it. All of you defend the belief in interventionism that you have simply been raised with, and do so with a kind of smug self-righteousness that blatantly ignores American history, and the grotesque acts of tyranny and mass murder which have been commited within that country's own history. (When the speaker is American, at least)

        The replies that I have received here would be laughable, if the implications, for a scenario where people actually believe said replies, were not so distressing.

        It doesn't matter how many of your own people are killed, Americans. It doesn't matter how much your own economy is gutted, or how much your own civil liberties are progressively destroyed. Every single time your government and/or military/industrial complex produces the usual lies about why interventionism is necessary, you take the bait as enthusiastically as possible. In the case of Iran, you're apparently doing it even without the Ministry of Propaganda's (sorry, Fox News') encouragement that you do so.

        I am tired of your support for interventionism advancing the cause of fascism, Americans. The problem, you see, is the fact that when you continue to support interventionism, the fascist consequences which occur in your own country, do not occur only in your own country. They occur in mine as well.

        I also haven't even bothered trying to address the insoluble nature of the Middle East's problems, either. There are two related ethnic groups there, (the Jews and the Arabs) who are determined to exterminate each other, and with whom said determination goes back close to six thousand years. If you really think that animosity which is that deeply entrenched, is going to be resolved in any of our lifetimes, then there is no appeal to logic that I can make.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DigiShaman (671371)

      At least if that were to happen, the rest of us might finally get some peace and quiet. ...and not be able to look into the mirror again.

      While their actions are none of our business, what does extermination say about humanity in general? Such as dark day is a black mark on us all. I'm sorry, but I cannot take solace in such an event. I truly hope I'm not in the minority in this thinking.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "These endless conflicts also are not ours. The rest of the world very rarely has any real stake in them, for the most part. Oil is about the only legitimate interest anyone else has there."

      I disagree. Because there is this thing called "history" in which both the U.S., Britain, France, the USSR, and several other countries had many decades (and in some cases a good century or more) of meddling invested. It's hard to say whether the countries in that part of the world would have been better off with or wi

      • by petrus4 (213815)

        Yes, it's very nice to suggest "hands off" or "let the idiots turn each others' countries into parking lots", but A) your hands were already in there decades ago and there is a certain amount of responsibility (hello: the Shah of Iran?), and B) your economy would go into an even more serious tailspin than it is now if full-blown war broke out again between major oil producers in the region.

        You are assuming, here, that I am an American.

        That assumption is incorrect.

    • Re:We don't care (Score:5, Informative)

      by kill-1 (36256) on Monday September 21, 2009 @10:25AM (#29491873)

      These endless conflicts also are not ours.

      You might want to read up a little before making such blanket statements. These Wikipedia articles should get you started:

  • Don't panic (Score:3, Funny)

    by oldhack (1037484) on Monday September 21, 2009 @08:58AM (#29490707)
    It's the routine planned Monday outage.
  • Don't Nukem! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MassiveForces (991813) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:01AM (#29490755)
    Why is this tagged nukem? Lots of Iranians are extremely hot, like princess Princess Jasmine from Aladdin - they are largely Persian. We have one at our lab and she says about 70% of Iranians hate their government but are being oppressed (people disappearing in the middle of the night kind of thing). They need liberating more than Iraq did (though that's not too hard) and they probably would WELCOME a liberation instead of blowing up! In fact that's what they're scared of most - not being liberated by America but being blown up by America because their government is an asshole.
    • by NYMeatball (1635689) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:05AM (#29490799)
      Don't worry, things labeled nukem have a habit of never getting finished.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by lupinstel (792700)

      This guy has an excellent point. The documentary film "Disney's Aladdin" demonstrated that Arab or Persian society is full of hot unwed princesses, playful scamp monkeys and personable genies and their madcap hijinks. Their society is so free that even a lowly homeless thief can become a prince of an entire country if he just trys hard enough. "Disneys Aladdin" did an excellent job of showing just how open and progressive Arab society is. Based on what I learned from "Aladdin" I would move there in a mi

  • by Punto (100573)

    how is it related to Michael Jackson?

    • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Monday September 21, 2009 @11:15AM (#29492541)

      Well, I thought your post was awesome.

      To the cracked-out moderators: According to CNN, Iran disappeared the moment Whacko died. The media was covering all the slaughter in Iran up until Whacko died. Then it was Whaco Jacko 24/7, and now it's back to the Emmys or the whatever it is.

      Or, for those with the attention span of a gnat:

      Hey moderators, I respect your decision and I'll let you finish, but Punto's post is one of the best posts of all time.

  • united states (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrSpiff (515611) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:31AM (#29491171) Homepage

    tell me again, how is this different than the bill to allow the president of the united states to "shut down the Internet" in case of emergency? or is this simply a case of different intentions?

  • by Ilgaz (86384) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:34AM (#29491217) Homepage

    Iran? The fundamentalist run Islamic republic has banned Yahoo and Google?

    Try this, a NATO member, EU member designate, secular (still!) neighbor of Europe and having actual part in Europe country, Turkey has banned Myspace in addition to Youtube today. Yes, Myspace, that "personal blog" or more like "music demo" site.

    Keep watching Iran and China though...

  • by nimbius (983462) on Monday September 21, 2009 @09:38AM (#29491261) Homepage
    why these countries have leaders that vehemently insist they have the best hackers and the best computer cultured cyberpunks in the known world, however actively block collaboration tools and sites that are used by practically all of them.

    im not sure the censorship is a huge deal, or not as huge as im being led to believe..i think its a self correcting problem. have internet, or restrict it, you will reap the consequences either way. If your iranian computer wizards hate your censorship enough, they will leave. If you censor your internet enough, you'll find your relevance and influence on the network as a whole to be rather paltry. Censored internet is a countries most apparent resignation to continue living in the stone age, pounding the drum to dictatorial policy that will never be considered compatible with the information age.
  • Maybe I'm an optimist, but uh...pretty sure we've been here before and censorship didn't really cut it for Iran's government. The Neda video, Twitter, Facebook, Tor usage, cell phones. There's just too many ways for information to flow from Iran (or Burma or wherever) for any censorship to really be effective. The best ideas would be cutting off ALL access, or white-lists, both of which create serious issues for Iran in terms of being connected to the world.
  • by Reservoir Penguin (611789) on Monday September 21, 2009 @01:09PM (#29494131)
    Some of the solutions proposed seem overly complicated, microwave links, CIA dropping wi-fi equpment behind the lines, wtf? A primitive HAM trancivier and morse code should be enough to get information out of the country.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...