Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Google Technology Your Rights Online

Iran Blocks Google, Moves Forward With Domestic Network Plans 134

Posted by samzenpus
from the keeping-it-clean dept.
hlovy writes "Iran moved forward with their previously discussed plans for a domestic version of the Internet over the weekend, as government officials announced that Google would be one of the first websites to be filtered through their state-controlled information network. According to Reuters, officials are claiming that the country's self-contained version of the World Wide Web, which was first announced last week, is part of an initiative to improve cyber security. However, it will reportedly also give the country the ability to better control the type of information that users can access online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran Blocks Google, Moves Forward With Domestic Network Plans

Comments Filter:
  • Hey (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjfowler (239527) on Monday September 24, 2012 @02:42PM (#41440659)

    I wonder how hard the Iranian people need to be shit on before they do something about their awful government?

    • How long until the first idiot shows up to say things are just as bad in the US.

      • by zethreal (982453)
        I'm not going to say that, but I could see it happening. All they'd have to do is tell people that it's to stop pedophiles & terrorists and far too many people would be perfectly OK with it. It's not that bad here, but give it a few years and it may get there... the only difference is that here we will vote for it.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm not going to say that, but I could see it happening. All they'd have to do is tell people that it's to stop pedophiles & terrorists and far too many people would be perfectly OK with it. It's not that bad here, but give it a few years and it may get there... the only difference is that here we will vote for it.

          Not even that ....

          Here in the States especially here in the Bible Belt, there are folks who vote on "Social Issues". And when you actaully listen to everything they have to say - get'em going and you'll hear it! - what they describe for what they want for this country isn't too far off from what is happening in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and any other country that has oppressive societies.

          When you point that out to them, they usually respond with "that's different".

          It's only wrong when Islamic countries do it.

          Bel

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by benjfowler (239527)

            William Buckley would likely be rolling in his grave, if he'd seen where the birchers, tea baggers and Koch operatives have taken the conservative side of politics.

            I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who look back with nostalgia, to times where the thinkers on the conservative side of politics could win people over with the power of their ideas and principles, rather than just mouthing cheap slogans and whipping up hysteria.

            Maybe I'm naive, but it would be nice to have political opponents, that if

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Bryansix (761547)
              Anybody who uses the word "Tea Bagger" is a troll. You know it stands for "Taxed Enough Already" right? The Tea Party at its core is about going back to the founding fathers and about controlling taxation without representation. What then happened was people infiltrated the ranks to sow discontent. I personally was at a rally where people who were obviously not aligned with the movement showed up with hateful signs. Know what happened next? They were thrown out. The signs were attacking Obama but the partic
      • 16 minutes and none so far. I'm genuinely surprised.
      • by Fuzzums (250400)

        Same same, but different.
        A government doesn't need censorship when it has good propaganda like "there is WMD in Irak".
        That would be a clear example, but governments all over the world do the same thing.

        Perhaps the question boils down to what is worse. Not knowing because of censorship, or being lied to by the government.

    • by ilikenwf (1139495)
      Are you suggesting a Cleavland Steamer?
    • Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:45PM (#41441593)

      They wanted an Islamic government, and now they have one.

      They got what they asked for, but not what they wanted. At that time, they didn't think about any back out or early termination clauses either.

      "Every country has the government it deserves (Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite)" -- Joseph de Maistre, Lettres et Opuscules Inédits vol. 1, letter 53, written on 15 August 1811 and published in 1851.

      • Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mr.mctibbs (1546773) on Monday September 24, 2012 @04:41PM (#41442433)
        They wanted a secular democracy, and had it. Then we took it away from them, and the only folks left who were willing and able to fight for self-determination were Islamist extremists. It's not the government they deserve -- it's the only option the CIA left them. And now because of us once again (Stuxnet/Flame), the Islamists have a pretext to restrict internet freedoms even further in that country. Way to go, guys.
        • by Bryansix (761547)
          That's one version of history. It is a version that quite frankly puts the CIA on a very high pedestal. This book offers a completely different account of what happened and comes to the conclusion that it was inevitable even if the CIA was not involved. http://www.amazon.com/Iran-CIA-Fall-Mosaddeq-Revisited/dp/0230579272 [amazon.com]
      • It's not clear that it's not what they wanted. Sure, many in Iran won't want this, but I suspect a good number of people (i.e. the mullas and hard line Islamists) will be more than happy to cut themselves off from the Infidels. Maybe an international islamic internet will emerge from this with Iran being the central hub...where no one insults Muhammed or Islamic governments.

    • by Dan667 (564390)
      interesting people don't say things like this about china, who is arguably just as bad.
      • I think it's got something to do with the fact that China's situation is mitigated by their ability to raise living standards.

        Credit where it's due, the CCP have done an outstanding job of lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty (or have at least been a reasonably safe pair of hands in a process that would have happened anyway.)

        Doesn't mean they don't give a tinker's damn about human rights, or fairness, or rule of law.

        A lot of abusive regimes scrape by, by keeping the good times rolling, and by keeping

    • by jitterman (987991)
      Not sure why you got marked troll. I agree, how much will the populace stand before an (or in Iran's case, another) uprising occurs? Syria and Libya should serve as warnings for Iran. I admit I'm not intimately familiar with all of the intricacies of the three situations; still, it appears that there are lessons to be learned.
  • Um, Iran... you're just plain being evil against Google's Don't Be Evil policy. I suggest we allow Google to commit one evil act against Iran with no Slashdot discussion in order to punish the country for rejecting Google.
  • What is wrong with Google that made Iran block it? You better have your own national Google ready to run in order to replace it unless you just want your population to get stupid.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @02:53PM (#41440843)

      what is wrong with google (in the eyes of iran) is that it allows for easy access to education. education is the enemy of a religious based government such as the iranian government. education makes the masses less likely to believe in religious doctrine.

      basically, this is the equivalent of burning the library of alexandria.

      • by benjfowler (239527) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:01PM (#41440969)

        The Iranians I've met buck the trend with Islam in general -- they seem to be cultured and enlightened people who have a lot of respect for education.

        This would present obvious problems for the odious theocratric tyranny they suffer under at home.

        Attacking education and the free exchange of idea is the old standby of reactionaries everywhere.

        • they seem to be cultured and enlightened people who have a lot of respect for education

          Yes, but unfortunately those are also the same people who tend NOT to be the ones with the guns and ammunition to change the policies set by the people who do.

          Makes you wonder what kind of sadistic fuck would come up with such a paradigm on purpose, doesn't it?

        • The Iranians I've met buck the trend with Islam in general -- they seem to be cultured and enlightened people who have a lot of respect for education.

          No doubt you've also noticed that these people mostly tend to live in exile outside of Iran, either as private businessmen or as academics in American and European universities. The intelligent and cultured people with the means to do so mostly fled the country after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and many of them haven't been back since. So the people that you meet are mostly not the ones who can effect any sort of real change in their former homeland. They're nice people, but any change isn't going to sta

        • by mjwx (966435)

          The Iranians I've met buck the trend with Islam in general -- they seem to be cultured and enlightened people who have a lot of respect for education.

          You should also try meeting Indonesian, Malay, Thai and Brunai Muslims.

          That's most of the Muslim world right there so you'll quickly realise that they are the trend and the stereotypes perpetuated by the likes of Fox News are the Muslims that buck the trend.

          Asian Muslims tend to be extremely moderate and well educated, not to mention quite friendly (as is typical of SE Asian culture in general).

      • by Bigby (659157) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:12PM (#41441131)

        The are specifically targeting Google because Google is not censoring their content. I held a couple shares of Google a couple years ago and censorship based on the demands of certain countries went up for vote. The vote ruled that Google would not censor their content because of governmental demands. This was specifically put up for vote because of their move into China.

  • But the effect of cutting their people off from the rest of the world appears to be the goal.

  • Ask Slashdot: Creating your own network.

    Hi Slashdotters, I work for the Ayatollahs of Iran. As you may know, we have decided to create our own internet, without the dangers of a free society like porn (seeing any part of a woman besides her eyes), pictures of Muhammed (Allah Akbar!), and Jewish influence (banks). I bought a Linksys router and am reading the user manual, however I do not understand how this works. There is a thin cable with 2 large metal sticks on one side. I thought it would plug into m

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      Re: the 4 ports. It's OK, without porn, jokes against religion, and banking, no more than four people will want to use the Internet at any given time anyways, so that'll be fine. Probably won't even have to set up timesharing.

      Oh and Linksys is unfortunately not CAMEL compatible. I'm not sure where you could get a router that is, but you can probably Goog... oh, wait, right.

    • by Hillgiant (916436)

      Only four connections? Just get a big bag of tee connectors [google.com].

      • When I go to that site, I get the following error message:

        BANNED: This website has been blocked by the Ayatollahs for promoting intolerance against Muslims. For attempting to access it, our Revolutionary Guard ninjas will be coming to arrest you, put you in front on a puppet court, and sentence you to death. To save yourself some time, you can always leave a loaded AK-47 in your doorstep and the ninjas will be more than happy to stage a suicide for you.

        Sincerely - The Ayatollahs

    • by jitterman (987991)
      Switch to Etch-a-Sketch technology. It's wireless and is guaranteed to only contain information your people already possess, with no outside influence.
  • LOL (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 24, 2012 @02:54PM (#41440865) Homepage Journal

    "self-contained version of the World Wide Web"

    You're doing it wrong.

  • IPv4 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2012 @02:54PM (#41440871)

    Is this going to free up a bit of IPv4 address space?

    • by xaxa (988988)

      Is this going to free up a bit of IPv4 address space?

      No, because the rulers will still want to see both the public and private Internet.

    • +1. This put a big smile on my face. :-)
  • by i kan reed (749298) on Monday September 24, 2012 @02:55PM (#41440877) Homepage Journal

    Unfettered access to information? How unacceptable to my locked-in dogmas.

    But nuclear power? That's a technology my stupid caveman government can support.

    • How unacceptable to my locked-in dogmas.

      as long as you let them run outside twice a day and keep their water dishes filled I don't see a problem.

    • by fermion (181285)
      I don't think this goes back to the middle ages. I think it is the way the modern world works. People want to be protected from things they disagree with. I think that if you walk into most any christian church, they will assert that web block, and in fact limit the information inside the church. They probably don't have a copy of the gnostic gospels, or Jefferson's bible, or even the book of mormon. This is how the world works and why evangelical christian churches are so popular. There is not a lot o
    • they're on a collision course for building nuclear powered datacenters.

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:05PM (#41441035)
    On a clear day, you can see the Tower of Babel from Tehran.
  • I'm sure many of us are very interested how well such a blockade holds up. Let them do their worse, and let the games begin. The first one to break through wins an iPhone and a stuffed Mohamed doll.

  • by macromorgan (2020426) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:14PM (#41441155)
    Will it contain blackjack and hookers?
  • by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:17PM (#41441201) Journal

    This should give Lynx a jump in usage.

  • It's not really clear how it is supposed to work. The article's descriptions are ambiguous. But it reminds me of the days when you could dial up to a BBS and then access the internet from the BBS server. I can remember doing that for a period of time before widespread direct dial up access was available. Maybe they will also get to use 2400baud modems to surf in text only mode?
    • It would work very easily. You just drop all the packets at your choke points to international lines. You capture all DNS requests and forward them to approved internal DNS servers, and voila, probably 95% of your Internet surfing populace now can only see internal Iranian servers.

      Sure there are ways around it, and the technically savvy will be able to scale the wall, so to speak, but for the bulk of the populace, the Internet ceases to be accessible.

      It's like telling your firewall to block all outgoing tra

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Monday September 24, 2012 @03:46PM (#41441627)

    Back when I was in college 10 - 12 years ago the internet was this thing that would never be tamed. It was the wild west of free expression that could never be taken away. Censorship would be automatically routed around and all was good. That was a common belief by many here and in academia. I had one professor, philosophy professor with an undergrad in comp sci from Berkeley back in the 70's and a masters in math, who thought it very differently. He felt by 2020 the beast would be tamed, the powers that be would find ways to regulate it and bring it back under their control. The genie, he insisted, would indeed be put in the bottle. Not only that, but it would be come the tool of easy mass surveillance and that the internet would be the end of privacy as we knew it. I didn't want to believe him either, but a decade later here we are. And it seems like he was more right than wrong.

    When China erected its Great Firewall it proved the internet could indeed be censored. Is it perfect, no, but it doesn't have to be. Just good enough. Soon a lot of countries were doing it.

    Now, if (and I stress if) Iran can create their own internal network and succeeds then it is the end of the "internet" as we know it. The world wide web will be Balkanized so that content can be better regulated by local regimes.

    • Back when I was in college 10 - 12 years ago the internet was this thing that would never be tamed. It was the wild west of free expression that could never be taken away.

      So, care to tell me what happened to the wild west?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's really a nice move from the Iranian Government and it shows us the way things should be handled. They don't like us, so far so good, they can block the
    western websites but on our side we MUST block any http request from Iran, and especially for these kinds of websites:
    * scientific : no scientific information must be given

  • A project that can be outsourced to China due to expertise and not just cheaper labor.

  • Where can I go to quickly buy up their IPs, I'm running out.
  • After all, they've just boasted of their DDoS attacks against US firms - I say let's help them with their "firewall" (only we'll make sure their government is cut off as well.)
  • ...and now Iran giving them the boot?

    Google must be doing something right! :-)

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...