Google Releases Software To Iran 286
eldavojohn writes "After working closely with US officials following the lifting of export restrictions, Google has announced that their Google Earth, Picasa and Chrome are now available for download in Iran. US sanctions once prevented this but now Google has created versions of its popular software that block all Iranian government IP addresses from utilizing them — thus satisfying the new restrictions."
Home of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.
What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.
Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Interesting)
I always love a government that tells me where I can and can't travel, where I can and can't sell my stuff, who I can and can't talk to--then proceeds to bad-mouth everyone else for not being free enough. Even when I was a kid and everyone was chiding the Ruskies with the "Papers please" and "In Russia you can't travel around or say whatever you want without government permission" I was stuck with the hypocrisy. Try telling the next cop who pulls you over that you don't need to show him your papers and see what happens. Try to take a vacation to Cuba sometime and see how free you are to travel anywhere. Try to export your software (or any other goods) to a country the U.S. doesn't like at the moment (i.e. countries who won't play ball) and see who comes knocking on your door.
Yup.
And back then things really were pretty free and open... Look at what we're putting up with today. You don't even need to try to vacation in Cuba to get an invasive search at the airport.
What if the Google guys legitimately believe that the Iranian government is running a peaceful nuclear program and is being unfairly targeted by a hostile U.S. ally (Israel)? Not saying this is the case, but shouldn't they still be able to sell them non-weapon/non-military software if they want to? That's hardly an unreasonable "freedom" in a country that holds itself as a bastion of both personal freedom and glorious capitalism.
At least with Google Earth I can almost see the logic... It could possibly be used for military planning or something...
Chrome... Umm... Maybe it's got some nice encryption for SSL stuff? Or something? I remember there used to be a problem exporting Netscape back in the day.
Picasa... I'm at a loss. What're they going to do, upload pictures of government office buildings or something? I have a hard time envisioning any way to use Picasa for nefarious purposes.
Maybe I would see it differently if the U.S. were actually at *WAR* with Iran. But if the criterion is "any country we don't like today," then exporting any product must be a goddamn nightmare for any international corporation.
I'm sure it is... But that isn't just a problem with the US. Every nation is going to use its exports as a lever to get what they want. And in order to exert that leverage, they're going to make things more complex/difficult for the folks trying to earn a living off those exports.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in order to be able to use a lever, you need some sort of fulcrum to exert the force against. So blocking exports from your country, in an age where pretty much any other country is capable of producing the exact same goods, is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. FINE we'll buy it across the street... The US is no longer the only country that has satellites in orbit, or even a GPS system.
Re: (Score:2)
You list different programs, and it struck me funny.
Made me think of the US running an app store, deciding which countries can get which programs. Not a good use of resources. Personally I'd rather they just say no exports to cuba, and spend that money on the app store doing something productive, like studying the sex habits of slugs after drinking alcohol.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The US has lost some freedoms, but it has gained others. It is much easier to be openly homosexual, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and one doesn't have to participate in school prayers.
It's selfish of me, I know, but I completly disagree with the implied balance of the trade off. I'm a straight, married, middle aged, white male and, while it is a step in the right direction for the Black and Gay communities, my losing personal security, privacy, and the ability to move around the country without being annoyed by whichever LE professional has a chip that day was NOT an acceptable trade off. Nor were any of the other various rights that have been eroded away in the name of "Security". Nor
Re:Cop (Score:2)
Right, that's the big problem with that rather aggressive video about "don't talk to the cops". If you beeline right for the formalities the cop will get pissed and cite you for something. From what I've seen they wait until they have a backup excuse in hand before pulling you over.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... yeah, it is. Somehow, "it's the law" is not considered a good refutal of a "the law requires you to do $X" statement.
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't see any difference between getting pulled over by a cop for a traffic violation and being asked for your license and registration and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?
Re: (Score:2)
In most states both are perfectly legal since 2001. Refusal is a jailable misdemeanor in most cases as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I must have missed the memo where a cop is able to stop you for no reason. Last I checked they have to have a reason to stop you, and "he didnt have his papers" doesnt really cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
Judge: "Why did you stop the man?"
Cop: "He had no papers."
Judge: "How did you know he had no papers?"
Cop: "He said he didn't when I stopped him."
Judge: "Sounds reasonable. 6 months!"
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
I was in some pretty heated arguments over it (my wife is now a retired PO of 14 years) when the laws started going in at the state level. 9/11 opened the doors to "anyone can be suspicious".
One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there. There was not other probable cause than that.
Also, if a PO pulled a car over and asked the passengers for their ID they didn't have to cough it up. That changed at the same time. And quite a few states enacted the same law.
It's unconstitutional (Score:3)
One local example (I'm near Houston) was a guy being considered suspicious because he was walking down a long road that people rarely walk along, never mind there was a sidewalk there.
In some places people have always been considered suspicious if they have a flat nose, dark skin, and curly hair. 9/11 or no 9/11, that's against the constitution. A police officer cannot pull a car over if there is no probable cause for it. He cannot ask for your ID without probable cause.
The way police officers routinely act today in the USA is like Osama has won. He has terrorized a whole nation for ten years now. It's time to stop that bullshit. Th only problem is how. Any ideas?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you were unlawfully searched, That's up to a judge to decide.
However, if a police officer wearing a uniform and carrying a badge wants your papers - you are required by law to comply. Later on, you can press charges if you feel you have been mistreated.
That's because police officers are entrusted with a certain power that allows them to do things beyond of what an ordinary citizen is allowed to do. Some of them might abuse it... that's human nature, and you should sue them to hold them accountable. I
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you haven't heard of the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy? It is clearly unconstitutional, but goes on anyway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-powell/stopping-stop-and-frisk-i_b_647298.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices [nyclu.org]
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing to show your ID to a cop who demands it for no discernible reason is a jailable misdemeanor?
Under what law?
I've refused to show my ID to cops, and I've been to lectures where ACLU and other attorneys explained to me what my rights were. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyE6_b_xJY&feature=channel [youtube.com]
The lawyers told me that the Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment are clear: A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you, and without that, you have no obligation to cooperate with the co
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it. They can detain you (on "reasonable suspicion") or they can arrest you (with "probable cause"); in case of the former, in some states, you have to identify yourself (verbally) if asked, in the case of the latter you
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/418803_videoside.html [seattlepi.com]
According to this one [wikipedia.org], 24 states have "stop and identify" laws. They all require probable cause, but POs can make that up on the fly.
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
"A cop needs an "articulable reason" to search you"
Yes, and that's why they all say "OK I'm gonna pat you down for your safety and mine, sir. Do you have anything on you I should know about?"
Their "articulable reason" is "Well you might have a knife and I don't want you to stab me with it. Yeah, that's the ticket." Since anyone wearing any sort of clothing could conceivably conceal a weapon, they never have to think hard to come up with a reason to frisk you.
As for having a reason to stop you in the first place, "I judged him to be acting suspiciously as he glanced at me and then quickly looked away while putting his hand in his pocket."
Did you actually do that? Probably not. and even if you did, it probably wasn't because you're doing something criminal. But it's your word against the cop's. Who do you think the judge is going to side with?
Plus you have to remember that there is such a thing as a "contempt of cop" arrest, where they put you in handcuffs simply because you pissed them off, whether you were breaking the law or not. It's illegal as hell, but they get to lock you up for a few hours (and of course once they arrest you they can paw through all your stuff either on trumped up probable cause or to "inventory it for later return." And most people, once released, won't sue because it takes time and money for a lawsuit that you stand a very good chance of not winning.
Re: (Score:2)
There are, but yet they're both still forms of "papers, please", and you pretending one isn't just because you happen to support it won't change that fact.
It's like how downloading an MP3 off the net and selling bootlegs on the street are both forms of copyright infringement: you can argue all you like about whether either should be legal or not based on potential benefits and costs to society and all that, but you can't pretend one of them is somehow *not* a form of copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
... It's like how downloading an MP3 off the net and selling bootlegs on the street are both forms of copyright infringement: you can argue all you like about whether either should be legal or not based on potential benefits and costs to society and all that, but you can't pretend one of them is somehow *not* a form of copyright infringement.
So I downloaded a number of MP3 a few weeks ago, from amazon.com where I'd paid for them. I was led to believe this was a legal purchase. Are you telling me that buying them from amazon is legally (or morally) the same as buying bootlegs on the street?
I wonder how amazon is getting away with doing this so openly?
Re: (Score:3)
and sitting a coffee shop and having an undercover cop come up to you for no discernible reason and demand your id and travel papers?
Funny, I've had this exact thing happen to me in California, except the cop wasn't undercover. I guess as long as they are advertising that they intend to oppress you that makes it okay, right? And before you think I am exaggerating, I am dead serious. My friends and I used to hang out at Denny's after we would go to the movies. We'd swap stories and tell jokes, but never got rowdy enough to cause a fuss in the place. Hell, the waitresses knew us by name and loved us. That never stopped the local police de
Re: (Score:3)
Two things:
1. Cops are allowed to contact you for any reason at any time
2. Cops are allowed to lie to you
One more thing:
3. You are not required to have a conversation with a cop
So the cops did nothing "wrong" in the legal sense. They beefed some youths. You can call that bad policework, and I'd agree, but they didn't break any rules. They told you you were required to show ID; that was a lie. You are supposed to know your rights and assert them: "Officer, are we under arrest? No? Then we have nothing to say
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he lives in Arizona. [nytimes.com]
Where any person must submit papers that they are a legal US citizen. We've joked with the Hindi Indians at work that they better avoid AZ if they drive out west, but it's true. Unless they can produce their green card or SSN card, they could be detained.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see it now:
"Rajiv Jain, while traveling to Arizona, was detained by the local police. Was deported to Sweden - claims he's not from there."
Re:Sweden (Score:2)
If they don't watch out they could end up in a Gunther video.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he lives in Arizona. [nytimes.com]
Where any person must submit papers that they are a legal US citizen. We've joked with the Hindi Indians at work that they better avoid AZ if they drive out west, but it's true. Unless they can produce their green card or SSN card, they could be detained.
If they are to drive out west as you say, shouldn't they have a drivers license? That is sufficient ID in Arizona, even an out of state license.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically this is true in all 50 states, but the law doesn't require that you be a US citizen. It requires that you show proof you have a right to be in the country.
My wife immigrated from Canada. She was required to carry her visa with her when she was on a visa, and she was required to carry her greencard (permanent resident card) with her at all times when she was a permanent resident.
Everyone made a stink about Arizona's law, but we're all subject to it currently.
The issue is that we have tons of laws
Re: (Score:2)
Except in most states you only have to carry the ID if your right to be in the country comes from something other than being a citizen. A US citizen isn't legally required to carry ID proving that fact (except in Arizona). IANAL and I may have accidentally oversimplified things, but that's the basic idea of how the Arizona law is different
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I didn't get that vibe from the OP and I dislike Libertards as much as the next person with half a brain.
The OP pointed out the hypocrisy, trade restrictions can be argued but are generally bad, being forced to show your license is a bit extreme unless you are operating a motor vehicle but travel restrictions just because someone doesn't like your form of government are just plain stupid.
My government (Australia) maintains a list of countries and even provinces and
Re: (Score:2)
Funny on that travel advice on Cuba... Cuba has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/articles/article/Cuba/Common-Crime-in-Cuba/241 [kwintessential.co.uk]
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html#crime [state.gov] (granted this one is from the US gov't)
http://www.cuba-junky.com/cuba/faq.html [cuba-junky.com]
http://www.havana-guide.com/caribbean-crime.html [havana-guide.com]
Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?
Capitalism is essential to democracy (Score:2)
Funny on that travel advice on Cuba... Cuba has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
Still trust your government to inform you about reasons you might not want to go to other countries?
So, let me get this straight: you do not believe what the US government says about Cuba, but you do believe what the Cuban government says about themselves?
At least, in the USA if the government says something and someone disagrees he can find a privtely funded paper to publish his version [wikipedia.org] of the facts.
Cuba could have the highest or the lowest crime rate in the world, it doesn't matter since the only version that will be published there is the government's.
You can have a dictatorship with a capitalistic eco
Re: (Score:2)
Are you honing in on one link? Most of the information is based on other observations of Cuba and crime.
The general consensus is most actual crime there is theft related and not violent.
Re: (Score:2)
you do believe what the Cuban government says about themselves?
Have you read parent's links? From the second:
Official crime statistics are not published by the Cuban government, but reporting by American citizens and other foreign travelers indicates that the majority of incidents are non-violent and theft-related - i.e., pick-pocketing, purse snatching, or the taking of unattended / valuable items.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Appending "tard" to words that describe people you don't like makes you look like a douchetard.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that there are no other practical modes of transportation in most of the country, purely as a result of government policy, it's exactly like that. There is no choice in the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds about right to me. Actually, I don't see any evidence that all this, and the cost involved, really makes me, or anyone else, any safer. Perhaps they should focus more on fixing the roads themselves. NYS banned handheld phone use while driving... resulted in a 60% drop in observed use... and no change in accident rates.
They sure were quick to point out that this, somehow, magically doesn't mean that the law isn't effective. The last thing we might want to question is that the law does what its intende
Re: (Score:2)
Herpaderp! I missed the joke!
Did he possibly mean that in the context of how Americans would make fun of Russians for something the Americans do themselves?
Re:Raaargh (Score:2)
Be careful. Someone might have a copyright on that spelling of Raaargh. The Gaelic version might be available though.
GaelicZilla!
Re:Home of the Free (Score:5, Informative)
apparently you are either woefully uninformed or have a very selective memory regarding US government behavior.
our government has tortured people to death very recently. some of them we knew to be innocent. we have partnered with governments every bit as hateful as iran to outsource even more torture (Egypt as an example.) take your strawmen elsewhere
Re: (Score:3)
But! But! Disregard the fact that Iran stones raped women, puts to death homosexuals, violently oppresses free speech and political demonstrations and has it's law system based on a backwards Middle Age set of moral codes, etc. Teh US has done bad things so it is clearly worse!!
Re:Home of the Free (Score:4, Informative)
given that the US is directly responsible for the deaths of well over 100,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years alone, i think that you are the one employing moral relativism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I acknowledge that the U.S. in general has more freedom in most ways than any other country I can think of.
However, There are a lot of exceptions, for members of certain groups, and it doesn't serve the purpose of freedom to deny our flaws.
The U.S. is a whole different world if you're black, especially in a part of the U.S. where cops regularly harass blacks. You can look up the Innocence Project for the names of innocent black people who have been wrongly convicted (I met one guy who was released after 15
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in opposite land that is what his "extremely flawed" reasoning would conclude. The fact of the matter is that Iran is one of the worst places to live when it comes to human rights and to try to make it that the US is even remotely in the same league truly is a bunch of moral relativism bullshit.
Ummmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?
This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?
Re:Ummmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
In recent news, the Iranian government have moved to telecommuting until they figure out what a proxy is.
Re: (Score:2)
In other related news, North Korea opens hundreds of Proxy servers for business hoping to get Iran's business.
Re: (Score:2)
In other related news, North Korea opens hundreds of Proxy servers for business hoping to get Iran's business.
Or....
Coffee shops with open wifi near government buildings see surge in Internet traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, indeed. Thus Google fooled the US government. And yes, our government is that easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?
This seems like a pretty weak way to get around the export restrictions and sanctions, doesn't it?
Like they always could?
Or do you think it was magically blocked in Iran?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that at all ... I'm just surprised at how easy it is to sidestep the export restrictions.
"OK, we'll give you this super secret stuff, but you have to promise never to push this button, or it becomes dangerous and we aren't allowed to give you something dangerous."
What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons? :-P
Re: (Score:2)
The last I checked Google doesn't produce weapons. The Iran Gov can easily buy maps that are more accurate than google's (I've seen plenty of mislabelled buildings and stuff on Google Maps).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not super secret. It's not really secret at all.
It's a fairly reasonable approach, considering that any mechanism that you could use to trick Google's new IP-based system you could have used earlier to simply download and use the software. Have you downloaded Google software before? Did you see where you had to provide documentation that proved that you weren't from Iran?
Anyone with reasonable technical knowhow or decent connections can circumvent export restrictions for downloadable software.
Re: (Score:2)
What next, as long as you mark it as "gift" you can send them weapons? :-P
Those are not gun barrels. Those are rigid hookah pipes with laser sights.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should have reevaluated the situation when the government agreed to the IP restrictions. In giving up so little, they might have given up too much.
"So, you'll accept blocking known Iranian government IP addresses.....interesting.
Would you consider a strongly worded restriction in the EULA instead? Or maybe a graphic on the screen that says Not for Iranian Government Use?"
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever who could have done anything against the US gov using these applications would already have done this by now. People are talking about proxies etc - can they proxy to a different country?
All they are doing now is to provide these tools to the Iranian citizens - which is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So, couldn't the Iranian government just use different IP addresses?
Maybe, but I imagine that the Iranian government might have some reservations about downloading and running this software anyway. At least until they figure out whether Stuxnet is built into their 'special' version of Chrome, or if it's an optional add-on.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt the restrictions were useful anyways. I am sure they could download the software with foreign proxies, or if that failed (it wouldn't) use an agent in another country to forward the program.
So I don't care if we poke holes in the restrictions, they are political and nothing else. If we could make them work that would be great, but realism must be recognized.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they could already do that, with Google Earth, et al, being available for download in, say, United States.
Re: (Score:3)
because international proxies apparently don't exist?
because TOR doesn't exist?
because satellite internet doesn't exist?
from a technical perspective, both the export restrictions and the amelioration made by google are idiotic.
in all fairness, they could already use those techniques to download the software.
Because we all know (Score:2)
Internet censorship sucks (Score:2)
Uhmm... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as they were ever prevented from using the service before.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no more of a joke than the previous situation of blocking Iranian downloads with a significantly larger list of IPs.
Re:Uhmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Petty BS (Score:2)
Block all government IPs? Yes, because, as we all know, thats so useful. Clearly nobody in the Iranian Government can figure out how to use a proxy... or... get an IP that isn't registered as owned by their government. Yes... way to go. Very effective.
Seriously, must we be the guy who has a petty argument with his neighbor, and builds 12 foot high ugly fence in retaliation? (and yes, people do that)
So there... take that.... nya nya nya. You don't get to use this cool web browser, unless you jump through som
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that'll work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with an ounce of technical knowhow already used a proxy to download it...the day it came out.
The phrase "a day late and a dollar short" comes to mind. As does the Catholic Church's forgiveness of Galileo.
Maybe these sanctions are someone's personal attempt to be nominated to the dipshit hall of fame?
-Steve
seriously? (Score:2)
Do we really believe as a country that Iran didn't have access through proxies anyway?
I find the whole "can't export 256 bit encryption" and the very laughable series of questions to download Oracle products comical.
Wow (Score:2)
US Sanctions once prevented nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to point out a few of things:
1. They have tried these sorts of software export regulations before, and it failed miserably before. ::cough::RSA::cough::
2. The US government pretty much invented the damned internet, you would think that they would know how it works
3. The insanity of doing the same, ineffective things, over and over again, is generally lost on anyone in government.
so naive (Score:4, Insightful)
This is either astonishingly naive, or propaganda. I can't quite figure out which.
From the US Government, I would believe naivete, given any of a large collection of equivalent moves that are demonstrably idiotic.
From Google, I have a hard time accepting that they aren't smart enough to understand the very many ways that IP-based restrictions can be circumvented by anyone more talented than a sixth -- no, wait -- fourth grader. This is Google we're talking about who have brought us a large number of amazing things that require lots and lots of smarts to implement, and "Hey Muhammed, go to the internet cafe around the corner with this laptop and download Google Earth, please, the US pigs have blocked our government IP address," is something that will occur to the people there. So, Google must be doing this with a wink in order to either further some political agenda, or increase their customer base. Since I am not aware of any political agenda, I'm leaning toward greed. Propaganda either way.
So naivite from the US, and propaganda from Google. Anyone have evidence to the contrary?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. The export restrictions are frankly ridiculous in this case. If they wanted to, the Iranian government could just send someone to US to download Google's software for free. If Iran can import centrifuges to purify Uranium, they can surely use proxies to download the software directly too (spoofing their country of origin). It's probably a face-saving gesture for he more "senile" members of congress.
Indeed, Google says they worked with US government officials before releasing the software with thes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would sooner believe this is just a palatable compromise to some govt officials. Plenty of people in the US govt know about proxies, since we, um, use them ourselves. But perhaps members of congress don't realize how easy it is to circumvent, so it sounds pretty good to them. So we get to look like we're taking a hard line against Iran, without actually having to take a hard line.
Proxies are a difficult concept. Taking your laptop to a different location (home, cafe, friend's work) is easy since, I'd wager, most people with laptops already do it. While laptops might not be quite as ubiquitous in Middle Eastern governments than in the US government, I'd expect to see enough of them to effectively neuter this restriction. And that's for the naive politicians who have never heard of a proxy. Motivated IT folks are another matter entirely.
I was in Istanbul (technically not the Middl
Re: (Score:2)
Except from IP address, do you know any other way to block someone from accessing your web resources?
Re: (Score:3)
But how embarrassing is it to how to leave the secure nuclear targeting center facility with cool security, fancy badges, and lots of plasma screen TV's, and have to leave to go to some random coffee stop to get imagery of Tel Aviv...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was already downloadable software. It's roughly as inaccessible to the Iranian government as it was before, but now more accessible to Iranian non-government.
Re: (Score:2)
Propaganda is refusing to spend time and resources on enforcing an idiotic law of the US government, passed only for political reasons?
Good fucking lord, the Google haters around here are becoming as bad as the "M$" crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe Google and the government are smart enough to realize that blocking Iranian government IPs is just as effective as blocking all Iranian IPs - in other words it's not effective at all.
Do you honestly think that if anyone in the Iranian government wanted access to Google Earth, that they weren't able to get it? There are a ton of responses to this very story about how one could easily use a proxy to circumvent the IP blocking, well guess what, that was also possible before.
If anything the ban was naive.
Re: (Score:2)
also google earth needs to be connected to google server at all the time so just downloading it from an internet cafe won't work
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Google has to follow the law, and so they are following it. I doubt they really care much either way - if the regulator says that some completely meaningless but simple to implement control is satisfactory, why would Google argue with them over it?
Lots of countries actually have these kinds of laws on the books. They're mostly a matter of national pride or sending a message.
I know a guy who was working for a fortune 500 company and was setting up a plant in asia. They had a budget code for bribes.
Re: (Score:3)
You're misunderstanding what happened here and completely missing the point.
The IP blocking isn't Google's clever solution to circumvent US export controls. The sanctions in question here were lifted by the US government, and the new export controls require this IP blocking. Please read at least something beyond the summary.
Second, the goal here is to get tools for sharing and communication in the hands of the Iranian people, to give them more options the next time their government decides to restrict acc
citizens can use but the gov't can't... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's make a huge assumptions that this IP restriction actually works...
What must it be like to download and use a piece of software that you can use but your own government isn't allowed to use? Takes a way some of the perception of the gov'ts power I'd imagine. A bit emasculating even. Which of course might be the reason the USG is allowing this to proceed. A sanction that is truly against the government, not the people.
Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.
Seems like a popular thing to do (Score:3)
Message on the roof (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you say "proxy" in Persian?
I think it's something like "traceable"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, i guess somebody accidentally the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound suspiciously like exercise, which I vowed to never do again.
Sadly, this side thread has Flock of Seagulls stuck in my head now, and I'm considering removing it with a drill bit.