Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Plans To Unplug the Internet, Launch Its Own 'Clean' Alternative

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the good-thing-they're-not-western-imperialists dept.

Censorship 301

suraj.sun writes "Iran topped a recent list of repressive regimes that most aggressively restrict Internet freedom. The list, published by Reporters Without Borders, is a part of the 2012 edition of the organization's Enemies of the Internet report. One of the details addressed in that report is the Iranian government's bizarre plan to create its own 'clean' Internet. The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine called Ya Haq (Oh Just One) that is intended to replace Google. In order to obtain an account on the state-approved mail service, users will have to register their identity with the government." The "clean Internet" part, at least, was also mentioned earlier this year; Iran is one of the recurring champions when it comes to such dubious honors.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Please fix summary (5, Informative)

WhatAreYouDoingHere (2458602) | about 2 years ago | (#39632015)

the organization's http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.htmlEnemies [rsf.org] of the Internet report.

For those who can't use copy/paste - Enemies of the Internet [rsf.org] report.

We all need to be vocal! (3, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#39633209)

Thanks for that link, if people have not stopped to read it.. shame on you. If you have, welcome to the real world. The only way for us to maintain some semblance of freedom is to be vocal when things are being done to stifle that freedom. Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening. Sadly, companies like Wiki and Google can't do that crap every friggin day. It's up to us, the Netizens of the world, to educate and inform everyone around us.

I know, most of you /.ers do that anyway right?

off my soap box, carry on with your day.

Damn you Gore! (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#39632025)

You never should have built this thing with a single power plug! Redundant power sources I told you!

OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632029)

So then end up with a bunch of horny engineers that don't know anything.
Sounds OK to me.

Iran also announces new addressing protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632043)

IPv1, because there can be only one.

Oh, wait...

Conservatism (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#39632045)

... taken to its logical conclusion.

And the Iranians have only themselves to blame for fostering and tolerating religious and political extremism in their midst.

America, take note.

Re:Conservatism (4, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | about 2 years ago | (#39632455)

Conservatism taken to its logical conclusion

It's been my experience that it's people on the progressive left that show the strongest instinct to disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have. You know, total tolerance, except for the things they don't like, for which there is zero tolerance.

Religious wackadoos may have some born-of-ignorance cultural hurdles to overcome (thanks, parents!), but the supposedly very educated lefty progressive types exhibit a pretty disturbing interest in top-down, society-comes-from-the-government policies. Conservatives want less of that, progressives want more of it. When you see totalitarian operations like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., it's not the conservative embrace of a constitutional republic's checks and balances that come to mind.

Re:Conservatism (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 2 years ago | (#39632871)

Sorry, but in this case we're definitely talking religious social conservatives here. Now obviously the social conservatives in places like Iran are a lot more extreme than the ones we typically find in the US, but they're still coming from the conservative side of things, as they're attempting to rule by a set of ancient religious laws that are designed in part to stifle progression and return life to a time long ago (that probably never existed) when society was morally pure.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things in different contexts and in relation to different countries and political systems, and mean even more different things when you throw in the differences between social, fiscal, and general governmental policies. A conservative in Iran is not the same as a conservative in the US, so there's really no need to take offense if you identify as a conservative and that word is used as a pejorative when describing a group in a different country and culture.

They do agree on one point (3, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#39633693)

US Conservatives and Wahabi-style Islamists have common ground: all women are sluts and must have every facet of their lives controlled by men.

Re:Conservatism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632879)

Authoritarians come in all shades and colors, whether private or public. There is no 'left/right'. (Ok, if you insist, 'left' is government authority, and 'right' is corporate authority, though it too, is enforced by the government, which is what we have in the states.) That is merely a distraction to keep you and your neighbors fighting each other. However your type of conservatism is very much like the muslims and their sharia law who want to dictate 'moral' authority over the rest of us.

It's been my experience...

Your 'experiences are anecdotal, at best.

Re:Conservatism (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39633043)

disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have

I don't think this is a left or a right thing, just a person thing.

Disallow certain words? For every left-winger pushing the newest thing to call blacks or midgets, there is a right-winger burning offensive classical literature.

Awkward moments in history? For every useless sidebar in a history book extolling the role of some obscure woman in order to make the book more diverse, you have a dumbing-down of the causes of the US Civil War so that it seems like the South wasn't essentially fighting for slavery.

Power of the state? For every gay equality law there is a school board trying to define science as "whatever the bible says".

It's annoying no matter who is doing it - if you ask me, the left and the right wingers have gone far enough to meet each other on the other side of reality.

Re:Conservatism (2)

j-turkey (187775) | about 2 years ago | (#39633477)

disallow the use of certain words, to ban the discussion of awkward moments in history, and to use the power of the state to dictate which world view everyone should have


It's annoying no matter who is doing it - if you ask me, the left and the right wingers have gone far enough to meet each other on the other side of reality.

I couldn't agree more. Arguing over which extreme is worse is like arguing about which turd smells worse. Either one in a punch bowl will ruin the party just the same.

Historically, all politicians like to impose rules (5, Interesting)

Medievalist (16032) | about 2 years ago | (#39633203)

You've been listening to too much propaganda. Here in reality, elected conservatives have never held back from expanding the role of government when given the chance to do so. It's what politicians do. They see it as their job.

In the USA left and right both have zero tolerance for the practices of those they perceive as their cultural enemies. Conservatives lead the charge to persecute artists, flag burners and gays, liberals lead the charge to persecute gun owners and racial separatists. Both sides are willing to trample individuals at the drop of a hat - remember, we're talking about reality here, not rhetoric. Conservatives and liberals all voted for the orwellian Patriot Act.

If you believe in the right to own military-grade weapons, but you aren't a racist; and you think abortion kills an unborn child, yet still should be safe and legal, and you think the tax code should be progressive and tax-free institutions should not be allowed to sponsor foreign nations; and you think the government should return to strictly limiting the terms of existence for corporations and intellectual property, there is no party for you.

Re:Conservatism (5, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | about 2 years ago | (#39633299)

I think you find that totalitarians of any political bent are the ones who want "top-down, society-comes-from-the-government policies. " Yes, in America the liberal whackjobs are more likely to call for totalitarianism. However, when it comes to actual government leaders and what it is that they actually do with their power, I think you will find very little difference between "liberal" and "conservative" in the march towards increasing government control. They only differ on the route they take, supposed liberals take the welfare/healthcare/gun-control route while supposed conservatives take the military/DHS/War-on-Drugs route. The "conservative embrace of a constitutional republic's checks and balances" is only embraced by the conservative voters, not the people they elect to represent them. Ron Paul being the exception that proves it. Look to effect of the NDAA 2012 combined with the Enemy Expatriation Act and the level of bi-partisan support for those Constitution destroying bills.

Re:Conservatism (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 2 years ago | (#39633463)

Totalitarianism is a politically loaded synonym for "Unity". Unity is what democracy is supposed to create. Show me a man who opposes totalitarianism, and I'll show you a man who dreams of his own plantation full of slaves.

Re:Conservatism (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#39633313)

Conservatives want less of that, progressives want more of it.

Completely false. Conservatives want less of it in some areas, and more of it in others. Progressives want less of it in those areas conservatives want more, and vice versa. For the most part, I prefer the progressives, because the conservatives ideas make for a far more intrusive government, in some cases, literally intrusive [truth-out.org] .

Re:Conservatism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39633441)

Remind me the last time someone on the US left spectrum tried to ban a group of people from partaking in an activity, or to ban books/subjects (or force subjects) in schools (educational subjects mind you, not religious topics). Your experience is bogus sir. The only thing we've tried to have the power of state do is stop anyone like you from dictating anything to anyone - whether it be religious outlook on what people should and should not be able to do in private, who should and shouldn't marry, who should and shouldn't be allowed to have access to public and social support resources, etc. Collectivism, not exlusionism. Seems like you ignore the conservative push regarding all the aforementioned, using government resources I might add - I assume since you are on slashdot you need no google links for references. Please let me know if this is a bad assumption - I can easily provide you with hours of reading material. But the conclusion is always the same - yes, we on the left WILL use government to stop the old boys club from oppressing people based on their gender, color of their skin, or sexual preference - see we prefer civilized discourse to excercising our 2nd amendment rights.

But DO let me point you in a general research direction on the difference between economic liberalism and fascism, and how those are A) separate and B) not mutually exclusive from the totalitarian/libertarian gamut of world views (IE - one can be economically left wing AND libertarian - I am one of these people for instance).

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Re:Conservatism (0)

vgerclover (1186893) | about 2 years ago | (#39633009)

And the Iranians have only themselves to blame for fostering and tolerating religious and political extremism in their midst.

Are you sure? [wikipedia.org]

America, take note.


Simple to do ... (4, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39632061)

... just cut the international trunks. What will be more interesting is if they start to use duplicated IPv4 address space, or continue the move to IPv6. The "Iranian Spring" will come, and this action is likely to speed that up. Then it will get connected back to the world, again.

Of course, someone will still set up some secret gateways.

Re:Simple to do ... (5, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#39632123)

The "Iranian spring" already came. It started the whole protest cascade in the middle east. It was called the green revolution, and it was crushed without mercy.

Re:Simple to do ... (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#39632945)

Unless and until Iranians are willing to apply the level of utter dedication and ruthless violence required, they will remain slaves.

The only good Mullah is a dead one. Persians should remember Islam was inflicted on them by conquest, and reject it.

Kill your Mullahs, burn the mosques, shit on the Quran and take back your country!

Re:Simple to do ... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#39633601)

Not all Iranians want the revolution, though. Ahmadinejad and mullahs have a strong backing, as well - mostly it's liberal urban folk that are for the revolution, and conservative rural folk that enjoy the "religious revival" with complimentary hanging of homosexuals. And the catch is that conservatives are much more ready and willing to use violence to achieve their political goal than liberals.

Re:Simple to do ... (2)

mattie_p (2512046) | about 2 years ago | (#39632189)

There already is one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_2 [wikipedia.org] Almost anyone has the capability of establishing a separate internet. The United States government has several, separated by airgap/encryption. It is trivial to make one, however, just because they build it, will anyone come?

Re:Simple to do ... (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#39632377)

Except that in this case the government will mandate that all of the service providers switch to this new internet, no matter bad a plan that is.

With iran it will be interesting to see just how this 'whitelist' works, and what their neighbours will do. They share borders with armenia, azerbaijan, turkey, iraq, pakistan, turkmenistan, afghanistan, and they're very close to kuwait, bahrain, the emirates, saudi, and oman. Several of those are essentially in the back pocket of anti-iranian governments, so we may see some very industrious solutions to get unfettered internet into iran from any of those.

Re:Simple to do ... (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#39632525)

revolution is not inevitable

look at north korea: a committed government, with enough fanatics at its disposal, will turn their country into a prison. revolution becomes difficult to muster. outside force is required to make real change

this is what happens if you defy the regime in Iran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan [wikipedia.org]

Re:Simple to do ... (1, Informative)

Brian Feldman (350) | about 2 years ago | (#39632979)

Kinda like the US Government: PIPA, SOPA, NDAA, CISPA, starting random wars with other countries, the War on Drugs, the War on the Fourth Amendment (illegal "border" searches on interstates 100 miles from any border the country has), the War on Agriculture, the War on Sick People (our health care system)....

Re:Simple to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632805)

Can Nigeria be included with this trunk cut party?

“Just One” = “the one who is Jus (2)

pne (93383) | about 2 years ago | (#39632095)

At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.

Re:“Just One” = “the one who is (1)

russotto (537200) | about 2 years ago | (#39632223)

Specifically, I believe "Just One" is one of the epithets of Allah.

Re:“Just One” = “the one who is (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#39632451)

Isn't using an epithet of Allah for an internet search engine a bit trivializing?

Re:“Just One” = “the one who is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632597)

Now I have a vision in my head of Muhammad crying out, "There can be only one!!!"

Re:“Just One” = “the one who is (1)

vjoel (945280) | about 2 years ago | (#39633021)

At first I thought that “Oh Just One” referred to the fact that there can be only one search engine (as in “there can be just one”), but I’m fairly sure it means “O Just One” in the sense of a person who is just, based on my limited Arabic.

And here I was thinking about what you say when offered a box of chocolates.

Have some tasty Internets?

Oh, just one.

Re:“Just One” = “the one who is (1)

pluther (647209) | about 2 years ago | (#39633117)

Don't they speak Persian in Iran, though?

Also, depending on how it's spelled, "Ya haq" (in Arabic) can also be translated as "Not truth", which is a great name for state-supplied information.

Good news everybody! (1, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#39632133)

Glad to see Muslims are allowed free access to information by their religious leaders.
The leaders must know that better info is the surest way to a deep religious understanding of the Quran.
Oh... wait... what?

Re:Good news everybody! (3, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#39632371)

Not sure if troll or serious. In any case, you fail.
UK, USA, Australia... also trying to censor the internet. The USA is probably worst in that instead of setting up their own "Intranet", they are actually imposing their own authority all over the world.
Also, the government of Iran is not the same thing as "Muslims".
Finally, Islam is hardly the only religion that is threatened by free access to information.

"Mommy, what was God doing before he created the universe?"
"He was preparing Hell for people who ask such questions. Now say a Hail Mary and go to bed!"

Re:Good news everybody! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39633107)

The USA is probably worst in that instead of setting up their own "Intranet"

While I think the actions of the US government to protect IP are ridiculous, they certainly haven't impacted political speech to any degree.

The rest of your post I agree with.

Re:Good news everybody! (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#39633425)

Not intended as trollololol.

You are right in the fact that most religions are not "at ease" with science, but it is rather dramatic in the Muslim world at large.
That is why they are banging on that "inshala" (as Alah wishes) phrase all day, and not practising real science. Actually, in some interpretations believing in cause-and-effect is basically the same as saying Allah has no role. I can tell you that it is very 'not so nice' if you get accused of that.

You are right that the government of Iran is not the same as "Muslims", but it IS a theocratic regime, based on the Quran, the Sunnah, the Hadith, the Sharia and so on. The people who submit to Allah (and his teachings through Mo) are called Muslim.

Oh, and before you pull out the racist/ignorant or whatever card, I actually would say the same things about ANY other religious fanclub, but somehow there is hardly anything to say about them in regard to shutting off (parts of) the Internet. Or silencing their citizens/followers.

Re:Good news everybody! (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#39633353)

I remember one time I was talking with a Catholic Bishop. One thing that really got me was how Intelligent this guy was, and I found out he had a PHD in Bio-Chemistry, he spoke fluently at least 5 different languages. What got me most was not all of his views were not 100% inline with the Pope. However his faith was solid, and the solidness of his faith is based on learning and experiencing the world.

For people who experience more information and loose faith, it is often because they were looking for reasons to disprove their faith. For those who want to keep faith they can see the same information and it will strengthen it.

That is why is really silly to debate "Truth" about Atheism vs the "Truth" about religion. Because they keep throwing back facts back and forth. However failing to really convince anyone else (Assuming they have the same debating skills). Because in Faith in the Super Natural, you are talking about things that are not Observable threw scientific means. Religion isn't science, you shouldn't be using it as a way to explain why the world works the way it does. Science isn't Religion it shouldn't be used to judge your moral charactor.

The Internet is wireless (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#39632143)

Good luck unplugging The Internet considering that it is wireless and sits atop Big Ben! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

Internet Freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632193)

Good, we need it. I'm glad to see Iran is taking a step to counter censorship, and create its own uncensored Internet, free of United States influence. This will be a major improvement in freedom over the regular Internet.

Am I understanding the summary correctly? /sarcasm

When did he leave? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632213)

How did they manage to get Al Gore to visit Iran?

Sounds familiar (4, Insightful)

McGruber (1417641) | about 2 years ago | (#39632235)

The proposed system, an insular nation-wide intranet that is isolated from the regular Internet, will be heavily regulated by the government. In addition to developing its own Intranet system, the Iranian government is also creating its own custom email service and a national search engine

So it is the Iranian version of Facebook.

just one o? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632279)

replacement for Google with just one o, is that Gogle?

Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. (5, Insightful)

Darth_brooks (180756) | about 2 years ago | (#39632293)

This is the best possible news for freedom in the here in the US. What? You want to cut off parts of the internet, why that would make us just like Iran! We can't have that! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!

Re:Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#39632447)

"Hey, we didn't get a 'harumph' outta that guy!"
"Harumph!! Harumph!!"
"You better watch your ass!!"

Re:Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. (1)

Chente (9402) | about 2 years ago | (#39632639)

Nice line of reasoning. Before I read your comment, I was pondering how long it would take for a fundamentalist Christian version of the internet to be born in the U.S. I have some modest proposals for what such a net(s) could be called:


Other suggestions?

Re:Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. (1)

pluther (647209) | about 2 years ago | (#39633287)

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't seem to work for so many other things people in this country fight for:

Who else makes burning sacred symbols illegal?
Who else has mandatory prayer in schools?
Who else has religious stories taught as equivalent to science?
Who else spends taxpayer money on monuments to a specific religion?

Yeah, you'd think pointing out to the theocrats that Iran is already their ideal state would shame them into stopping, but it never does...

It is a dirty place... (3, Funny)

Original Replica (908688) | about 2 years ago | (#39632315)

As far as a "clean" internet goes it does have some merit. The real internet is 35% porn. [lisnews.org] It is defensible to want a cleaner, walled garden version of it. Maybe Iran could just use AOL.

Re:It is a dirty place... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39633403)

I would have agreed with you a little while ago, but now we have the xxx TLD, which should get rid of that useless 65% if you stick to just the one TLD.

Spying is Easier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632323)

The Iranian government should just wiretap and eavesdrop on their citizens like everyone else does. This is much simpler than creating your own search engine.

Welcome, welcome to the Iranian Internet! (2)

vawwyakr (1992390) | about 2 years ago | (#39632347)

Come relax, talk amongst yourselves...here I'll give you topic, "My neighbor is a dissident and here is his address"

Good. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 years ago | (#39632351)

Police states should abandon all pretenses of being anything but police states. There are too many simple people that don't know a duck even if it's quacking in front of them so long as it's wearing a little badge that says "republic". Why Iran has any credibility in the international community is owed only to greed (for the oil), ignorance, and the naive belief that psychopathic messianic dictatorships can be reformed with kind words.

I'm not saying we go to war with them. I'm just saying you treat them like what they are and always will be. If they want to dominate what little freedom remains in their nation by creating some hyper controlled internet, then all the better.

Re:Good. (5, Interesting)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#39632509)

I am always amazed at how the "good" guys are so willing to fight and kill and torture and steal, while the "bad" guys want only one thing, to be left alone. Amazing, ain't so?

Re:Good. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 years ago | (#39632749)

Which bad people only wish to be left alone? If is you say Iran, then you're apparently unaware of their funding of international terrorism or obvious other aggressive actions.

The country makes official statements of their intent to commit genocide on a regular basis. So if your argument is seriously that Iran is just a misunderstood fluffy kitten then you've smoked yourself retarded.

Re:Good. (1)

sam_nead (607057) | about 2 years ago | (#39632823)

From the article:

The organization says that the system "consists of an Intranet designed ultimately to replace the international Internet and to discriminate between ordinary citizens and the 'elite' (banks, ministries and big companies), which will continue to have access to the international Internet."

If that is accurate and if I follow your naming scheme correctly, in this case the "bad guys" want continued access to the wider world. It is the "ordinary citizens" who need to be "left alone" by the "good" guys. Did I get all that right?

Re:Good. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#39633487)

And if we have to continue this analogue, where would you put USA, EU, or any other "good" country, willing to fight, torture, steal, and pretend to be the "goooooood" guys? Btw, kissing on public space is forbidden in China, why don't you go and "liberate", i mean kill 100/200 millions of chinese?

Re:Good. (1)

ediron2 (246908) | about 2 years ago | (#39633559)

Police states should abandon all pretenses of being anything but police states. There are too many simple people that don't know a duck even if it's quacking in front of them so long as it's wearing a little badge that says "republic".

So, not to get all shades of grey on you, but... uh... (looks around)... are WE a police state?

You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you over all this quackish squawking.

I wonder if the People will protest? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39632383)

Start calling their representatives in the democratic Parliament? Probably not. Liberty dies when people just don't care (ref: EU states Greece, Italy and the U.S.).

How will all the 'progressives' earn their pay? (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 years ago | (#39632407)

I can't see how anarcho libertarian fascists like Glenn Greenwald who openly shill for the Iranian regime tolerating this outwardly. Oh they'll say it's wonderful but how they do their work and earn their pay relies on communicating with the regime.

Silliness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632511)

So, why would anyone use this separate "internet" rather than using nothing? What value does it provide to a user?

But will it solve the spam problem? (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | about 2 years ago | (#39632589)

Will forcing users to register email addresses fix the issue of spam in my inbox? I can't see too many Nigerian princes being able to get an account.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632717)

Finally something the United States can aspire to!

4g (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632763)

Guess the Iranian people will have to get their internet from something like 4g. Mayb3e sattelite stations or "Voice of America" stations near the border.

who cares! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632771)

I dont think that what Iran is doing internely must be anybody else problem. We all saw Iraq rescue :)

fuc4eR (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632791)

is mired in an no maater how

This is a good thing! (1)

RussR42 (779993) | about 2 years ago | (#39632841)

We need something to point to next time some wacky internet regulating legislation comes up. And I'm sure the Iranian people will have nothing but good will towards their government for keeping them so safe from knowing what is happening in the world. Everybody wins.

And Then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632895)

some idiot hooking up a 56k modem and their whole world goes to hell.

About Reporters without Borders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632935)

Is in reality a US governement propaganda cover. Sourcewatch:

Robert Menard, the Secretary General of RSF, was forced to confess that RSF's budget was primarily provided by "US organizations strictly linked with US foreign policy" (Thibodeau, La Presse).

        NED (US$39,900 paid 14 Jan 2005)
        Center for a Free Cuba (USAID and NED funded) $50,000 per year NED grant. Contract was signed by Otto Reich
        European Union (1.2m Euro) -- currently contested in EU parliament
        Rights & Democracy in 2004 supported Reporters Without Borders-Canada [1]

"Grants from private foundations (Open Society Foundation, Center for a Free Cuba, Fondation de France, National Endowment for Democracy) were slightly up, due to the Africa project funded by the NED and payment by Center for a Free Cuba for a reprint of the banned magazine De Cuba."


more: http://www.zcommunications.org/reporters-without-borders-and-washingtons-coups-by-diana-barahona

Isolated ecosystem highly vulnerable to threats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632959)

So.. Are they planning to roll their own nationwide operating system too? Keep it up to date?

Imagine all those windows machines, cutoff from windows updates. A few patch Tuesdays go by and anyone with access to the "clean" internet is going to have a field day. Finding an ingress accessible by the "unclean" internet should be trivial. Who need sophisticated government spook hacks. Iran will be pwnd by any script kiddy with initiative.

The security of any non-trival network, like an nation wide intranet, depends on the free flow of information. Ideas. Information about security threats. Tools. Patches. Updates. Active participation is key.

Iran will find their important infrastructure completely infiltrated. Even worse than it is now.

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39632997)

Why bother making thier own? Obama is already making it exactly the way Iran wants it.

Do non-Iranians have a voice? (4, Insightful)

one_who_uses_unix (68992) | about 2 years ago | (#39633219)

I think it is silly for any government to do something like sensor "the internet" - but is what Iran does in their country my business?

I find it amusing that we (the US in my case) often feel we have a right to tell other countries how to govern themselves, how to run their industry, how to run their elections, etc. Where does any country get off thinking it can tell another country what to do? I am not defending the criminal heads of state - just saying that we wouldn't take kindly to another country deciding how things should work in the US, deciding who they would allow to serve in elected office etc.

When will people realize that we need to leave people alone. If the Iranians want a different government then it is up to them to make one. Every single time the US tries to force other countries to behave it results in piles of corpses and enormous debt and a giant dose of hate directed at the US by BOTH sides of the conflict in the foreign country.

Very sad (2)

FridayBob (619244) | about 2 years ago | (#39633359)

Imagine being an Iranian open source guy and then being cut off from the rest of your community. Perhaps Apple and Microsoft will have solutions for using their operating systems in that environment, but otherwise it seems to me that cutting itself off from the Internet is a good way to take Iran back to the 1980s. In the end, however, I think there will be something for all of us to learn from this cruel experiment as well. That's why other countries that live with despotic regimes and/or severe restrictions (e.g. Saudi Arabia) will be watching with interest.

PS -- By the way, this is another good reason for the US and/or Israel not to attack Iran. They're so busy making life miserable for themselves that eventually their theocratic government is bound to fall due to another popular uprising. If they are attacked from the outside, however, it will only serve to make the theocrats stronger.

It's Just AOL in 1991 (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 2 years ago | (#39633615)

only Biggerer and run by religious whackjobs. I don't see the problem here. Except for the religious whackjobs part. And the AOL part. And the 1991 thing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account