×

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 Blocks Google, Moves Forward With Domestic Network Plans

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the keeping-it-clean dept.

Censorship 134

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

134 comments

Hey (4, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440659)

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

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440727)

maybe they like it.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440893)

maybe we would rather they keep themselves off our Internet

Re:Hey (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441639)

It means Iranian the business, education and research industries will be starved of the valuable interactions that have made the Internet such a key part of the global economy. Even China is wise enough not to actually build a wall, contenting itself with imperfect filtering.

This whole concept underlines what is so critically wrong with the Iranian regime. It's not that it is an authoritarian government, it's that it is an authoritarian government that knows a lot about being authoritarian, but lacks the imagination or wit to understand that if you keep adopting measures that suppress economic activity, sooner or later the house of cards will topple and the very power you seek to keep in your clutches will fall away.

Even Burma/Myanmar has finally figured it out, as it watches its neighbors making vast fortunes as its own economy underperform with tragic social consequences. Iran is rapidly moving to join North Korea in the incurable basket case club. Yes, they will likely have nukes like NK does, and that will certainly mean they are immune from direct threat, but internally it will be a situation of where the elite spend their days and nights wondering whether they should point the nukes at neighboring countries, or at their own populace.

Re:Hey (3, Insightful)

hazah (807503) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442399)

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Re:Hey (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441001)

According to this link from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Iran is a middle income developing country:

http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteipc20057_en.pdf

It just needs to going through the pain that the West had to take in separating Church from stat

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441919)

maybe they like it.

According to the Iranian people - they do not. The Iranian government stands distinctly alone from their general population. The general population is majority moderate and pro-west. In fact, they are largely pro-US; though barely so. In fact, in the region, Iran is one of the countries where the US ranks the highest. No ifs, ands, or buts, the Iranian people do not like their own government.

It was widely hoped the Spring Revolution would result in the overthrow of the government but it appears the Iranian general population does not have it within themselves yet to do so. Which brings us full circle, back to the GP post above. How much do the Iranian people need to be shit on before they overthrow their government. The people want to do so...they seemingly lack the commitment to do so.

Re:Hey (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440767)

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

Re:Hey (2)

zethreal (982453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440837)

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:Hey (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441425)

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.

Believe me, there are Christians here that would be tickled pink to have a Christain Theocracy as oppressive as any Islamic country and they don't see contradiction or Constituional problems. And the thing that sickens me is that the Republican Party - and it's all their fault - have given these Theocratic Nuts too much power.

-ex-republican who left because the party has been high-jacked by the Christain Taliban.

Re:Hey (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441955)

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 didn't necessarily agree with their point of you, but actually respect what they were saying. The Right has not exactly covered itself in glory with its descent into lowest-common-denominator populism in the last 20 years.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41443169)

Wrong! Googles lobbying arm would buy off all the shot callers way before that could ever happen. People don't run Washington or even make policy anymore. It's all done by special interest groups!

Re:Hey (2)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441397)

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.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41442977)

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

Obviously its not as bad in the US.
But you guys are working on it slowly ever since 9/11

You're definitely moving in the wrong direction.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441195)

They already did [wikipedia.org] . That's the easy part, the revolution.

The hard part is what comes next.

The rest of the region is starting to learn that same lesson [wikipedia.org] 30 years later.

Re:Hey (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441697)

The Iranian revolution was anything but. My relatives tell me that the Shah was reasonably fair — sure, kind of a dictator, but he and his father had taken the country from an agragrian backwater to a modern industrial society in a matter of two generations — and basically... the U.S. funded student groups, pro-democracy organizations, &c and sowed dissent so that none of them would agree enough to stand in unity... and then gave guns to the Ayatollah. All because the Shah had the audacity to defy U.S. regional interests... funny, since the U.S. basically cemented the power of the Shah too (didn't count on an educated populace making a gradual transition to democracy, eh?). Left to their own devices, in all likelihood there would have been a democratic revolution in the 80s and the entire geopolitical situation would be different.

My father and many of his friends are still here in the U.S. because they were in a University exchange program learning various engineering disciplines when it all went down. It really is a shame... and then the youth attempted a real revolution just before the Arab Spring, and ... well, where was the U.S. when people started disappearing and the Revolutionary Guard was slaughtering people on the streets? Really, the work of the CIA in 70s is amazing: they managed to install such a brutally repressive regime that any hope of the people revolting has been quelled for over 30 years. It's not in our best interests to have a free Iran, or a free middle east. But, hey, when we think the populace is sheepish enough to accept a puppet... time to liberate!

Re:Hey (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#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 (5, Insightful)

mr.mctibbs (1546773) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41442607)

bang on

some will want it. (2)

schlachter (862210) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442643)

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.

Re:Hey (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442103)

interesting people don't say things like this about china, who is arguably just as bad.

Re:Hey (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442903)

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 peoples' stomachs full. When that stops -- look out.

Re:Hey (1)

jitterman (987991) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442137)

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.

They going to introduce ISL-9 instead of IPv6 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440671)

They going to introduce ISL-9 (Islam) instead of IPv6, 3 extra bits for the 3rd dimension Ala

IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440737)

Is their version of the Internet going to be IPv6 capable?

Don't be evil corrolary (2)

LostCluster2.0 (2637341) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440745)

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.

Re:Don't be evil corrolary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441203)

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 if they already did, but with no discussion anywhere? You know what I'm saying, man?

Re:Don't be evil corrolary (1)

FunPika (1551249) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441259)

Apple/Microsoft/*insert Google competitor here* fanboys will still spam the Firehose with "OH MAI GAWD GOOGLE IS EVIL" stories until one of the editors posts it. So "no slashdot discussion" is probably a lost cause.

So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440769)

Sounds like a big LAN to me. But, it might be harder for us to get viruses into them now.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440859)

Sounds like a big LAN to me. But, it might be harder for us to get viruses into them now.

In the end it won't be about viruses, but Twitter, Facebook, various blogs and forums, which they want to keep their people away from, so the only source of information becomes the state. If you can't trust the state, whom can you trust?

BTW, Ahmadinejad has won the next election by a landslide, take their word for it.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (5, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441021)

BTW, Ahmadinejad has won the next election by a landslide, take their word for it.
 
No he hasn't because his final term is up soon and he can't run again. That doesn't matter though as he is just a disposable puppet, the real power lies with the Supreme Leader who doesn't need to concern himself with silly things like elections.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441739)

I think we know enough about Iran's internal power dynamic to know that Khameini and the Guardian Council themselves are just figureheads. It certainly was the case when Khomeini was Supreme Leader that the position was unassailable, but Khameini was always considered a relatively weak man, and almost certainly since 2009 Iran is now really run by the Revolutionary Guard and the leadership of the Basij. If Khameini was independent before, he is now a sick old man dominated by the "guardians of the Islamic revolution", and most certainly when he kicks the bucket, the next Supreme Leader will be the Revolutionary Guard's man. The day when the Supreme Leader was an independent authority capable of bringing the other factions to heal are gone. Iran is essentially a thinly veiled military dictatorship.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41442973)

BTW, Ahmadinejad has won the next election by a landslide, take their word for it.

yes, I hear they had a 200% voter turnout.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440937)

Maybe the Americans will just bomb their parking lots with malware-infested USB keys instead, in case somebody gets dumb...

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440985)

Sounds like a big LAN to me. But, it might be harder for us to get viruses into them now.

A big LAN is a WAN. There are also some technical differences that make a WAN a WAN (WANs use different IP address space, and most specifically are a network composed of networks, unlike a LAN which is almost always a single network), although there isn't really a set rule that I am aware of that distinguishes a large LAN from a WAN.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441457)

A big LAN is a WAN

No, a big LAN is a big LAN. What makes a LAN, CAN, MAN, and WAN is just distance:

-LAN = Local area network. Usually, this is a single building, regardless how many networks are inside

-CAN = Campus area network. Multiple buildings on the same property connected together. These usually take a different set of hardware & may start using routing.

-MAN = Metro area network. Buildings on separate properties connected together in the same metro area. Usually done by radio or laser wireless or private leased fiber connections.

-WAN = Wide area network. Buildings in separate cities connected together.

You CAN run a single bridged network across a WAN, even though it is usually a VERY BAD IDEA. The number of networks is irrelevant, just the separation, as this determines what kind of hardware and layer 1 connections you're dealing with.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441863)

Wrong.

Network protocols and speeds and boundaries (as in routers vs switches, firewalls, etc) usually differentiate LAN's and WAN's.

It just so happens that they occasionally map to geographical distances as you mention, but not always.

Re:So, basically Iran is deploying a LAN? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441701)

I think a nice way to define them is at what network level they operate. e.g. LANs don't use routers... they use switches.

Stupid is as stupid blocks. (1)

LostCluster2.0 (2637341) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440779)

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.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440881)

Huh. Sounds like the Republicans.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (-1)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440901)

yea... the republicans are the exact same way.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441049)

and thats why the Democrat controlled gov't passed ICE?

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (0)

Xicor (2738029) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441107)

just because the republicans base their laws on religious doctrine(and ultimately fails to pass those laws) doesnt mean that the democrats have no reason to pass laws that infringe on our rights

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441861)

just because the republicans base their laws on religious doctrine(and ultimately fails to pass those laws) doesnt mean that the democrats have no reason to pass laws that infringe on our rights

In layman's terms - just because someone points out that Group A is a bunch of douchebags, does not necessarily imply they think Group B is not a bunch of douchebags.

Sad that I feel compelled to simplify it so, but some folks gotta make everything a pissing contest, you know?

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (5, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441421)

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?

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (3, Informative)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441699)

What are you talking about? Google does censor their content.

Have you had a look at the YouTube TOS?

They blocked that movie in Libya, Egypt, India, and a lot of other countries.

They started redirecting blogspot to country TLDs so they can be censored according to the country you're coming from.

Google simply has different views on what's offensive than the Iranian government. Neither are for pure free speech.

Re:Stupid is as stupid blocks. (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441991)

Don't forget that they also censor in the US from demands of the government; specifically in the form of DMCA takedown requests.

Not quite an iron curtain (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440819)

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

Just wait. (2, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440827)

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 my camel, but when I tried she just spit on me and kicked me in the face. Also, I only see 4 ports. How am I going to wire the internet for an entire country with only 4 connections? Does the rest of the free world have some sort of timeshare for the internet? Please help my government oppress free speech!

Re:Just wait. (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441105)

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.

Re:Just wait. (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441135)

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

Re:Just wait. (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441215)

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

Re:Just wait. (1)

jitterman (987991) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442173)

Switch to Etch-a-Sketch technology. It's wireless and is guaranteed to only contain information your people already possess, with no outside influence.

Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440845)

So now 192.168.*.* is Iranian Internet?

LOL (5, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440865)

"self-contained version of the World Wide Web"

You're doing it wrong.

IPv4 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440871)

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

Re:IPv4 (2)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441357)

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.

Back! Back to the middle ages. (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41440877)

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

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

Re:Back! Back to the middle ages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441091)

One is power in the hands of the government, the other is power in the hands of the people.

Re:Back! Back to the middle ages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441341)

You misspelled nuclear weapons.

Re:Back! Back to the middle ages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441463)

My guess is, their goal is not to be like the Middle Ages. That's just a guess, though.

Re:Back! Back to the middle ages. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441997)

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.

Re:Back! Back to the middle ages. (2)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#41442217)

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 of information that would invoke cognitive dissidence..

We have to understand that the Islamic Republic of Iran is huge religious community. The state, unlike the US, has been set up to promote a set of religious values. We may disagree with this, but that is they way it is. Even in the US this is so. Tx governor Rick Perry has said the separation between church and state is a secular construction of recent providence. I suppose that is why the religious fanatics want to control what I can and cannot buy in a free market. Again, nothing new or interesting. The religious crazy people always love to control what others do.

And technology is the same. You would think that with all this faith and love and all that is in creation, the fanatics might find something else to do other than watch TV, a creation of the devil. But you know, they can't, and so we all have to pay for V-Chip, just because the fanatics can't control their kids. And because their kids are so ill behaved that they don't have a bed time, we can't have nudity on broadcast TV like we once did. And pictures of naked people on the internet. The natural creation cannot be shown without the materialistic secular creations of men.

And of course christians in the US are just as uptight as any other fanatics. When muslim starting building Mosques in my town, there was no end to christians who wanted to stop it, even though it should be possible for a private citizen to build what they want on a property as long as it meets code. There was one case a few years where Ramadan, or some holiday, fell on 9/11, and a store was closed in memory of the matyrs, and all the christians go in a huff thinking that a private bussiness did not have the right to close a private business to celebrate a holiday that in fact had nothing to do with 9/11.

I wish we could just blame people who are stuck in the past. But I think we have to blame bad thinking.

Durka Durka! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41440919)

Durka Durka! Mohammed Jihad!!

Sincerely, anonymous infidel.

This is very good (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441119)

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.

IWW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441207)

That technically is not "world" wide wed. It should be called Iran wide web.. iww.notgoogle.com

Article poor on details (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441255)

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?

Re:Article poor on details (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41441845)

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 traffic. Your LAN remains intact, your internal DNS still serves up local addresses, but no Google, no Facebook, no New York Times, no Slashdot, no nothing if it comes from the external ports.

Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441529)

cisco certified partner.

Beginning of the end? (4, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Mo-Betta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441831)

Thanks Mo, you're doing all the hard lifting for us.

xxx snackbar etc;

A very nice move from the Iranian Government (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41441959)

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
                            * commercial : no need to show them what we can produce,sell, etc.
                            * news : they don't need to know what's going on
                            * culture : they are not entitled to have access to our culture
                            * sport : we don't have camel races :)
                            * entertainment : movies, music, etc are of no value to them
                            * porn : we shouldn't allow these people to see our nice girls :), they have goats isn't it ?

Obviously telephone lines should be be cut forever, in order to avoid use of dialup modems.

In addition we should extend these measures to all other Muslim countries and put an extremely strong embargo on:
                            * all books
                            * all electronic equipment and tools
                            * all medicine products
                            * etc
.

No contact of any kind !

Um, actually.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41442157)

Iran Blocks Google, Moves Backward With Domestic Network Plans

There, I fixed it

Re:Um, actually.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41442495)

Mod this guy up!
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

Loading...