Iran Plans To Unplug the Internet, Launch Its Own 'Clean' Alternative 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.
Please fix summary (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean CISPA [wikipedia.org] now? In case you missed it, they are trying to shove copyright and patent enforcement into National Security and/or defense.
Re: (Score:2)
This IraNet will never be effective. (Score:3)
The regime banned satellite TV more tan a decade ago, but every Iranian city-dweller from Yazd to Tabriz watches the latest MadMen and Big Bang episodes, from a dish on their roof. Yes, the CNN and BBC domestic propaganda feeds are avidly consumed, too.
Whooh! Feel the rush of democracy, flooding over the airwaves! The mullahs have little to fear from regular Internet access, either. Given the alternatives of being a US/Israel bitch, like Turkey - or going with their local brand of bastardry - Iranians wi
Re: (Score:3)
"Stop SOPA is a prime example of what needs to be happening"
Stop SOPA is also a prime example of why the report is largely a load of tosh. For some reason the US got a free ride, despite the fact it's been implementing global censorship of the whole net through ICE domain seizures, attempting to silence sites like Wikileaks by pressuring the likes of Visa, Mastercard, Paypal et. al. to cut off funding routes, and coming a little to close to bringing in things like SOPA et. al.
It's great it brings to light t
Damn you Gore! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess Bush was right when he said "Internets".
Yes, that was technically correct; the best kind of correct.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conservatism (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on level of "control" involved, that might be a pretty normal life. How many husbands you know are pussy-whipped?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe USA liberals in the past said stuff like that, but not anymore. Now, the "liberals" (a relative term really, it just means anyone left of the current Republicans, but here I'm talking about the liberal politicians who may be different from non-politician liberals) believe that big corporations are wonderful, that we need to bail out poorly-managed companies and give them giant no-string-attached government checks to spend however they like (including on big bonuses for incompetent execs), and that we
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as an evil white man, hmmm, sounds interesting.
Re:Conservatism (Score:5, Interesting)
I never could understand how a Christian (not other religions, obviously) can be a conservative. Conservatives are against taxes, Christ said "pay your taxes". Conservatives are gun-toting self defensers, Christ said "he who lives by the weapon, dies by the weapon". Conservative means stingy, liberal means generous. Christ was for generosity. Conservatives are intolerant, Christians hate the sin but love the sinner. A Christian may try to talk a gay man out of committing homosexual acts, a conservative would like to see him in jail or dead. When prohibition was instituted it was the conservatives who fought for that change (oh, the hypocricy!) while liberals fought for prohibition's overthrow. Christ said to the church officials "John the Baptists came neither eating or drinking and you say it means he had a devil, the son of man comes eating and drinking and you call him a glutton and winebibber." Conservatives are against aid to the poor (but seem to have no problem with aid to the rich) while Christians hate to see people go hungry. Conservatives hate homeless people, Jesus WAS a homeless person.
I don't think conservatives even read the bibles they thump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conservatism (Score:5, Informative)
Christ was for generosity
So they say. I didn't notice any famous scripture that mentions taking money from other people in order to be generous with it.
Here's a couple examples of Jesus speaking on generosity:
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” the man inquired.
19 Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
- Matthew 19:16-23
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
- Matthew 25:40-46
Re:Conservatism (Score:4, Informative)
"The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things in different contexts"
One thing definitely to keep in mind, in Britain and most of Europe 'liberal' means a different thing than it does in America - It focuses on the John Stuart Mill version: it tends to mean a focus on individual liberty, freedom from state interference, 'that government governs best which governs least' type of thing..
Re:Conservatism (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Historically, all politicians like to impose ru (Score:5, Insightful)
In the USA left and right...
Sorry, but in the USA you don't have left and right. You have right and further-right. (On a world scale, anyway.)
But anyway, economic left/right views should be considered separately from the social authoritarian/libertarian views. Have a look at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org]
Re:Conservatism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"Unity" is also a really crappy user interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, I'm a man who opposes totalitarianism. I suspect I oppose 'unity' too, but I need it to be defined.
I think you are making a serious point, so I ask if you could elaborate on your first sentence "Totalitarianism is a politically loaded synonym for 'Unity'". What does Unity mean in this context?
Congrats! You can use talking points! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about "pointing out" things? I'm talking about banning speech.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with Left/Right politics, and everything to do with Authority/Liberty politics. You're arguing about the wrong political axis. Here's a quiz and chart that explains this. [theadvocates.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me the last time someone on the US left spectrum tried to ban a group of people from partaking in an activity
That's easy. Barack Obama's administration has been far more zealous in persecuting/prosecuting medical marijuana users than the Bush administration before it.
Re:Conservatism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
America, take note.
Note taken. Please refer to our presedential candidates to see our progress.
Simple to do ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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 ... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Kill your Mullahs, burn the mosques, shit on the Quran
Yes, a totally reasonable act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
There already is one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_2 [wikipedia.org]
That's not "another internet", any more than any Tier 1 Network is (or something like JANet, which is exactly the same but in the UK).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Simple to do ... (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea exists only with the support of outside nations. It is not a self-sustaining regime.
Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
http://vancouverdesi.com/news/iran-denies-reports-internet-to-be-cut-soon/ [vancouverdesi.com]
“Just One” = “the one who is Jus (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Specifically, I believe "Just One" is one of the epithets of Allah.
Re: (Score:2)
Al-Haqq is #51 on this list on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (though there it’s translated “The Truth, The Reality”), so that could well be it. See also this article [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't using an epithet of Allah for an internet search engine a bit trivializing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Iranians are Persians (and rather proud of that). They speak Farsi (Persian) which is an arabicized version of Parsi.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they speak Persian in Iran, though?
They do, but Persian has a ton of Arabic loanwords. Sort of like how knowing French (or Spanish or Italian) will let you understand many words in English. (Or for some kinds of vocabulary, knowing Greek, especially in medicine and philosophy.)
How Many Strikes Do You Get? (Score:5, Funny)
The Internet is wireless (Score:2)
Good luck unplugging The Internet considering that it is wireless and sits atop Big Ben! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
And they can call the service... (Score:3)
Persia OnLine.
("Anti-America OnLine" may be too obvious.)
Re: (Score:3)
IRC!
"Iran Relay Chat!"
Sounds familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Burkabook. No faces allowed!
Re: (Score:2)
That rule applies only to women ...
Fantastic news for other forms of censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
"Harumph!! Harumph!!"
"You better watch your ass!!"
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
It is a dirty place... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It is a dirty place... (Score:5, Funny)
You used the term "Walled Garden" in a way that is not approved by the Apple fans on Slashdot. "Walled Garden" must only be used to describe a safe place that has everything you'd ever want -- a garden that you're happy to be trapped in because you never want to leave.
Not to be confused with the Walled Garden in, say, the short story Rappaccini's Daughter [virginia.edu] -- No matter how great the analogy.
Welcome, welcome to the Iranian Internet! (Score:3)
Good. (Score:3)
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. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quiet right, we're about .000001 percent a police state. Very apt point.
*hands out gold star for irrelevant observations*
Do you have a real argument or is that all you've got?
I wonder if the People will protest? (Score:2)
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.).
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, Iran doesn't really have a democratic parliament, given that all candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council.
In any case, 2/3 of the Iranian parliament are conservatives, who are pushing for all these laws, so it doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
-- Thomas Jefferson
How will all the 'progressives' earn their pay? (Score:2)
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.
Screw it (Score:2)
OK, trolls, be useful. (Score:2)
Get "first post" on the new Iranian combination Internet/Facebook/Koran service.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook
You mean Veilbook?
I might sign up (Score:2)
But will it solve the spam problem? (Score:2)
They are afraid (Score:2)
After Stuxnet they don't want to get hacked again.
Do non-Iranians have a voice? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, many of your points about the US are correct.
However, in issues of the internet, we do have a problem, in that every petty dictator wants control over it. Their MO is fairly standard -> section themselves off, so that they can 'fix' things. In reality, they section off only the non-elite among their populace, allowing the elite to continue to access the global internet (for business / intelligence / whatever, but in reality, you just made access to a common resource a perk of being connected). W
Re: (Score:2)
In this case Iran isn't trying to control the internet, they are choosing to unplug themselves (or parts of their populate). I say that is a problem for Iran, not the rest of the world. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my "intertubes" and I don't want to tell other countries what to do with their intertubes. Now, if an elected official in the US tried a stunt like that I would be all over that like a hobo on a ham sandwich - but the US is MY country.
I don't like the idea of fetters of any k
What happened to wireless? (Score:2)
As if radio waves had borders...
Very sad (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good news everybody! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For people who experience more information and loose faith, it is often because they were looking for reas
Rick Santorum and Iran (Score:2)
What's the difference? Santorum said that he wanted to BAN all pornography. In order to do that, he's have to essentially disconnect American from the internet and build his own "clean" version.
Really now, is there ANY difference? This is a guy being seriously considered as leader of the "free" world. Sure, he's way behind Romney, but clearly, his mouth is making traction.
There's a far right element in this country, the "Christian Taliban" that wants this kind of thing, along with women having no control ov
Re: (Score:3)
This would be a great idea. What they could do is take IPv4, make all routable addresses private and private addresses public. This way, the only public addresses in Iran would be 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x-172.31.x.x and 192.168.x.x. Anything from 0-9.x.x.x will be private addresses, while all other addresses would be the various multicast addresses. This would give the Iranians some 500 million addresses in all - plenty for them, since their population is what - 80 million?
That way, any Iranian who wants