Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Communications Google Government The Internet Youtube Your Rights Online

Iran Set To Block Access To Google 279

Posted by timothy
from the haraamph-haraamph dept.
legolas writes "The official state online censorship body in Iran has reported that Google and Gmail are going to be blocked effective immediately, ostensibly in response to the contentious videos that YouTube is hosting. This comes as Iran is preparing the launch of their 'Halal' intranet to replace the current direct (albeit highly censored) access to the global Internet. While there have been several state-organized protests for the film 'Innocence Of Muslims' in Iran, the public in general doesn't seem bothered by it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran Set To Block Access To Google

Comments Filter:
  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @07:03PM (#41432031) Homepage Journal

    This poll seems timely: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx [gallup.com]

    People react to the culture in which they're brought up. And even in the Middle East, it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

    As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, except one: I want to live in a peaceful world. Six years ago I wrote this journal entry [slashdot.org]. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East.

    • by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Sunday September 23, 2012 @07:12PM (#41432103) Journal

      Trying to save this from a First Post Godwin,

      Mr. H. is passe. That's not precisely how the next threat will manifest. The world is too networked for that. I don't have time to read my 1,000 pages for Citations Needed, but basically Mr. H. got as far as he did because of the specific places he was in geography-time.

      Now, we might see another Charismatic Dangerous Leader, yes. But you can't go just marching along, not today. So the next Bad Guy will be more of a Loose Cannon that needs to be talked down Game Theory style, with VERY clever diplomacy.

      • by khallow (566160)

        Mr. H. is passe. That's not precisely how the next threat will manifest. The world is too networked for that. I don't have time to read my 1,000 pages for Citations Needed, but basically Mr. H. got as far as he did because of the specific places he was in geography-time.

        And that's how you can fail to degodwinize a thread. Hilter was lucky to get where he did, but it wasn't so much a matter of luck that a Hitler rose to power. For example, the German military, almost immediately started violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles to the point where they apparently were killing people who knew too much of the Treaty violations in the 1920s. As it turned out, one of the leaders who supervised the German military's black ops stuff, a General Kurt von Schleicher, later beca

        • Not sure we're talking on the same plane.

          I meant that Today's Scary Leader is/will soon be sitting on a button that could blow up the world. It's not about marching troops per se anymore, it's all down to convincing that guy not to push the button.

      • Now, we might see another Charismatic Dangerous Leader, yes.

        The desired habits are being installed even now [investors.com].

    • by Twigmon (1095941) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @07:49PM (#41432303) Homepage

      I think the most scary thing from the poll you linked is that 8% of Muslims did not agree that: Muslims living in the U.S. do not sympathize with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

      This means that 1 in 12 Muslims interviewed could believe that Muslims living in the U.S. sympathize with an organisation who openly hates western society.

      • by poity (465672) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @08:20PM (#41432483)

        Well, that could have other meanings. It could mean, as you say, that they're admitting something. But it could just as likely mean that there are some Muslims who are cynical about people of their faith. I'm sure we can find a good percentage of self-identified Christians who think they're surrounded by fundamentalists and think there are people among them who sympathize with abortion clinic bombers. Less of them would think so as compared to non-Christians, just like the graph, but I'm sure you could find 8 cynics out of 100.

    • by poity (465672) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @08:10PM (#41432447)

      I'm not sure about those equal chances. People in the West don't fear for their lives when they espouse anti-authoritarian or anti-religion views. This tells me there are more barriers in the West to some imaginary future Hitler. Now, you can say those barriers aren't good enough for you, but the difference is there and the equivalence is false.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dskoll (99328)

      People react to the culture in which they're brought up.

      So... does it have nothing to do with culture and religion that most Muslim countries have poor human development levels? That most Muslim countries are sexist (in practice even if they deny it) and homophomic? That a disproportionate number of conflicts involve Muslim countries? Or that most people killed in religiously-motivated riots in the last 50 years have been killed by Muslims (and indeed, have probably been Muslim themselves)?

      As another

    • Six years ago I wrote this journal entry [slashdot.org]. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East

      In that journal, you speak of criticism of Islam as "racial hatred". This is absurd; a person who criticizes Islam is no more racist than a person who criticizes communism. A religion (or ideology) is not a race.

      And I would love the Left to practice what it preaches;

    • ...it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

      Says Agenda Joe.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Charliemopps (1157495)
      Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If
      • by AK Marc (707885)

        I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it."

        Have you ever answered that in a group of believers? They'll talk to you until you tell them you are saved, or start professing your love to the anti-God. Either way, I've found few religious people that allow for people who do not pick a side.

      • by mjwx (966435) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @11:51PM (#41433589)

        Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...

        Sorry, but this is what you want to beleive, not reality.

        In simple terms, it's wrong.

        It is also clear, you've never actually talked to atheists. It is an utter fabrication you need to tell yourself this in order to compensate for your own self doubt. This is a weakness in your faith, not a aspect of my lack of faith. You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.

        I proclaim, "there is no god", I also proclaim "I dont want you to do anything". What you believe in is your business, I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity.

        Yes, whether or not you believe in god has zero effect on me as I don't believe in god. To use an analogy, your hobby of collecting stamps has not effect on my hobby of not collecting stamps.

        The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.

      • by nospam007 (722110) *

        "Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief."

        Sure and not collecting stamps is our hobby.

      • by dskoll (99328)

        Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief.

        Bullshit. If someone wants to convince me that God exists, the onus is on the believer to supply proof.

        People who do follow religion are demonstrably capable of believing in supernatural beings without the slightest shred of evidence. That's already a good sign they're not quite rational and the more weak-minded among them are ripe to be recruited by extremists.

      • Any atheist will tell you there are very peaceful religions -- the Quakers, Buddhists, Jains, etc. We consider your religion potentially violent because of the facts of how it's been used through history and the present to promote violence, not simply because we disagree with it.
    • it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

      >>Objecting to others stereotyping a group
      >>Doing so by stereotyping "rightists"

      I see what you did there.

    • by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @10:38PM (#41433173)

      People react to the culture in which they're brought up. And even in the Middle East, it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

      Yes, this is clearly a problem of "rightest" depiction of the actions of Islamists.

      Bounty on Salman Rushdie increased to $3.3 million - Iran will pursue makers of anti-Islam film: vice-presidenthor [vancouversun.com]

      Pakistani minister puts bounty on anti-Islam filmmaker's head [theage.com.au]

      Egypt's president elect Mohammed Morsi says he will try to free Blind Sheikh [telegraph.co.uk]

      Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's president elect, on Friday appealed for the release of one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates, a call sure to alarm critics worried about the direction he will take the country

      Interview with Father Zakaria Botros, 'Radical Islam's Bane' - An interview with the Coptic Orthodox Priest with a 60 million dollar bounty on his head from al Qaeda. [catholic.org]
      More: Michael Coren Interviews Father Zakaria Botros 'Radical Islam's Bane' [youtube.com]

      Allied Menace [danielpipes.org]

      "Here are two brother countries, united like a single fist," said socialist Hugo Chávez during a visit to Tehran last November, celebrating his alliance with Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Che Guevara's son Camilo, who also visited Tehran last year, declared that his father would have "supported the country in its current struggle against the United States." They followed in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, who in a 2001 visit told his hosts that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees." For his part, Ilich Ramírez Sánchez ("Carlos the Jackal") wrote in his book L'islam révolutionnaire ("Revolutionary Islam") that "only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States."

      As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, except one: I want to live in a peaceful world.

      You want to live in a peaceful world, and al-Qaida and assorted Islamists want you to live in a Muslim world [spiegel.de]. I expect that neither of you will get your wish unless enough people prefer any peace, even the peace of the graveyard, or the "peace" of slavery, to the long term struggle to defense genuine peace a freedom.

    • by Nemyst (1383049)

      Comfort breeds a lot of things, namely political apathy and corruption, but it doesn't bring the kind of social unrest necessary to create a new Hitler. You need an unstable area combined with an extremely charismatic leader to succeed there.

      A politician in the US or in Europe who wanted to go power-crazy would be stopped by inertia: the population doesn't give a flying shit about what he wants to do, since they're still comfortable as they are and see no reason to change that.

      Now, if the US or EU collapse

  • by cheesybagel (670288) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @07:20PM (#41432157)
    After Stuxnet Iran started buying up networking equipment like crazy to make their own version of the Great Chinese Firewall. Eventually they were going to segregate all outbound communications. Considering the amount of information people trust to Google and the fact that the US Government can access the information if they ask for it (Google has little choice but to comply) there is little reason not to filter their services out completely. Plus if users are forced to use Iranian Internet services the Iranian state can then access all personal user information regardless if it is encrypted en route or not.
  • by QilessQi (2044624) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @08:31PM (#41432523)

    in the United States. Large swaths of the country are deeply religious, by which I mean some stripe of Christianity. They have grown increasingly suspicious (if not downright scornful) of scientists and educators who challenge their views and threaten to corrupt the views of their children. I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

    It seems unthinkable. But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html [huffingtonpost.com]

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      The number that believe in creationism has been pretty much constant for the past thirty years, according to the survey you cite. What makes you think that it's going to go up? And even if it does, what makes you so sure that belief in creationism correlates so closely to a desire to lock down the internet?

      What exactly are you even getting at? That would should be afraid of "others"? Sounds like run-of-the-mill hate-mongering to me. No different from Rush Limbaugh moaning about how the US is on track t

      • by QilessQi (2044624)

        I don't think it's going to go up. But I'm appalled that it hasn't gone down, and that it's as high as it is.

        And I'm not getting at anything. I just think it's unfortunate that entire countries are going on lockdown, and I wonder what it would take for the United States to institute such measures. Of course it won't happen tomorrow, or next year. But what about fifty years, or a hundred? Political, cultural, and religious landscapes change, and not always in ways that we'd expect. Do you think it's im

    • by kermidge (2221646)

      While the odds may seem low at the moment, the possibility of the rise of a Nehemiah Scudder scares me. (In a way, it's too bad Heinlein never wrote that story; then again, it leaves it as an interesting exercise for the reader.)

      The U.S. is in trouble enough owing to that 46%. Does it increase another five or ten points, we're totally screwed. (Of course, it's still unknown if we'll survive the DHS. The combination of that with a theocracy would be beyond chilling.)

    • The Christians proclaim that the bible is literally true and it is the proof what they believe is true. The problem with that is faith means believing without proof. So all the Christians demanding Creationism be taught in schools are actually proclaiming their own lack of faith. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
      • by rickb928 (945187)

        Yes.

        "faith means believing without proof. "

        Faith does indeed mean beliving in what you cannot 'see'. That's the definition.

        Many a biologist and many from other branches of science believe in Creation, and still believe in Science. Myself, I believe in Creation, but I have NO IDEA quite how God did it, nor do I need to to believe in God, because if He did NOT create everything, he is not the God He says He is. That is the logical puzzle you should consider first. Oh, and the small matter of Jewish histor

    • by guttentag (313541)

      But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

      46%? I know that number. Aren't those the people Mitt Romney said [nytimes.com] don't pay any taxes? Just as Mitt's numbers were a gross mischaracterization of nearly half the country, I would tend to question the assertion that 46% of the population supports religious censorship. In the United States no one is more aware of the ties between "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" than the religious right. Their way of life couldn't exist without those. I've sat through sermons in numerous churches of different

      • by QilessQi (2044624)

        I did not say that 46% support censorship. 46% believe in Young Earth Creationism; I cited an article that posted the Gallup poll where that number came from.

        Do I believe that every person of that 46% supports censorship? Absolutely not. But don't you wonder what percentage of Iranian citizens really support censorship? Even in a theocracy, people are people, and the people I know generally chafe at restrictions.

        Draconian restrictions can be imposed by a government on a populace for their alleged safet

      • by QilessQi (2044624)

        In my previous reply I forgot to post the link to the poll:

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx [gallup.com]

    • I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

      It's a fallacy to think that the US Christian population is the major drive in pushing Internet censorship. Look at the more advanced European countries where religious practice has been on decline. It doesn't seem we can go a single week here without hearing about yet another country-wide website blocking system being implemented in places like the UK, Germany, Sweden, etc.. At the moment, the US is the most free in regards to the Internet and has no country-wide censorship program.

      Just because a popula

      • by QilessQi (2044624)

        I completely agree. But even in the United States, some people are willing to surrender personal liberty in exchange for safety. Then it all just comes down to what "safety" means.

    • by Nemyst (1383049)

      Doubtful. The advantages of control (because let's be honest, religion is just an excuse for control in those instances) are much less important than the disadvantages for a post-industrial country like the US. The entire economy of the US revolves around the services sector, and destroying the Internet would have profound impacts on that.

      You can say what you will about the FBI, the MAFIAA, the DoD, etc. wanting more control, but there's a point where the encroachment would be too great to be financially be

  • by pjtp (533932) on Sunday September 23, 2012 @09:21PM (#41432793) Homepage

    ok... can we have your IPv4 addresses.

  • But will they go IPv6? Since they start from scratch this would make sense.

    Oh, wait, this is more of a YRO issue and less of a technical one.....

    I'll get my coat.
  • I wrote about this last week: viableawesomism.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-loudest-voices.html

    The biggest trap is using the word "They". "They" are not all cast with the same brush.
    By lumping everyone in Iran or in any other Muslim culture together and accusing them of what their extremists do,
    you're giving the nutjobs fuel and eroding the sane people (sane Iranians in this case) who oppose them.

    Iran is a Dictatorship.
    The people who live in it have little say until they get the guts to start walking into the wa

  • Key phrase (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mvar (1386987) on Monday September 24, 2012 @12:57AM (#41433789)
    the public in general doesn't seem bothered by it.
    And why should it. The large majority of the muslims just don't give a shit - like the large majority of the christians didn't give a shit when "Life of Brian" was released in theaters a few decades ago and the far-right protested by shutting down cinemas, burning books etc. The only way for the whole world to escape this religious stupidity that holds us back as a species is through technology and, I'm afraid, consumerism. Just load the middle east with a few million smartphones and tablets and watch them turn into the obedient "I don't give a fuck about god & associates, give me my new ipad" crowd we've all become :-P
  • Ironically... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tastecicles (1153671) on Monday September 24, 2012 @01:19AM (#41433873)

    ...notwithstanding the fact that the Western media continues to paint the Middle East as a war torn, savage region of deserts and oil, the place is actually rather green (albeit warm), and 99% of the populace are generally happy with their individual lot, and peaceful. It's the disgruntled (for whatever reason) 1% who incite, most likely, IMHO, encouraged by Western influences* ::coughCIAcough::. Those same Western influences control Western media, so when unrest does happen, the cameras are already there. It's not a case of convenience, it's staged to deliberately destabilise the region and keep guns moving and blood money flowing.

    OK, here's the list, in case you missed it:

    CIA (and their list of "friendly" or "useful" individuals, al Qaeda)
    MI6 (stop saying MI5, that's Internal Intelligence)
    Puppet Governments (such as installed in Georgia - what, you didn't know the current President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is a former New York lawyer?)
    Common Purpose International ("leadership training" - which involves nudging, NLP, and is also used to find and neutralise leadership elements where such traits are not desired, by any means necessary)

  • by cancerward (103910) on Monday September 24, 2012 @01:47AM (#41433967) Journal
    There is a huge gulf between media reports of life in Iran and the reality. I was there for two weeks this month and wrote a short blog post on the internet censorship. http://kanahakkliha.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/iran-in-2012.html [blogspot.com.au]

    The reality is the censorship is considered to be a complete joke - freegate or tor just goes right through it. The government is just wasting their time. Facebook, youtube and twitter are all "blocked" but everyone uses them. It only gets annoying when you're accessing wifi from a mobile device and don't have a VPN already set up.

    There's a site called blockediniran.com which is pretty accurate - http://www.blockediniran.com/?siteurl=google.com [blockediniran.com] it shows that google.com is not blocked yet (but, for example, it can't understand that m.smh.com.au is a website). However, when I was there, every other country variant of google was blocked - google.com.au, google.co.uk, google.co.nz etc, and blockediniran confirms those.
  • Innocence of Muslims has been on Youtube since JULY.

    Why the protests NOW?

    -also-

    Why is the US Government so set on blaming the US Diplomatic Mission killings on this video? Doesn't anyone else think that it might possibly have been preplanned, independently of some fourteen minute video, to coincide with the anniversary of the WTC demolition?? I mean, really?

    • Innocence of Muslims has been on Youtube since JULY.

      Why the protests NOW?

      From the Wikipedia article:

      Videos dubbed in the Arabic language were uploaded during early September 2012,[6] and were promoted by Morris Sadek by email and on the blog of the National American Coptic Assembly.[7] On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station.[8][9] Demonstrations and violent protests against the film broke out on September 11 in Egypt and Libya, and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and some western countries

      • Not too much of a surprise to learn that the channel from which the video was broadcast had evolved from a pop culture channel to a militant islamist channel in only a few months... what better way to incite violence than to play such material to an already angered and captive audience?

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

Working...