In an effort to protect against cyberattacks and seal out as much of the influence of the West as possible, the Iranian government is constructing
its own version of the internet. Members of the Iranian government argue that although not everyone will agree, this will be better for the security of Iran in the long run, as it "could help officials counter U.S.-funded programs that allow Iranian activists to evade online surveillance," as well as keep the cyberattacks Iran says the US and Israel are engaging in to a minimum. Perhaps this is all there is to it, perhaps there are pieces of the story that we are missing. The nitty gritty details behind the reasons for this change are known only to the Iranian government, but from a US perspective, this is bad news. This insulated version of the World Wide Web will undoubtedly pose a problem for both those in favor of more internet freedom and the Obama administration, which have invested quite a bit of money into preventing situations such as this. Certainly, freedom of speech and a fast and efficient means of communication between the people are threatened by this plan, which is
slightly reminiscent of the SOPA bill proposed not too long ago. Is the Iranian government in the right--will this ultimately be the best decision for the safety of the country? Is it unjust to attempt to control and restrict the Iranian people's access to something that has become such a powerful tool? Do both sides of the issue have merit?
7 comments:
This seems like the Great Firewall of China multiplied several times over. It's almost unnecessary to say this, but Iran will undoubtably be censoring its new version of the internet more than it censors the currently existing one. (Facebook and Youtube are already censored in Iran). Consequently, it looks as though this new internet would be less "revolution-friendly," which I have no doubt is one of the reason Iranian officials approve of the idea.
I absolutely agree and say "ditto" with Rachel on this one.
On the issue of whether this new version of the internet is unjust or not, as an American who values freedom of speech (and all that good stuff), I would have to say it seems almost cruel and like a punishment to restrict Iranian citizens from having access to the "normal" web. However, on one hand, the Iranian government would get more potential privacy and more opportunities to protect internal business transactions... On the other hand, it could become a disaster that leads to plight and crime if not directed/ constructed properly. We'll just have to wait and see what happens!
Not only do I agree with Rachel and Abby in that Iran is attempting to be less "revolution friendly" in censoring and restricting freedom of speech in their own internet, but it also seems like the Iranian government is trying to isolate the Iranian people even from the mere idea of freedom of speech and other "western ideals" circulating in the 'normal' web. While there probably exists arguments of increased safety in privacy and economics , I would argue that such isolation from the rest of the world would be detrimental to Iran economically and socially, especially in the modern era.
I almost want to laugh at Iran's attempt to rid its people of free speech even more than it already has. Almost. More than laugh, I kind of want to curl up in a corner and cry out of frustration and spite. However, like the article says, they have been talking about this for a while. I would be surprised if it actually happened. And even if it did, just like people got around Iran's blocking of facebook and other social media sites, people would probably be able to get around this too.
As Americans, we would instinctively lash out at Iran for attempting to restrict freedom of speech. From a neutral standpoint, it would make sense for the Iranian government to try to figure out a way to restrict communication. The government obviously does not want a rebellion to rise up and create another "Egyptian Revolution."
Of course, Iran's method of preventing rebellion is inappropriate. Not only is the government taking away a natural right from its citizens, but there would certainly be methods to circumnavigate the "censors" they are going to place. This is similar to the Great Firewall of China since both situations involve a government oppressing the people by taking away their ability to communicate freely on the World Wide Web.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech."
For anyone interested, this is what iranian internet users see when they try to access a blocked website. I saw this link in a comment on Reddit by an Iranian redditor named "Kossain" who is only able to view websites such as Reddit with a proxy. In another comment, he explains what the site says. "First it says in the name of god. Then it explains the page is blocked, says that filter@dci.ir can be contacted for reporting. Then the links below are to 'good' sites (IR approved)." Good thing our government doesn't have any of these religious conservatives...right guys?
I came across a comic this morning (I'd post it but it's written in persian) that showed a man saying, "Oh, yes... please 'filter' Google and Gmail because THOSE are our biggest problems (or difficulties)" Meanwhile you have the lady on the left starving/thinking about food and shelter, and the underprivileged boy on the right thinking about toys. I thought it was an interesting point to bring up that maybe the government should spend less time censoring, and more time trying to take care of its citizens.
Post a Comment