7 ms·

Iran's government moves to criminalize VPNs (2021)

89 points by ariosto 4y ago

sieabahlpark 4y ago
ianwehba 4y ago
[2021]
- ta2234234242 4y ago
  Yeah... It's not recent. Especially not after the uprising this year.
- dang 4y ago
  Added. Thanks!
ta8645 4y ago
There are similar moves to "make people accountable" for their online actions in the west as well; only the details differ, the motivation is the same -- structural control of online activities and content.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  people are and always have been accountable for their actions both online and offline, that's how things are done in any country with the rule of law. The issue is of course what activities and what content and whether lawmakers are accountable to the people. The internet is not a magical land of anarchy.
  - api 4y ago
    The Internet has magical lands of anarchy like the dark web, but the fact that the security and anonymity are fairly symmetrical adds a layer of protection for the one visiting these lands. There's also an awareness that the information in these regions is even less trustworthy than random stuff from the clearnet since you know literally nothing about it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  - ggm 4y ago
    To me "post publicly" has to be contextually understood. The set of people who need to be psueodonymous is certainly non-zero, but even as a small cohort represent an exception to the norm. The set of people who need to be anonymous is highly specific, to me. It's people with legal obligations to them or from them, people at risk of harm. It's not "I feel like my free speech demands this" -note the use of "need" above. "want" is fine. I get that many people want things. Most normal discourse, in the wider space, I believe even if you have a self chosen tag, your identity should be knowable, if some things arise. I can handle that its a high barrier to entry (to uncover it), but the supposition all posts all the time have complete anonymity, simply because you assert you want it, that the supposition fails for me. This causes free-speechers a lot of grief. My personal view is informed by many many years participating in national and international forums discussing what hate speech does, and what free speech means. Inside any cohort who are typified as "wanting anonymity" you find people who also suffer the consequences of being targetted by anonymous hate. I don't see how to reconcile speech rights, with harm minimisation except by requiring identity, even if hidden behind a veil. I appreciate this has chilling effects. I kind-of go to that if it chills the "shout fire in crowded theatre" thing, its done it's job. I also appreciate its not free speech in the wider sense, and it may not even be capable of being free speech in the narrower senses for a lot of people. I think reductionism over free speech is one of those things which really falls down a hole. Almost all 'there is no constraint on my speech' claims fall over when it comes to national security (for instance) I'm pretty sure the EFF people won't agree with me, and I mean them no disrespect. Or a lot of the IETF human rights and privacy people: likewise, I mean them no disrespect. I just come to a different conclusion from free speech reductionists, when it comes to societal/wider harms, from the lack of functional constraint on online speech, and identity issues relating to online speech. The chinese social credit scheme is horrid. The consequences for chinese citizens of unconstrained speech, and identity is also awful. So I know there are strong counter cases to what I say.
  - insightcheck 4y ago
    Anonymous speech is important for anti-corruption. The Washington Post's Watergate investigation would not have taken place without the anonymous sourcing by "Deep Throat."
- themitigating 4y ago
  - honkler 4y ago
    I care more what happens to me, than what I care what happens in a random part of the world. You may not like it, and it may not suit your agenda, but it do be like that.
    - uni_rule 4y ago
      And that alleged agenda is?
      - honkler 4y ago
        taking americans for a ride. Toppling governments because of your own ethnic gripes. Enough of this.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - moviewatcher333 4y ago
    Clueless people will happily trod down this path and not see where it leads. People who’ll say things like “people should use their real names online and be held accountable!” go silent when the places mandating this are the ones killing people for saying the leader is a flawed human or because someone didn’t properly cover their hair. VPN bans make the oppression inescapable. You see who the real dangerous people are when those who’ll still defend it come out. It’s easy to think these dangers are just “over there.” It’s important to remember these things will happen here if we’re not careful.
  - phantom_of_cato 4y ago
    > What is the point of making this comment? The point is that if we don't resist internet censorship here in the west, for which the pressure is building up, there won't be a free internet Iranians could connect to using a VPN.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  I don't know if somebody is being funny, but I think it's cool that my post on free speech was flagged and censored.
  - w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
    5 days ago, HN admins have removed a post about the desastrous effects of liberal policies (shock doctrine) on Kirghistan economy and societal fabric adopted after the collapse of Soviet Block. I only had access to it because my rss reader had already saved the link to the blog post in its internal database. But there wasn't any reference of it anymore on HN when I wanted to reach the comment page. Beside that, the rumors of journalists being fired from english media sphere for their coverage of the recent Nord-stream sabotage and the self-censoring (kind of olympic level mental gymnastic) of some other reporters about the event is mind-bogging.
    - OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
      Political articles that are very likely to devolve into mudsling fests are regularly nuked from hn, as I'm sure you and everyone who uses the rss feed knows. I'm frankly fine with that. It's not the focus of this site. Occasionally those articles are pretty interesting, and then I'm happy I see them from the rss, but usually I can see why they were removed.
    - dang 4y ago
      What was the post? It was most likely flagged by users, not admins.
  - dang 4y ago
    Posts about divisive ideological topics are often (in fact usually) low-quality and lame, so it's natural for them to be downvoted or flagged. That's to be expected on a site that is trying to hover at least a little above internet default, with its flames and its rages and its repetitions. People don't post about these things out of intellectual curiosity—they mostly just reiterate pre-existing positions and points and agendas. Such comments typically make up for the lack of curiosity or information with rhetoric and indignation. That's what we're trying to avoid on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
codert 4y ago
Has already fallen behind PRC.
sydbarrett74 4y ago
The Powers That Be demand accountability from all except themselves. Such has been true throughout human history.
DanG2Point0 4y ago
yieldcrv 4y ago
2021, They were doing this before it was cool
1970-01-01 4y ago
Hey Iran, do everyone a favor and criminalize NAT.
stunt 4y ago
When I was reading about Internet censorship in Iran and what they have done in recent years, it made me think of WhatsApp. They have blocked most of the popular messaging platforms including Telegram long time ago but for some reason they have not blocked WhatsApp. Since the current round of protests in Iran started in mid-September, they also blocked WhatsApp, but only because they don't want people organizing, discussing and sharing in groups. Basically everything is blocked now and this new development is most likely a temporary thing until they can handle the protests. But isn't the fact that they haven't blocked WhatsApp in these years suspicious? Maybe they have access to NSO's Pegasus spyware or something similar. I don't think NSO would sell it to Iran considering NSO is an Israeli company, but they could still do it by using a middleman and not letting NSO know who the real customer is. Or maybe they developed a similar tool themselves because they have the motivation and the money to buy the information even if they are not capable to find it themselves.
- dustyharddrive 4y ago
  If they use Pegasus, the messaging app doesn’t matter.

89 points by ariosto 4y ago

sieabahlpark 4y ago

ianwehba 4y ago

[2021]

ta2234234242 4y ago
Yeah... It's not recent. Especially not after the uprising this year.
dang 4y ago
Added. Thanks!

ta8645 4y ago

There are similar moves to "make people accountable" for their online actions in the west as well; only the details differ, the motivation is the same -- structural control of online activities and content.

Barrin92 4y ago
people are and always have been accountable for their actions both online and offline, that's how things are done in any country with the rule of law. The issue is of course what activities and what content and whether lawmakers are accountable to the people. The internet is not a magical land of anarchy.
- api 4y ago
  The Internet has magical lands of anarchy like the dark web, but the fact that the security and anonymity are fairly symmetrical adds a layer of protection for the one visiting these lands. There's also an awareness that the information in these regions is even less trustworthy than random stuff from the clearnet since you know literally nothing about it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jay_kyburz 4y ago
- ggm 4y ago
  To me "post publicly" has to be contextually understood. The set of people who need to be psueodonymous is certainly non-zero, but even as a small cohort represent an exception to the norm. The set of people who need to be anonymous is highly specific, to me. It's people with legal obligations to them or from them, people at risk of harm. It's not "I feel like my free speech demands this" -note the use of "need" above. "want" is fine. I get that many people want things. Most normal discourse, in the wider space, I believe even if you have a self chosen tag, your identity should be knowable, if some things arise. I can handle that its a high barrier to entry (to uncover it), but the supposition all posts all the time have complete anonymity, simply because you assert you want it, that the supposition fails for me. This causes free-speechers a lot of grief. My personal view is informed by many many years participating in national and international forums discussing what hate speech does, and what free speech means. Inside any cohort who are typified as "wanting anonymity" you find people who also suffer the consequences of being targetted by anonymous hate. I don't see how to reconcile speech rights, with harm minimisation except by requiring identity, even if hidden behind a veil. I appreciate this has chilling effects. I kind-of go to that if it chills the "shout fire in crowded theatre" thing, its done it's job. I also appreciate its not free speech in the wider sense, and it may not even be capable of being free speech in the narrower senses for a lot of people. I think reductionism over free speech is one of those things which really falls down a hole. Almost all 'there is no constraint on my speech' claims fall over when it comes to national security (for instance) I'm pretty sure the EFF people won't agree with me, and I mean them no disrespect. Or a lot of the IETF human rights and privacy people: likewise, I mean them no disrespect. I just come to a different conclusion from free speech reductionists, when it comes to societal/wider harms, from the lack of functional constraint on online speech, and identity issues relating to online speech. The chinese social credit scheme is horrid. The consequences for chinese citizens of unconstrained speech, and identity is also awful. So I know there are strong counter cases to what I say.
- insightcheck 4y ago
  Anonymous speech is important for anti-corruption. The Washington Post's Watergate investigation would not have taken place without the anonymous sourcing by "Deep Throat."
themitigating 4y ago
- honkler 4y ago
  I care more what happens to me, than what I care what happens in a random part of the world. You may not like it, and it may not suit your agenda, but it do be like that.
  - uni_rule 4y ago
    And that alleged agenda is?
    - honkler 4y ago
      taking americans for a ride. Toppling governments because of your own ethnic gripes. Enough of this.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- moviewatcher333 4y ago
  Clueless people will happily trod down this path and not see where it leads. People who’ll say things like “people should use their real names online and be held accountable!” go silent when the places mandating this are the ones killing people for saying the leader is a flawed human or because someone didn’t properly cover their hair. VPN bans make the oppression inescapable. You see who the real dangerous people are when those who’ll still defend it come out. It’s easy to think these dangers are just “over there.” It’s important to remember these things will happen here if we’re not careful.
- phantom_of_cato 4y ago
  > What is the point of making this comment? The point is that if we don't resist internet censorship here in the west, for which the pressure is building up, there won't be a free internet Iranians could connect to using a VPN.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jay_kyburz 4y ago
I don't know if somebody is being funny, but I think it's cool that my post on free speech was flagged and censored.
- w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
  5 days ago, HN admins have removed a post about the desastrous effects of liberal policies (shock doctrine) on Kirghistan economy and societal fabric adopted after the collapse of Soviet Block. I only had access to it because my rss reader had already saved the link to the blog post in its internal database. But there wasn't any reference of it anymore on HN when I wanted to reach the comment page. Beside that, the rumors of journalists being fired from english media sphere for their coverage of the recent Nord-stream sabotage and the self-censoring (kind of olympic level mental gymnastic) of some other reporters about the event is mind-bogging.
  - OrderlyTiamat 4y ago
    Political articles that are very likely to devolve into mudsling fests are regularly nuked from hn, as I'm sure you and everyone who uses the rss feed knows. I'm frankly fine with that. It's not the focus of this site. Occasionally those articles are pretty interesting, and then I'm happy I see them from the rss, but usually I can see why they were removed.
  - dang 4y ago
    What was the post? It was most likely flagged by users, not admins.
- dang 4y ago
  Posts about divisive ideological topics are often (in fact usually) low-quality and lame, so it's natural for them to be downvoted or flagged. That's to be expected on a site that is trying to hover at least a little above internet default, with its flames and its rages and its repetitions. People don't post about these things out of intellectual curiosity—they mostly just reiterate pre-existing positions and points and agendas. Such comments typically make up for the lack of curiosity or information with rhetoric and indignation. That's what we're trying to avoid on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

codert 4y ago

Has already fallen behind PRC.

sydbarrett74 4y ago

The Powers That Be demand accountability from all except themselves. Such has been true throughout human history.

DanG2Point0 4y ago

yieldcrv 4y ago

2021, They were doing this before it was cool

1970-01-01 4y ago

Hey Iran, do everyone a favor and criminalize NAT.

stunt 4y ago

When I was reading about Internet censorship in Iran and what they have done in recent years, it made me think of WhatsApp. They have blocked most of the popular messaging platforms including Telegram long time ago but for some reason they have not blocked WhatsApp. Since the current round of protests in Iran started in mid-September, they also blocked WhatsApp, but only because they don't want people organizing, discussing and sharing in groups. Basically everything is blocked now and this new development is most likely a temporary thing until they can handle the protests. But isn't the fact that they haven't blocked WhatsApp in these years suspicious? Maybe they have access to NSO's Pegasus spyware or something similar. I don't think NSO would sell it to Iran considering NSO is an Israeli company, but they could still do it by using a middleman and not letting NSO know who the real customer is. Or maybe they developed a similar tool themselves because they have the motivation and the money to buy the information even if they are not capable to find it themselves.

dustyharddrive 4y ago
If they use Pegasus, the messaging app doesn’t matter.