The solution to this is technical. Countries like Iran or China can censor the internet because users traffic goes through centralised bottlenecks called ISPs. If we had longer range wireless networking, and enough people using it, mesh networks could be created where there is no central point of weakness. In such a network any attempt to censor individual nodes just gets routed around.
We need to be working towards a situation where this kind of internet censorship is not just antisocial or unethical, but is also technically impossible.
Then the government outlaws such wireless nodes and threatens to kill off anyone who has one. The nodes broadcast their presence wirelessly so they have no difficulty tracking down the dissidents. After a few dozen people are decapitated in public, civilians become too afraid to try anything. Wireless mesh networks become a communication tool for rebels at best.
The solution is political, this is a technical workaround.
sadly, countries like China has a tight radio/broadcast/wireless control policy. You have to apply for expensive license from government even for a freaking satellite TV receiver
Oh man. So they have to up their censorship efforts while establishing and maintaining a nationwide email system... and deal with the huge backlash when those inconvenienced by the move (ie: damn near everybody that has a few thousand emails and contacts already firmly entrenched in gmail) at the same time.
I feel sorry for the folks that are going to be ordered to directly implement all of this.
Definitely agree with the last part, especially since the penalty of inevitable scalability problems will probably be something like jail or maybe even death?
I dont see any point in blocking Gmail unless they have some issues with Google like China. People will start using Yahoo or Hotmail or some mail other service.
As the internet becomes more and more central to the dissemination of information, I think it is more and more critical that there be some mutually agreed upon 'neutral' channel for communication between people. Because the alternative is that all access to very large and extremely important populations is cut off from your message completely. For instance, non English speakers in China, Indonesia, Iran, and Vietnam. The worst part about it is that in the days of broadcast, you would just say OK, and proceed to have US Government funded radio broadcast into whatever country. Fast forward to today, and how many of those kids are walking around with a radio? Very few probably.
Iranians are pretty sophisticated when it comes to finding ways around government filters. I think the reason for the government banning access to Gmail is Google's decision to switch to HTTPS for all users. That makes it harder to spy on what people are emailing about. Do Yahoo and Hotmail use HTTPS by default?
This probably makes the deep packet inspection the IRG have been accused of much harder.
We need to be working towards a situation where this kind of internet censorship is not just antisocial or unethical, but is also technically impossible.