Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Egyptians Find New Ways To Get Online

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the all-this-stuff-makes-me-want-to-visit dept.

The Internet 202

angry tapir writes "Groups like We Rebuild have scrambled to keep Egypt connected to the outside world, turning to landline telephones, fax machines and even ham radio to keep information flowing in and out of the country. Although one Internet service provider — Noor Group — remains in operation, Egypt's government abruptly ordered the rest of the country's ISPs to shut down their services just after midnight local time Thursday. Mobile networks have also been turned off in some areas."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

guess they won't be making (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052000)

a first post.....

First post!11!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052002)

This is the first post.

Egyptians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052004)

Egyptians are in Africa. Does that make them niggers?

By the way, the great civilization of Ancient Egypt was NOT black people. They tell them that shit to make them feel better about themselves. Political correctness bullshit is all about "feeling good" for no reason instead of feeling good about actual achievement. Nope. It was the Aryans who built the great Ancient Egypt. There has never been a truly successful black nation and probably never will be. Just look to Haiti for an example:

"The present condition of Haiti gives the best possible answer to the question, and, considering the experiment has lasted for a century, perhaps also a conclusive one. For a century the answer has been working itself out there in flesh and blood. The Negro has had his chance, a fair field, and no favor. He has had the most beautiful and fertile of the Caribees for his own; he has had the advantage of excellent French laws; he inherited a made country, with Cap Haitien [A once beautiful town on the north coast of Haiti] for its Paris. . . . Here was a wide land sown with prosperity, a land of wood, water, towns and plantations, and in the midst of it the Black man was turned loose to work out his own salvation. What has he made of the chances that were given to him? . . .

At the end of a hundred years of trial how does the Black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none."

- Hesketh Prichard

Re:Egyptians (2)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052104)

That's just short sighted biggotry, i hope your just trolling. I'd say that India is running a successful black country? being ~1 billion people in size they have to be doing something right.

Re:Egyptians (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052194)

GP is trolling, but calling India a "black country" is some serious wtf.

Re:Egyptians (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052352)

they aren't African black, but they aren't Caucasian either. (obviously, they are Indian...)

my assertion was based on "black people" can't have a successful society, as the only numeric of success of said society was the color of the skin, if it was truly important then lighter skin would be successful society and darker skin would be less successful.

as we know that darker skinned India has quite a successful country, there for the ability to create a successful society is not defined by skin colour. It doesn't matter as if your getting picky about race, then Egyptians exhibit more middle eastern traits than African traits.

Re:Egyptians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052224)

The fact that India is the only example anybody can present of a successful nigger country proves GP's point. Calling it bigotry doesn't make it any less factually accurate.

Re:Egyptians (0)

Vasil16 (1773348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052238)

India is not a black country. They have totaly different racial caracteristics. Just being darkskined does not make you an African. And yes the parrent post is an example of racism that I thought was reserved for places like 4chan.

Re:Egyptians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053220)

Racism gets you banned now apparently. I guess the jews that own moot wanted to make it a little more "friendly" before they take on facebook.

Re:Egyptians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052356)

"Egyptians are in Africa. Does that make them niggers? "

Yes, but they belong to a certain class of nigger known as Sandus Niggerosus.

Re:Egyptians (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053248)

Regurgitate your own Kool-Aid much? Does it really taste better going down the 100th time?

carrier pigeons! (1, Funny)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052014)

Just make sure they stay clear of areas where "fireworks" are going off.

Re:carrier pigeons! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052118)

Apparently, all the carrier pigeons have been reporting a Coo

RFC1149 (3, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052226)

That's exactly what I thought too! Good ol' RFC1149. [linux.no]

Knee-Jerk Reaction (5, Insightful)

bgfay (5362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052026)

A regime that tries to shut down all means for its population to communicate is one that does not deserve to continue.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (4, Insightful)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052052)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052128)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052170)

Yeah, Kill switch is for important systems (such as a nuclear plant or the like. Civilian internet can not be touched (unless they claim their download of a metalica song caused the terrorist attack

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052732)

It might seem like cutting off porn to the guards at a nuclear power plant would make them more alert, but in practice they tend to start molesting the operators.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053668)

Aren't new Metallica songs terrorists attacks?

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (3, Insightful)

jcwayne (995747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052330)

Emergency powers always sound reasonable, even prudent, when the laws enabling them are written prior to an actual emergency. What really matters is who's in power when the Reichstag goes up in flames.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (4, Insightful)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052350)

What really matters is who's in power when the Reichstag goes up in flames.

Or a plane hits a building.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052916)

Emergency powers always sound reasonable, even prudent, when the laws enabling them are written prior to an actual emergency. What really matters is who's in power when the Reichstag goes up in flames.

So how can these powers be abused? The president already has emergency power to cut communications under the patriot act without declaring war, and has the power under a martial law declaration. I guess I just don't see where this adds any danger. Now they can declare all communications to be critical and then shut them down under the guise of protecting them? So now they're confusing people by making a claim that it is critical infrastructure and another claim that it is somehow protected now? And this is better for the executive in some way instead of just shutting down the communications and saying it is to stop terrorists? I seriously don't get it.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (2)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053218)

I'm not sure you have it all right, but let's say you do. Then it follows, the way you've said it, that the President can do certain things only if he is also willing to declare martial law. That sounds like scope would be limited to the area under martial law itself.
To illustrate, if a hurricane hits New Orleans, the President could declare martial law, and hit the kill switch for the New Orleans area (if that's physically possible). That wouldn't give him the authority to kill communications nationwide, outside the area of martial law itself. The public would probably react pretty strongly to the absurdity of declaring martial law nationwide for a natural disaster in one part of the nation, but might not react as strongly to a communications blackout, particularly an intermittent one or just using the threat of one to censor news coming out of the affected area.
Again as you posit, there are some circumstances where the government could probably get away with major communications blackouts, like a major terrorist attack, but there are other cases where it would be harder. Offhand, that's not just natural disasters either - what happens when the government claims they have dealt effectively with the terrorist attack, but doesn't want to restore communications just yet? Do they have to maintain a state of martial law somewhere for as long as they want to block the net? Can they use it circularly, claiming that martial law is justified because there is a threat to the communications nets themselves, and then that martial law allows them to shut down the communications nets?

Which makes sense to have (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052396)

This is actually something we need to think about at work a "Internet kill switch." What I mean by that is let's say there is a massive amount of attacks coming from all over the net, that we cannot mitigate or shut out. We need to cut our losses until it is over or something can be done, we need to shut down the Internet. Well, just pulling the connection physically would work to some extent, since it is a single building, but actually would result in loss to some pretty critical stuff. We really need to set up an emergency procedure so that we can cut off the net at large, but maintain connections to our critical servers if we need it.

Re:Which makes sense to have (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053066)

Hey sycraft, are you looking for a way to cut off the net at large, but maintain connections to your critical servers [lmgtfy.com] ?

Re:Which makes sense to have (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053112)

That was a complete fail at lmgtfy, since not a single word you quoted (or in your entire post for that matter) is your search term.

Actually pasting your quoted text into Google clearly does not link to iptables anywhere on the first page of results.

Don't be a dick, just make the suggestion that he try looking for "iptables" and he will probably find his answer...

Re:Which makes sense to have (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053526)

Tech support. Yeah.. What? You can't what? oh... It's called a hyperlink. You click on it.

Re:Which makes sense to have (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053626)

"Well, just pulling the connection physically would work to some extent, since it is a single building, but actually would result in loss to some pretty critical stuff. We really need to set up an emergency procedure so that we can cut off the net at large, but maintain connections to our critical servers if we need it."

Or you could bother to have half a brain and keep localized copies of essential systems/servers at each building, so each building can operate independently and pulling your outside plug does PRACTICALLY NOTHING, and you can restore full normal function after reconnecting and re-syncing.

Who in the world is doing the thinking at your work? Sounds like you need to fire them. That took me all of ten seconds to figure out with three additional backup plans.

No Court Review (4, Informative)

soren100 (63191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052512)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.

What you don't seem to get that is that "isolating the networks" is exactly how you shut down communications. How else would you do it, besides pulling the plug entirely?

Also, the other important piece here is that according to the blll, Judicial Review is explicitly denied [cnet.com]

A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.

So if anything can be declared "critical infrastructure" and isolated without benefit of the courts, any communication can be shut down. The attempt to avoid judicial review is on page 403 of the bill, if you care to read it yourself. [loc.gov]

Re:No Court Review (1, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052896)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.

What you don't seem to get that is that "isolating the networks" is exactly how you shut down communications. How else would you do it, besides pulling the plug entirely?

Isolating the networks of critical infrastructure doesn't disrupt communications in general and the people working at nuclear plants on secure networks can go tot he public network or home or to a coffee shop or use their phone. It doesn't hinder communication significantly for the country. The idea that such a thing is a goal is simply unsupported and unsupportable.

A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.

I didn't see that in the bill either and how exactly does a law prohibit the courts from reviewing it? They're the courts, if a court refuses you appeal to a higher court and supreme court is not answerable to the legislature aside from a constitutional amendment.

So if anything can be declared "critical infrastructure" and isolated without benefit of the courts, any communication can be shut down.

In an emergency, yes, but the executive already has the power to do that two other ways. They aren't interested in this for shutting down communications because they don't need it, it would require them to make ludicrous claims about what is critical infrastructure, and shutting down communications would be political suicide. This is about creating a group to look at the problems and make a nice list of what needs to be protected and how and then let the executive have a less extreme option when they need to protect something specific.

It takes a pretty convoluted and unreasonable conspiracy theory or some inexplicable chain of events to see how this bill would be used for censorship.

Re:No Court Review (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052962)

Where have you been for the past 9 years? Our government has wiretapped everyone, illegally, yet legally, put scanners in airports that show off everything, or you get a "friendly" pat down, tapped our ISPs to track everything, and yet you think the law still somehow applies to vaguely written laws?
Believe me, interpretation is key in law and this one is not specific enough.

Re:No Court Review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053156)

What you don't seem to get that is that "isolating the networks" is exactly how you shut down communications. How else would you do it, besides pulling the plug entirely?

The government making the choice to unplug their own servers from the Internet will have absolutely no affect on communications for anyone else.

You might as well say that you personally are never allowed to unplug your cable modem or dsl line, because in doing so you are shutting down communications for the entire Internet...

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052586)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications?

Why does it need to be a quotation from the bill? wikileaks.org suddenly not resolving at a certain moment isn't enough of an example?

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053474)

"isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located"

Mmm, yes, and since it all depends a fairly small number of backbone routes the collateral damage being everybody else is a mere bagatelle. Not to mention if the "high value infrastructure" IT people actually know thir ass from a router (and for the most part they actually do), then such action isn't necessary to begin with.
      So right back atcha: by all means, please do read more! The better to uncover the stalking horse and whole different beastie hiding behind it and maybe think twice before throwing random devil's advocate quips around.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052202)

yea just a bs headline it had nothing to due with turning off internet. with the fcc doing that big push abought preventing such a bill ever to be passed aka net nutrlty it woulda been a total 180.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052274)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

E.g. Winning The Future

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052342)

In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...

Is this Act the policy of one particular party or of the Execute Branch? (Serious question.)

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052456)

That has to do in the event of a cyber attack from Russia, Al Quada, or China on our nation's infrastructure. It is not a tool to censor but rather a way to stop something from spreading. If the rumors are true that half our traffic got routed to China so they could snoop up and monitor traffic then this proposed legislation is enacted to stop just that.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052870)

That has to do in the event of a cyber attack from Russia, Al Quada, or China on our nation's infrastructure. It is not a tool to censor but rather a way to stop something from spreading.

It would be disingenuous to imply that the US government is on the same level as Egypt, but do you really think that the Egyptian government didn't put forward similar plausible-sounding reasoning? The difference between "censoring protesters' communication" and "preventing dangerous revolutionaries from co-ordinating attacks on the state" is simply one of perspective.

I'm honestly interested to know, why do you trust the government to only use this power against "Russia, Al Quada, or China"? The patriot act was only intended for use against terrorists, and look how that turned out. Hell, just look one story up [slashdot.org] and you'll see evidence of serious and systematic lawbreaking by the FBI. Again, I'm not saying that things in the US are going to be as bad as Egypt, or China for that matter, but I can't possibly see how we can be asked to believe the politicians when they have broken their promises time and again on similar issues.

no mixed messages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053096)

the US government has been consistent for decades that they do not deserve to continue.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052192)

"Sir! A camel just arrived with an important message!"

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052368)

Safe bet the Army switches out the civilian upper echelon.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052432)

Unfortunately, the same thing happened in Iran in 1979 when a bunch of peace loving citizens decided to overthrow the Sha. Look at what happened?

We do not know what the new government of Egypt will look like but lets hope it is not an Islamic Fascist.

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052688)

It will be Islamic only! We will kill all the zionist infidels, and live the right way! Masr will finally be free of infidels! Allahu Akbar!

Re:Knee-Jerk Reaction (0)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052750)

We do not know what the new government of Egypt will look like but lets hope it is not an Islamic Fascist.

<cynic>
Of course it's going to be Islamic Fascist. That's the only kind of change you get over there.
</cynic>

ANY government, EVERY government (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053206)

All governments, as macro pseudo-organisms, sufficiently mimic life that they have their own survival instinct. Any government - every government - when faced with its own imminent mortality, WILL do anything necessary to prolong its survival.

This is precisely why revolutions are cyclically necessary in human civilization: the Beast has to be killed off every so often because it will never simply retire.

Get Some Priorities! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052030)

The last thing Egyptians and anybody should care about is their Internet access.

This uprising has fuck all to do with social media, the Internet, etc. Most Egyptians live on less than $2 a day and don't have Internet access.

Get some fucking priorities. The West's obsession with the role technology is playing in this situation is completely overstated and overblown.

Re:Get Some Priorities! (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052182)

I know what you mean, a technology site focusing on the technology aspect of it. Crazy.

Re:Get Some Priorities! (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053266)

Plus, it's not like the people living on less than 2$ a day don't have much way to get video of any 'over-reactions' in riot control out of the country, or widely spread within it, but the minority who has more technology available does -- No wait, it is exactly like that. Oh, well, It's not like just one guy with a cell phone can play back one of those videos to a whole group, maybe multiple times -- No wait, it's exactly like that too.

Re:Get Some Priorities! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052376)

The last thing Egyptians and anybody should care about is their Internet access.

This uprising has fuck all to do with social media, the Internet, etc. Most Egyptians live on less than $2 a day and don't have Internet access.

Get some fucking priorities. The West's obsession with the role technology is playing in this situation is completely overstated and overblown.

Egypt shut down the internet for a reason. It was to keep the protesters from organizing, keep the protest from growing, and generally to quell the demonstrations.

Re:Get Some Priorities! (1)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052474)

Exactly. I imagine the governments (Egypt and Tunisia) *believe* the social media incite riots (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), and don't acknowledge the real issues involved in the protests. And of course hitting the kill switch incited relatively peaceful protests to all-out revolution. The govts have just REALLY pissed people off now. [Idiot leaders.]

Re:Get Some Priorities! (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053892)

I hate it when people use that stat, less then $x a day. It's meaningless, and I can tell you from experience that living in a country where the populace makes less then 2$ a day is meaningless. Like in Nepal, young educated folks find ways to use the internet, even if dirt poor by American standards.

It would... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052042)

Be nice if the united states supported the egyptian people.

Seems we're not really all that big on the whole 'freedom' thing after all... We're still hoping our bff stays in charge of egypt.

If egypt does get their freedom... I hope they remember we sold the egyptian goverment the weapons being used on civilians right now.

Sometimes the usa deserves the hate it gets. Ok.. most times... the us goverment anyway.

Re:It would... (0)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052132)

the usa does support them but unlike are mastake with iraq we are not getting into the fight. even oboma told there president he better change his ways or this would happen and well he didn't listion. then when he did that sad attempt to stop the riots by naming a vice presdent rather then sucedding oboma told him to basically put up or shut up. so dont say the usa does not support whats going there couse we do. hell we are due for it are selfs.

Bush before Obama (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052378)

Even oboma told there president he better change his ways or this would happen and well he didn't listion.(sic)

Actually it was Bush who said that [michaelyon-online.com] :

Oddly enough--- only the last Administration with President Bush and Secretary Condi Rice has ever taken a strong reform position with Mubarak.

Obama has either been silent, or supportive of Egypt as it is - don't forget he went to Cairo to speak not that long ago.

Re:Bush before Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052394)

First post from Egypt!

Re:Bush before Obama (2)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052454)

Whether he spoke those words is besides the point; he continued to sign all the bills that gave billions to the Egyptian government. His actions were those of support. Obama has done the same thing so far.

Re:It would... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052458)

How do you expect people to take your argument seriously when you write at the 2nd grade level? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? The USA spends more per capita on education than any country on earth, and you are the result? Yessir, I'd say the education budget is a good place to start trimming some fat, since we clearly are getting shit for our money anyway.

Re:It would... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052416)

If egypt does get their freedom... I hope they remember we sold the egyptian goverment the weapons being used on civilians right now.

Spread this picture [ggpht.com]

Re:It would... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052446)

"It would be nice if the United States supported the Egyptian people." Nice sentiment, but what does supporting them truly mean in this context? That there are widespread demonstrations means that a minority is vocally upset, not that the majority want revolution (it doesn't mean they don't, but the demonstrations themselves are not an indication either way). Currently, the unrest has resulted in looting and prisoner escapes, and a general breakdown in order. How does encouraging such help the Egyptians? What effective support could the US offer to the "Egyptian people" at this point? It could offer to monitor new elections but this is the same part of the world that hates US meddling, so I find complaints about our non-interference puzzling. Encouraging democratically elected leaders to resign under violent pressure is a very poor precedent in foreign ploicy.

IPoAC? (1)

jiteo (964572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052058)

Please be IPoAC, please...

Bad business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052134)

Do you think people are goin to use the same ISPs that cooperated in abusing them when all is said and done? Any company cowering while others die in the streets deserves to go the same way of that flawed regime.

Re:Bad business (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052220)

i dunno if slashdot is behind or what but internet was restored by there largest isp less then 24 hrs later. at least when i read the ful story thats what it said.

Re:Bad business (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052316)

Yes. They have no other options. Any other internet service providers who move in to take their place will do the same thing when the new government points their guns at them too.

what do you think would happon. (0)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052164)

no matter what country such civil unrest aka revolutions happen they would cut or massively try to control any form of mass communication. the usa may be the exeption to it due to are free speech right but are gov has no issues stepping on it when it pleases them so its a toss up if the usa would attempt such action in a revolt. you defently what low tech solutions like ham and cb communicate with in a revolt being anything corp owned would be useless at best. but really ham isnt low tech it can handel data even full web on d-star models.

Re:what do you think would happon. (1)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052450)

This is the second post in a row where you have exhibited horrible grammar. The first letter of every sentence along with all proper nouns and acronyms should be capitalized.

The word 'are' is a form of 'be', meaning to exist. You meant to write 'our', as in, belongs to us.

You should really use a web browser with built-in spell checking which would have caught most of your spelling errors.

Re:what do you think would happon. (-1, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053672)

WHO GIVES A FUCK YOU NITPICKING COCKSUCKER!?!?!?!?!

Here, I'll write properly in his stead, so I may personally rip you a new gaping and bleeding anus, you worthless, Aspergers-ridden, brainless fuckwit.

Your mother is currently residing in my bed, performing fellatio on my wife. I'll be joining in shortly for a wonderful, cacophonic, and orgasmic experience, the likes of which you'll likely feel deep in your non-descended testicles as I fuck your mother's brains out of her mandibular orifice.

Screw you, you ill-educated and ignorant fuckwit.

Re:what do you think would happon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053026)

I think you're mistaking Slashdot for YouTube. Please go back.

Re:what do you think would happon. (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053676)

I think you're mistaking slashdot for 4chan - get yourself a real name and ID or GTFO.

If ObamaCare is so great... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052206)

Then why does the list of Obama's friends who are exempt from participating grow longer by the day?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/ [washingtontimes.com]

Re:If ObamaCare is so great... (0)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052252)

obamacare pfft. that was basically a win for insurance company's. most states and centers are aiming either to veto or cripple the bill. hopefully that works and that bills gone. it only made things worse.

RFC 2549 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052272)

Can we actually see a resurgence in popularity of RFC 2549 [ietf.org] ?

Clearly not a lazy nation (0)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052310)

If you wanted to get me out into the streets, cutting off the internet would be the way to do it. Not so much complaining about tyranny, but because I'm no longer wasting the day watching videos of other people's cats.

- RG>

Re:Clearly not a lazy nation (1)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052594)

If you wanted to get me out into the streets, cutting off the internet would be the way to do it. Not so much complaining about tyranny, but because I'm no longer wasting the day watching videos of other people's cats.

Agreed. Not because I would have been watching videos of other peoples' cats (what an odd fetish), but because I would have wasted my time reading about other people going out and protesting.

Re:Clearly not a lazy nation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052690)

OMG! No more pussy videos? What's this world coming to?

They also found some old ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052338)

to get online: FidoNet [blogspot.com]

Wired wiki (4, Informative)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052354)

Wired also has a wiki titled "Communicate if Your Government Shuts Off Your Internet." [wired.com] It has some interesting thoughts on things like ad-hoc networking, satelite, and even packet radio.

This bit I found interesting: "Apple computers tend to have very accessible Ad-Hoc functionality built in, including a pre-installed chat client (iChat) that will automatically set up an Ad-Hoc "Rendezvous" chatroom between anybody on the network, without the need for an external service like AIM or Skype. Ad-hoc network hosting functionality is built in to the Wifi menu." On Windows PCs, it's almost as easy, but it requires software which is not installed by default.

Re:Wired wiki (1)

don.g (6394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052964)

Yeah, ad-hoc wifi: communicate with people who are within shouting range. Not really that helpful if your government cuts off the internet.

Re:Wired wiki (3, Informative)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053004)

A widespread ad-hoc usage could cover entire cities, hopping between all nodes to communicate across kilometers. They can be a valuable tool.

Yes, I know the latency would probably be horrible and security would be almost nil. But in these situations, you don't care if you have 1500ms ping and 0.1mbit/s speed, so long as you can actually communicate.

Re:Wired wiki (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053816)

Plus, you're eventually going to get tired of shouting.

"If your government... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052444)

...shuts down the internet, shut down your government":

http://i.imgur.com/YU3Ww.jpg

(sorry in case this has already been posted).

Erm...there's another way... (3, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052492)

So why aren't we all phoning a random number in Egypt once a day and asking if there's anything they want us to put on the interwebs for them?

Re:Erm...there's another way... (2)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052730)

So why aren't we all phoning a random number in Egypt once a day and asking if there's anything they want us to put on the interwebs for them?

Because although I am polylingual, I would not get any information from the other end of an Egyptian phone.

Re:Erm...there's another way... (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052734)

Because most of us don't speak Arabic, and (probably) most of them don't speak English?

Re:Erm...there's another way... (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052922)

So why aren't we all phoning a random number in Egypt once a day and asking if there's anything they want us to put on the interwebs for them?

If you actually meant unsolicited calls to random numbers, aside from the language issues, do you really think that in the midst of the violence and suspicion, they'll trust some caller they've never met before?

If you meant why aren't phones being used in general to pass info to those outside the country, well, they are:

Groups like We Rebuild have scrambled to keep Egypt connected to the outside world, turning to landline telephones, fax machines and even ham radio to keep information flowing in and out of the country.

Re:Erm...there's another way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053074)

I hate using facebook at the best of times, what makes you think I want to put up cute cat photos for someone else?

Or are you suggesting I call around until I find someone who wants me to troll 4chan for them?

Ham radio (1)

space fountain (1897346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052622)

My understanding is that if you use a ham radio to vew the internet you can't go to any web page with an add on it.

Re:Ham radio (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052722)

Untrue.

You are prohibited from engaging in commercial enterprise - i.e. you can't make money from amateur radio activities. That would ban running a commercial web server (or running an ISP), but packet radio data rates are low enough that it wouldn't be feasible in any case. Buying and selling on eBay would be questionable; but communicating with other Egyptians, exchanging news, and setting up events would be perfectly acceptable.

Re:Ham radio (1)

leighklotz (192300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052832)

Buying on eBay, if done occasionally would be allowed. (The so called "pizza rule.")
Selling would be allowed only if ham gear and occasionally, and not if it's your job.
It's unlikely to be done on HF (but nobody really knows what the Pactor-3 users are doing that they ought to be doing with commercial SailMail).
But over microwave links it could and does happen often, since several of the 802.11 2.4 GHz channels overlap with ham bands.

There's an interesting project, probably most closely related to this topic, at http://hsmm-mesh.org/ [hsmm-mesh.org] using Linksys routers and OSS mesh software.

Re:Ham radio (2)

high_rolla (1068540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35052932)

No, you'd need a SPAM radio for that

Re:Ham radio (2)

ThinkingGuy (551764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053372)

My understanding is that if you use a ham radio to [view] the internet you can't go to any web page with an [advertisement] on it.

In the US, at least, the regulations (FCC regulations Part 97.113 in the US) prohibit "communications in which the station licensee ... has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer..."

Viewing a web page that had a few ads over a D-Star [dstarinfo.com] or packet [choisser.com] network is not a violation, but sending an advertisement, or solicitation would be against the regulations.

The biggest impediment to using the Internet over ham radio is the prohibition on encrypted content. So sending a PGP-encrypted message or viewing a website over HTTPS would be against the rules.

Allahu Akbar! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052640)

Finally, fully Muslim Egypt! That's what all egyptians want, except from zionist traitor Mubrak, and we will prevail! Death to all zionist americans! Mulsim Egypt only! Allahu Akbar!

Re:Allahu Akbar! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35052700)

Yeah, nothing screams progress like Muslim pigs taking over a country. Shouldn't you be beating your wife or killing your daughter for trying to date a non-Muslim?

There is no civility, only politics. (1)

blindseer (891256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053036)

A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion.

Re:There is no civility, only politics. (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053812)

Don't jump to conclusions, Governor. The Federation would not dare go that far.

F#CK PROPAGANDA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053242)

SLASHDOT & CIA

Food for the People (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35053382)

My concern is that while the world is focused on communications, government-subsidized foods like bread and other essentials, are being withheld. Food distribution and delivery is disrupted and stores spike the price of food products, thus people can not afford to feed their families. Is anyone aware of people and organizations which can and have overcome this challenge like farm-to-city transport or outside assistance from a bordering or neighboring country. Timing is everything and people starving quickly outstrips communication unless the two can flow together. This is my hope and the reason I am writing...just in time..I hope. Thank you and I appreciate your suggestions.

The Bangles will be making a comeback soon. (1)

GeekLove (1604967) | more than 3 years ago | (#35053796)

Surf like an Egyptian. Really makes me wonder what would happen here in the US if the government though they could get away with it during an "emergency."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?