Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The Countries Most Vulnerable To an Internet Shutdown

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the weak-spot dept.

Censorship 94

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "In the wake of Syria's 52-hour digital blackout last week, the networking firm Renesys performed an analysis of which countries are most susceptible to an Internet shutdown, based simply on how many distinct entities control the connections between the country's networks and those of the outside world. It found that for 61 countries and territories, just one or two Internet service providers maintain all external connections–a situation that could make possible a quick cutoff from the world with a well-placed government order or physical attack."

cancel ×

94 comments

What? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172125)

My connexion is RFC 6214 you insensitive clod!

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172593)

YOUR MOM is vulnerable to an internet shutdown!

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173377)

She gets pokes from Craigslist instead of FaceBook

Cute cats across the country tremble (1, Offtopic)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172135)

The day the earth did not see pictures of cute cats. The thought alone is terrifying.

I think Azeroth would be hit hardest... (4, Funny)

hawks5999 (588198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172137)

and anyone still in Second Life.

Re:I think Azeroth would be hit hardest... (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172667)

What, there are still people "in" Second Life? I thought I was bad with my original, un-expanded boxed copy of Guild Wars...

Re:I think Azeroth would be hit hardest... (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173777)

Don't forget about all of those people on the fields of justice.

U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172143)

U.S.A is certainly the most vulnerable. Can you imagine what a catastrophe it would be for the general population if they were all suddenly unable to Tweet about what they read on Facebook?

The horror!

Re:U.S.A. (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172287)

Most people in the US probably wouldn't notice if we were cut off from the outside world for quite a while. Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, etc is all hosted within the US I believe. I can't think of any sites that are primarily hosted outside of the US that a *majority* of US citizens use on a daily basis.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172419)

*cough* ... pirate bay ... *cough*

mmmh, I'm thinking maybe it doesn't pass the *majority* test.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172451)

And I'm thinking it maybe would pass the majority test.

However most people would assume it either was down or got raided again.

Re:U.S.A. (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172775)

the rest of the world would probably do a whole lot better if the US was cut off

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176701)

This lol farken!

Re:U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42189723)

the rest of the world would probably do a whole lot better if the US was cut off

I hope the aliens aim their next bigass rock better. The USA shouldn't be too hard to hit, even from 27ly away :)

Re:U.S.A. (1)

gewalker (57809) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172835)

Most people in the US would not notice if 90% of these countries simply disappeared either. Seriously, next Slashdot poll could be how many of these countries could you identify on a map that does not show the country names. My guess is that 10% would be about typical, maybe even optimistic.

Re:U.S.A. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173293)

Right because we're so much dumber than the rest of the world. Typical superiority-complex having nerd.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176725)

Does anyone have a link to a chart of average IQs in Western countries...?
I'm tippin not all of them are 100 :).

Re:U.S.A. (2)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42177163)

Does anyone have a link to a chart of average IQs in Western countries...?
I'm tippin not all of them are 100 :).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fA2RjSyq8L4/TMxnvR5JQLI/AAAAAAAAGyg/blddZkpRT-M/s1600/AverageIQ-Map-World.png [blogspot.com]

...no, we're down around 85-90. And, yikes! What's with the Aussies??!

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42186299)

We've had a large influx of Sudanese, Lebanese & several peasant Asian country migrants over the past 20 years or so...? I don't think they even know what maths or formal logic is, much less be able to take an impartial test for their education levels lol. Unless you just made that map/chart up yourself...? ;-p

Hey also, I'm from central Europe & took my IQ tests there :)

Re:U.S.A. (1)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42187559)

We've had a large influx of Sudanese, Lebanese & several peasant Asian country...

Well, per the chart, the Asians should be driving up the curve...

...Unless you just made that map/chart up yourself...?

No, I didn't make it myself, but hey; it's on the interweb, so it must be true!! :)

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188245)

I find it amusing that we're holding up the ladder with Botswana, of all countries ffs!
As much as we may have as many dumb-as-dogshit 'bogans' & 'ockers' & AFL yobos & 'fully sick mate!' petrol heads & Apple users, I just can't accept that we're dumber as a nation than the US, sorry. Plus, all of north AND south America have exactly the same average IQs...? Please.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42188931)

I just can't accept that we're dumber as a nation than the US, sorry. Plus, all of north AND south America have exactly the same average IQs...? Please.

Averaged across they probably do. Remember, you're not talking about income or GDP, just IQ. And not the best and the brightest, everyone.

You've got to remember you've got all the scientists and doctors and mathematicians in South America, as well as all the carney folk and phone sterilizers in North America in the mix.

Per-capita averages are a funny thing.

If you stop and think about it, the continent with the highest per-capita IQ is Antarctica.

Re:U.S.A. (2)

JazzLad (935151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173307)

If you expanded that poll to Americans in general, definitely optimistic. Heck, I don't know that I could do more than 10% these days (of course, much has changed since I last took Geography). As a child I could also name all the (US) states and their capitals, but like everything else I learned in school that I don't need to know in day-to-day life, I have forgotten many. The stuff that sticks is the conceptual stuff & the stuff you actually use. The rest was just mental exercise.

Re:U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173925)

The rest was just mental exercise.

Exactly. I know Georgia is either a state or a country, and if I need the precise location of either, my intelligence allows me to do this crazy thing where I look on a map - which I might add, I carry with me everywhere along with unimaginable amounts of humanity's entire knowledge*.

* Disclaimer: I haven't upgraded my iPhone yet.**

** Disclaimer: My last Android was a piece of trash, and Google can suck on Steve Job's enshrined balls. However, just because I'm not a Fandroid doesn't mean I can't laugh at the hilarity of Apple's beta-quality maps. :p

Re:U.S.A. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176741)

And so with every iphoney sold we subtract just a little more from the sum total of human knowledge & wisdom, as well as rejig where an average IQ of 100 actually sits. Oh brave new world...

--
Sent from my S2 muthafucka! ;-p

Re:U.S.A. (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173351)

Be glad we can't find your country on a map. Bad things can happen to countries that draw American attention. I know where Iraq, Korea, and Germany is. Americans should not need to know where your country is or who your president is. You shouldn't need to know who the American president is either.

Re:U.S.A. (1, Insightful)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42175049)

Ask anyone outside of the US to identify 5 unlabeled states. You'll get California, Florida, Nevada and Texas - plus whatever states they've been to.

Ask a Chinese person to identify the eastern European countries - he won't do to well.
Ask the average Dutchman to identify countries in Africa - you won't have too much success.

You are arrogant.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176101)

I do fine when all the countries are listed, other than the one they are asking about. "I goes in the blank spot." But then, I'm American and I never remember which in NH and which is VT.

Re:U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42177111)

I do fine when all the countries are listed, other than the one they are asking about. "I goes in the blank spot." But then, I'm American and I never remember which in NH and which is VT.

NH is to the right of VT youse insensitive clawd.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

tokul (682258) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172665)

Can you imagine what a catastrophe it would be for the general population if they were all suddenly unable to Tweet about what they read on Facebook?

Last time some politic decided to cut off internet, masses went to streets and smashed authoritarian government to smithereens. We can only hope that it will happen to US too some day.

Re:U.S.A. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173031)

really iran hasn't seen any rioting in after having done so? they were the last ones weren't they? or are they still in the process of building their firewall?

Reliability of the measure regarding China (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172149)

Maybe I don't get the way this is measured well, but why isn't China one of the riskiest country ? Are we regularly overestimating the power of the Chinese government on its Internet or his the measure showing something else than "ability to control and shutdown Internet" ?

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (4, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172191)

Because they measured it the wrong way.
Their measure how many distinct entities control exit and entry nodes. This has no meaning in some cases, such as CHine, as you righteously pointed out. If there are 100 entities controlling such nodes and ALL are immediately listening to a government's order to shut down, then that's worse than a country with TWO distinctly controlled nodes, out of which ZERO listen to a government order.

Unrelated: My country, Romania, shows as "Resistant".

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (5, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172377)

I think this list is concerned with a more specific question. This measure is more useful to which countries could be silenced during a similar uprising, where there is armed opposition. China is unlikely to undergo such an uprising for the same reasons that their ISPs are willing to follow a government's orders. The government enjoys much more popular support with the Chinese than Syria does/did with it's citizens. If there were such a rebellion however, China would stay online longer probably, since presumably some of the entities would join the revolt, would ignore the government's orders, and would not be as easily forcibly shut down because of how many different ones there were. The question wasn't really about general internet censorship, there are other lists and measurements for that.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172675)

Any entity in control of any links in any country will shutdown their links, if the country's government decides to force them to do so.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42175085)

Or if the ITU does.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173279)

It is difficult to ignore an order that is delivered from the barrel of a gun.

Similarly, more independent points of entry are more potential points of failure in an attempt to capture and maintain control for the purposes of a lockdown.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

Roachie (2180772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42175875)

CHine?

China... really, how difficult is it?

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42177759)

It was late in the evening when I wrote it, I was at work, I was multitasking at the time. It's a typo, believe it or not. My (very mild) dyslexia kicks in every now and then when I'm tired. Among my typical mistakes:
- typing "e" instead of "a";
- releasing the Shift key either too early or too late;
- typing "ruch" instead of "rush" and "Englich" instead of "English".

Now you know a little bit more about me.

Of course, I should have reviewed my text, sorry for not doing it.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176249)

If there's a revolution, if either groups control the node and wish it down, it's down. So more nodes means more resiliency. Your argument is that because China is less likely to revolt against the government, they are less resiliant. By that measure, China is *still* more resilient than the US, where carriers have broken the law to do the government's bidding, multiple times. No carrier would refuse a properly crafted government order, so the number of nodes is irrelevant.

It's sad when China has more Rule of Law than the USA.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (3, Informative)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172207)

It's not based on the ability of the government to order companies to shut down the internet. It's merely based on the number of ISPs with connections to foreign countries. Did you notice that Afghanistan and China were both in the 10 to 40 ISP range? Because Afghanistan has so many satellite ISPs in country, each independent company which has a dish there adds one more to that ISP list.

While the Chinese government has the ability to shut down the internet based on their laws, this was a technical examination of possible network routes in and out of countries. Not a study on the legal/political aspect of an internet kill switch.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42174589)

Indeed the governements ability to force companies is another matter. This study is still of merit, as it does show how many "people" the government has to force to "kill the 'net" for a country.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

AxemRed (755470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172225)

The map rates how many entities control external connections. China is heavy handed with how they control the internet internally, but they probably have many entities controlling different external connections to the wider internet. The map is showing the danger of how easy it would be for a country to sever its connection to the outside world, not control it.

Re:Reliability of the measure regarding China (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172239)

The score is partially based on who (and how many people) owns the physical switches. I would guess In China that would be the state.

Unlike Kenya or Aruba, who get low scores because they only have limited undersea cable fiber reaching them, and thus are liable to being physically taken out but 1 badly placed anchor.

Greenland? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172165)

Didn't realize Greenland was so repressive.

Vatican City is "severe risk", too.... (3, Funny)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172241)

Oh wait...

Re:Greenland? (3, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172569)

Also listed is Jersey [wikipedia.org] . I'm picturing a small totalitarian English isle similar to The Prisoner [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Greenland? (1)

Comboman (895500) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172613)

Government censorship isn't the only thing that can shutdown a country's internet. Islands are especially vulnerable since if a fishing trawler accidentally snags your submarine cable, there goes your internet.

Is tumblr a country? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172167)

If so, it's being legitimately raped by the Gay Niggers Association of America.

Unnacurate list (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172315)

What if the government that places the order is the oppresive one of the US? Had done commercial embargos for just not liking a foreing country government, escalating to internet embargo is not something that will happen, unless is more effective to keep the connection up and promote/coordinate/finance local rebel groups using it.

And is not just for cutting off access. Spying, intercepting or censoring in a way or another traffic is a risk on a country with few internet connections, unless we are talking about US, as they can spy the traffic of most countries.

So, the "resistant" color of the chart effectively means "resistant except to US government actions". And by the way actions are escalating lately, that map should be pitch black.

Bitcoin (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172385)

So if a country has its Internet shut off, what are the reprecussions to the Bitcoin network? Does one side of the partition lose the abilty to make transfers, or can you spend the same Bitcoin twice; once in that country, and again on the rest of the network?

Re:Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172517)

If your transaction won't propagate the entire network then anybody who takes your bitcoin is an idiot. In other words, you don't spend at all while you're cut off.

Re:Bitcoin (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173973)

If some country intentionally cuts itself off in such a manner (or is cut off forcibly) that could be a _very_ long time. Besides, is one party really any more cut off than the other? It's just two separate networks at that point. You can make arbitrary distinctions such as which network is bigger but it's really just two fragments of a former whole with neither side being a more valid network than the other, especially if multiple countries cooperated in partitioning off their own networks. Who decides which network Bitcoin transactions will be valid in? It sounds like nobody makes that distinction since Bitcoin is a distributed system that doesn't have officials / administrators. For a currency that is supposed to be immune to government intervention, it seems this is an area where it suffers significantly.

Re:Bitcoin (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42174831)

Besides, is one party really any more cut off than the other? It's just two separate networks at that point. You can make arbitrary distinctions such as which network is bigger but it's really just two fragments of a former whole with neither side being a more valid network than the other

You really need to be more specific as any answer you get can be handwaved away by a simple moving of the goalpost. Is the country that cuts the internet off small? If so, it has already happened so just read the recent bitcoin history books. Is the country large? How large? Iran large? Japan large? USA large? China? Each one of those scenarios has the potential for a significantly different outcome. State your scenario in detail and you will probably get a better answer.

For a currency that is supposed to be immune to government intervention, it seems this is an area where it suffers significantly.

Don't look now but Bitcoins may be more useful [businessweek.com] than you realize in the face of government interference.

Re:Bitcoin (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180015)

Alright, since your example relates to Iran lets say that either through choice of the Iranian government or by external force Iran became cutoff from the Internet. Would it not be the case that Iranians who had purchased Bitcoins would be challenged to make transactions with them? Would it be possible for someone to spend coins twice; once on the Iranian network and once on the rest of the Internet?

Re:Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172533)

So if a country has its Internet shut off, what are the reprecussions to the Bitcoin network? Does one side of the partition lose the abilty to make transfers, or can you spend the same Bitcoin twice; once in that country, and again on the rest of the network?

Well, that'll never happen, of course. Everyone SAYS that sort of thing is an intrinsic flaw in Bitcoin, but if you knew it as well as The Enlightened Few like me do, you'd obviously see that Bitcoin will [HANDWAVE] which can clearly [HANDWAVE] and [INCREASINGLY COMPLEX HANDWAVING] and that's why paper money is the worstest idea ever and my l33t processing rig will make me the almighty ruler of at least ten small tropical nations with all the hot girls. You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE!

Re:Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173675)

Like!

Re:Bitcoin (2)

Rhacman (1528815) | about a year and a half ago | (#42174067)

Hmm, your argument is convincing however I think I'm going to stick to stockpiling the one resource that will stand the test of time: gold. And by gold I mean delicious Kraft Mac & Cheese of which I estimate my body is comprised of at least 95%. When the great cataclysm comes, as long as we can grow wheat, and whatever plant / animal / petroleum derivative orange 'cheese' powder comes from then the scientists and engineers of this world will persevere!

Re:Bitcoin (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42175421)

Hmm, your argument is convincing however I think I'm going to stick to stockpiling the one resource that will stand the test of time: gold.

Humor aside, I have yet to see one legitimate breakdown of civilization in the modern world -even a short-lived one like during hurricane Katrina- where the ersatz cash wielding citizenry start going around trading gold dubloons. There is of course always some nuance to satisfy any objection but I find the "gold is the answer" trope dubious in the extreme.

if the internet if cut off (4, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172471)

At least i can still play my diablo III in single player mode...

Lazy reporting by Forbes (and sloppy analysis by R (5, Insightful)

StueyNZ (2657297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172507)

The most telling comment from the actual orginal post reads:

"Ten providers also seems to be the threshold below which one finds significant additional risks from infrastructure sharing — there may be a single cable, or a single physical-layer provider who actually owns most of the infrastructure on which the various providers offer their services."

How many of the 61 at "severe risk" countries are micro-states in the middle of the ocean with a single cable connecting them to the internet? More than half; so nothing too sinister about the size of the "severe risk" category.

Oh - it's nice to see that New Zealand has cemented its place in the list of nice countries who are "extremely resistant" by having more than 40 ISPs - unfortunately there's only one organisation that controls the two connections out of NZ on the Southern Cross Cable [wikipedia.org] So the home of that fiendish master-criminal Mr K. Dot Com should rightly be lumped in with Syria, Libya & that famous hot bed of international crime, The Cook Islands.

Re:Lazy reporting by Forbes (and sloppy analysis b (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42172653)

XKCD [xkcd.com]

) // hope you're happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173575)

in case you missed it:
) // hope you're happy

Re:Lazy reporting by Forbes (and sloppy analysis b (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172995)

How many of the 61 at "severe risk" countries are micro-states in the middle of the ocean with a single cable connecting them to the internet? More than half; so nothing too sinister about the size of the "severe risk" category.

And most of the rest in the poorer countries of Africa, where the answer to the question "Why do you have one ISP?" would be "Because it's one more than zero". Even with monopoly rent it's pretty hard making business on people that are that poor and probably for the most part don't have computers at all. Anyway, I find the numbers quite meaningless since they don't measure physical redundancy, resistance to government interference or consumer choice. Average number of providers available per person would be interesting though, I bet the US would end up in the "extremely high risk" monopoly/duopoly category. Though I guess after that the researchers can forget asking any ISPs for work...

Re:Lazy reporting by Forbes (and sloppy analysis b (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176365)

They didn't measure the "better" metrics because that information isn't public. You use what you can get. And the US is bad because I've seen more than one that was nothing other than an AT&T retailer (renting copper pairs from AT&T, aggregating Internet over them, then buying upstream from someone, sometimes even AT&T again). The US was good back when UUNET was spending $1,000,000+ per day on network upgrades, and turning a profit on it. Until evil evil MCI swooped in and Worldcom'd the Internet, milking the best and brightest ISP on the planet so shamelessly they went bankrupt.

Re:Lazy reporting by Forbes (and sloppy analysis b (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176349)

They indicated that the "10 and under" was where cable sharing increased risk, when the NZ Internet essentailly all runs out of Takapuna. There might be some theoretical capacity out of Whenuapai, but none (possible exaggeration) of the ISPs have any gear there and everything is funneled through Takapuna to leave the country. Oh, and the two "diverse" cables run through the same waterway, far apart enough that an accident shouldn't be able to cut both, but a deliberate act could kill both within a few minutes of each other, from a single vessel.

Probability vs. Damage (1)

m.shenhav (948505) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172525)

I expected the article to be about the expected damage a country would incur IF it was disconnected from the internet. Now that I think about it the damage would be difficult to quantify - but I recon even conservative estimates would be high.

One of the great lessons I got from Nassim Talebs writing is that we should pay attention to seemingly improbable events if their impact is huge. Having no internet would be one hell of a Black Swan event. Another is that the likelihood of improbable events are often difficult to measure. Maybe in addition to the (presumably futile) attempts at predicting which is the next country to get disconnected, we should also make sure that we can survive without it as well.

Spelling leading to grammar problem. (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172747)

I spelling "reckon" incorrectly as recon, you accidentally implied that you had been there and actually reconnoitered (recon for short) what would actually happen should a country loses connectivity.

Needless to say, this probably amused both grammar and spelling Nazis alike. I am neither, and yet I am amused, so I thought you might like this pointed out politely before the flamers arrive...

Your grammar sucks/pot calling the kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173189)

I spelling "reckon" incorrectly as recon, you accidentally implied that you had been there and actually reconnoitered (recon for short) what would actually happen should a country loses connectivity. by webmistressrachel (903577) on Monday December 03, @03:44PM (#42172747)

What kind of sentence is that? What is "I spelling", good grammar in the context of the sentence in which it was used? You spoke too soon, pot calling a kettle black.

Re:Your grammar sucks/pot calling the kettle black (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42191073)

I know, I know - a type leading to a grammar problem, the same thing. That should have said "In spelling"...

Re:Your grammar sucks/pot calling the kettle black (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42227835)

You end up looking stupid on the very grounds you trolled others on. How ironic, and yet fitting.

Too simple (3, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172537)

Just basing this on how many connections there are is pretty irrelevant. Are we really expecting there to be many unofficial major backbones crossing national borders? Could you really enumerate them if there were? Even assuming some random people have a line (wired or otherwise) across a border for network access, this is probably not going to route the majority of the country's traffic anyway, and is equally unlikely to be counted in this survey.

A real measure would be more like "how likely will an entity have to shut down their connection due to government pressure," but for that you need to analyze the legal system, political situation, history, etc. Of course, that's much more work than simple counting, but I suppose "simple counting" is the most we can expect from a pop media source.

USA USA USA! (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172691)

Wasn't someone asking for an "OFF" switch for the internets just the other day?

You know, for the sake of the children and national defence and other such fairy tales...

Re:USA USA USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42174249)

long as its for the children! unless your a pervert!

Re:USA USA USA! (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42174265)

I thought the Internet was beamed wirelessly from Big Ben

Original Renesys post (5, Insightful)

mysticalreaper (93971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172729)

Why does Slashdot keep linking to secondary sources, like Forbes.com, when the primary source is so easily available? Laziness would be my first guess.

Here is the much-better Renesys blog post: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2012/11/could-it-happen-in-your-countr.shtml [renesys.com]

Questions about their methods of reasoning are the most interesting.

There may be 5 ISPs, each operating their own logical notwork, with their own IP space, servers, and everything--but they may all share the same physical fibre optic cable out of the country--especially if the country is an Island. New Zealand would be a good example of this: it is about 1500 km from Australia, and 1000 km from Fiji. There are only a few submarine fibre optic cables connecting to the rest of the world. Perhaps Southern Cross Cable [wikipedia.org] and SPIN [wikipedia.org] only?

The authors acknowledge they were mostly unable to analyse this, and had to guess about the number of physical conduits. They say they will have more to say about the limited physical connections in the future.

Re:Original Renesys post (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173461)

Thanks. That's just what this individual wanted to see.

Also the map is one of those stupid ones that shows Greenland as much bigger than Australia (i.e. it is more accurate for distance than for geographical area). I wish people would stop using these maps, it doesn't actually matter if the poles are distorted, but it does matter when people think that Greenland is about as big as South America.

Re:Original Renesys post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173539)

"Why does Slashdot keep linking to secondary sources, like Forbes.com, when the primary source is so easily available? Laziness would be my first guess."

Well, then your first guess is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renesys [wikipedia.org]
site:renesys.com slashdot
2 hits (lots of doubles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes [wikipedia.org]
site:Forbes.com slashdot
790 hits

Slashdot is living from advertisements and so are Forbes and all the other secondary sources.
Link to one of your pals, give them some visitors, get some back.

Internet meant to withstand nuclear war (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172745)

Remember that the internet was invented for the specific military purpose of withstanding a nuclear war. Granted a politically motivated attack on the internet would probably be easier since you're actually forcing engineers to go out and pull the kill switch.

Still the best way to keep the internet running is to build out an extreme number of connections to other parts of the internet. Another thing that would force politics to stay out of the internet is to make business extremely reliant on it. One of the biggest reasons the internet in developed nations won't be turned off is because of how much of an extreme problem it would create for all of the industries that are actually in power economically. It would literally be shooting yourself in the foot.

Re:Internet meant to withstand nuclear war (2)

Guy Harris (3803) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172893)

Remember that the internet was invented for the specific military purpose of withstanding a nuclear war.

[citation needed] [about.com]

Re:Internet meant to withstand nuclear war (1)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173393)

*sigh*

All those internet history lessons in college were wrong!

Re:Internet meant to withstand nuclear war (1)

drkim (1559875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42177185)

Remember that the internet was invented for the specific military purpose of withstanding a nuclear war.

...so we could rebuild human civilization with cats playing the piano and pr0n.

US whould be #1 (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42172787)

the entire intertubes in the US is controlled by one entity... the MPAA

Completely ludicrous. (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173195)

We've already seen quite a few countries are more than happy to pass legislation controlling ISPs. And ISPs tend to be large - and more to the point law abiding companies.

What exactly is the difference between, say, Uzbekistan cutting off each of their few ISPs with international links and the UK passing laws which give the government the power to demand ISPs shut down all international links on short notice? The only real difference is one of them requires some preparation.

Not countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42173701)

Some places in this list are not countries per se: Guadeloupe, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Réunion, for example.

I really think that.. (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173705)

I really think that despite the quoted 40 ISP(s) serving the US's borders, the fact that our new "Emperor Obama" publicly announced that he wanted an Internet kill switch should be enough to put us all on notice!

Not countries (1)

TheTruthIs (2499862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42173709)

Some places in this list are not countries per se: Guadeloupe, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Réunion, for example.

yeah Mynamar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42174381)

As long as they can keep a tight control on their people, they'll be profiting very nicely in the next few years. The globalists love control-ridden countries..maybe they'll try and move it there.

Malaysia? (1)

petman (619526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42175981)

Dubiously, Malaysia is in the "Resistant" category. We're such a small county, and I believe we have less than 10 internet service providers. We should be in either significant or severe risk category. Something doesn't smell right.

Re:Malaysia? (1)

thexile (1058552) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181461)

Hello neighbour! Don't be sad. Singapore is way too small to be even shown on that map! Haha.

Usual problem with world maps of things (1)

Sun (104778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176569)

Without zooming in to the pixel level, I can sort of determine that Israel and Lebanon are the same color, I think. After zooming in I can tell they are both "resistant", simply because they are lighter than the Palestinian Authority, which is, in turn, slightly lighter than Jordan, which is big enough to tell what color it is.

I get this very same problem whenever some !@$#@! thinks it is a good idea to let me choose time zone only by clicking a map. Clicking my location will result, depending on the precise pixel, in either "Jerusalem", "Gaza", "Beirut" or "Amman".

Shachar

Re:Usual problem with world maps of things (1)

petman (619526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42176971)

And why are Israel and Lebanon classified as "resistant"? Do they each have more than 10, let alone 40, internet service providers?

Re:Usual problem with world maps of things (1)

Sun (104778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180359)

I have no idea what is the situation in Lebanon. I do know that Lebanon only has two land bordering countries: Israel, with which I am fairly certain no Internet peering takes place, and Syria. They do have other options, as Syria dropped off the Internet while Lebanon didn't, but, as I said, I don't know what those are.

My information about Israel's infrastructure might be a little outdated.

Israel has four major ISPs, with a few minor ones as well. Israel's unique geo-political situation means that no traffic to the outside world passes through its immediate neighbors. Almost all of the ISPs are connected through one of two undersea cables to Europe, both operated by the same company (Med1). Since Med1's activity is under regulation (or so they told me when they tried to sell me their hosting services: that they built the underground bunker because that was a government requirement for providing the undersea cables), presumably, the government can also shut them down. Even if they disobey, the points at which the optic fibers go to sea are not dug particularly deeply, and should the Israeli government really choose to do so, I suspect they could bomb those two points and cut the entire communication lines off (but that would also include phones).

At least in the past, at least some of the ISPs also had satellite connections. These are only used as last resort options, as those are extremely high latency connections. Also, I'm not sure which satellite they are taken from. For all I know, this might be the Amos satellites, which are operated by.... the Israeli government.

Then again, and this, to me, seems more important than the question asked, I do not see the Israeli government being able to pull off the Syria Internet shutoff scheme. In that regard, the Internet in Israel is extremely resistant, IMHO.

Shachar

Research fail. (1)

bsercombe72 (1822782) | about a year and a half ago | (#42177065)

Australia would be trivial to excise from the internet. The government would need to make precisely two phone calls. I'm sure they've already prepared the road in terms of that contingency.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...