Egyptian Internet Blackout Explained In More Detail Was Actually More Centralized Than Many Assumed Thursday Feb 10 2011 14:33 EDT The general consensus when Egypt turned off the Internet last month was that the Egyptian government wanted to stifle free speech and put pressure on each individual ISP, who then buckled under the now apparently-outgoing government demand. An interesting report over at Wired suggests that the shut down was actually the result of a single breaker being flipped at the Ramses data center in Cairo. That took the majority of ISPs immediately offline, with any stragglers utilizing alternative connectivity (like Egypt's Noor, which utilized an undersea route to Italy) tracked down by the Egyptian security services. The report (the full thing is available here and worth a read) goes so far as to argue that the Egyptian Communciations Ministry "acted quite responsibly" in taking this approach to ensure the Internet could ultimately be turned back on again. quote:
The document contradicts that narrative, providing new details on the outage — largely laying the blame on Egypt’s internal security service, while describing the “flip-the-switch” shutdown as a “politically liberal” choice by the Egyptian government’s Communication ministry. That’s because turning off the internet at the center exchange made it very easy to switch it back on, prevented surveillance, made it clear to everyone what had happened, and prevented spyware from being placed on the networks.
Compare that to similar efforts in countries like Tunisia, where the Internet remains intact, but disinformation, propaganda and censorship took place via marginally-operational communications networks. In Tunisia for example, Facebook login pages were modified by the government to obtain the passwords of Tuninisian activists, allowing the deletion of accounts and protest pages. In Egypt, while wireless SMS communications remained online, it acted as a vessel to transmit pro-government messages courtesy of Vodafone (co-owner of Verizon Wireless). |
  Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere |
Frank
Premium Member
2011-Feb-10 2:45 pm
that's not trueIt couldnt have been a single breaker in a datacenter. If i remember correctly I heard there was an egyptian isp called noor which was still providing internet access in egypt whilst all other isps were down. they didnt go offline until a few days later. so maybe it was two breakers?  | |
|  |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2 |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2011-Feb-10 2:53 pm
Re: that's not trueAstroturf via SMS.
What is the world coming to? | |
| |  ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN |
to Frank
You're right, well partially. I've looked at the IP ranges and other data, this would have been WAY more than even 2 switches.
And the reasoning was two-fold.
1)To prevent worldwide coverage of sparse violent military action against civilians, which had clearly become enemies of the state.
2)To reduce uproar when said events were occurring.
To "Turn the internet back on" would only take moments, remember the people were attacking military vehicles, not phone lines or cellphone towers. | |
| | |  rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY |
rit56
Member
2011-Feb-10 5:04 pm
Re: that's not truePeople were not attacking military vehicles. It is the police and not the military who were attacking the Egyptian people in the street. So far the military have said they will not fire on the people but Mubarak just told everyone he's not going anywhere. Tomorrow is the day where the future will be decided. | |
| | | | ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
1 edit |
ctceo
Premium Member
2011-Feb-11 6:59 pm
Re: that's not truePolice/Military, They were serving the same roles, enforcing martial law, at the time. So all vehicles, Police & Military alike, were under fire (and giving out their own) at various times. The Military Was nearest the control structures and protecting those in command, the police were working with them to restore civil obedience. To say that the Military (using the proper broad term here) wasn't firing on civilians would be a lie. Why do you think communications were disrupted so heavily? It will all come to light over the next few days, maybe weeks. Remember the international divide is being taken advantage of there to prevent civil unrest from spreading too easily to other parts of the world, not the other way around. It's to keep things like this from becoming public or give them time to add spin control. i.e. Propoganda. » cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Wor ··· ers.html | |
|
| | |
to Frank
It couldnt have been a single breaker in a datacenter. If i remember correctly I heard there was an egyptian isp called noor which was still providing internet access in egypt whilst all other isps were down. they didnt go offline until a few days later. The report talks about Noor briefly. Still reading, but it does look like there were some stragglers that were then tracked down by Egyptian security services. They do note that the suggestion that Noor was kept online because they served the stock exchange was not true. | |
| | |
 DrStrangeTechnically feasible
Premium Member
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1 |
Re: NoorNoor stayed online because they had an undersea cable to Italy which bypassed the Cairo data center. Therefore they were unaffected by the initial shutdown. | |
|  jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA |
jig
Member
2011-Feb-10 3:32 pm
reporthaving trouble getting the report to render correctly. it's off to the left... | |
| | |
tenpir
Anon
2011-Feb-10 4:55 pm
unlikelyI work as a network engineer at an ISP, and it would take a hell of lot of breakers to bring even redundancy down for us... so I'm doubting that a single breaker turned off the internet for Egypt. | |
|  VeloslaveGeek For God
Premium Member
join:2003-07-11
Martinez, CA
kudos:1 |
Looking back (for them)What moron decided to aggravate the most vocal and disruptive group of society by turning off their intertubes?
OK... they were already upset with the dictatorship BS and now you are going to temporarily take away one of their favorite freedoms? How was that suppose to help? Now instead of staying home and bitching about life on twitter and facebook... they have all the time they need to hit the streets and cause some real problems.
Someone really didn't think that one through | |
| | | |
Re: Looking back (for them)they don't have a dictatorship. They actually elect a President. It may not be a fully Democracy such as ours- but it by far is NOT a dictatorship. Those people do NOT get elected. They just take over.
I wish the US Media and the Gov't would learn what a dictatorship is. | |
| | |  DrModemTrust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1
2 edits |
DrModem
Premium Member
2011-Feb-10 9:12 pm
Re: Looking back (for them)Since these events I have looked up the history of egypt's political workings since Mubarak has been in power, and it sure looks like a dictatorship in disguise to me.
Apparently any entity that gets powerful enough to become a challenge to the rule of the NDP(the political party that Mubarak is part of) either get banned or the elections have restrictions put on them that conveniently exclude them from being able to run. SO in other words all elections are rigged. And that's ignoring the eternal "emergency state" that Mubarak has kept Egypt in, which gives the government broad powers to tyrannize people at will.
No same person remains in a highest office for 30 years in a democracy with free elections. No. bo. dy. People are too fickle. Franklin Roosevelt managed an unprecedented and amazing 4 terms in the US, 16 years and just half of Mubarak's time in power, and that was only because a WORLD WAR was happening. Perhaps he could have managed a 5th if he had lived, but probably not a sixth. No war left to keep him in and all that. | |
| | | | cOOLguy
join:2009-09-10
Torrington, CT |
cOOLguy
Member
2011-Feb-10 11:34 pm
Re: Looking back (for them)Just wait until IM HO TEP gets into office. | |
| | | | VeloslaveGeek For God
Premium Member
join:2003-07-11
Martinez, CA
kudos:1 |
to DrModem
said by DrModem:Since these events I have looked up the history of egypt's political workings since Mubarak has been in power, and it sure looks like a dictatorship in disguise to me.
Apparently any entity that gets powerful enough to become a challenge to the rule of the NDP(the political party that Mubarak is part of) either get banned or the elections have restrictions put on them that conveniently exclude them from being able to run. SO in other words all elections are rigged. And that's ignoring the eternal "emergency state" that Mubarak has kept Egypt in, which gives the government broad powers to tyrannize people at will.
No same person remains in a highest office for 30 years in a democracy with free elections. No. bo. dy. People are too fickle. Franklin Roosevelt managed an unprecedented and amazing 4 terms in the US, 16 years and just half of Mubarak's time in power, and that was only because a WORLD WAR was happening. Perhaps he could have managed a 5th if he had lived, but probably not a sixth. No war left to keep him in and all that.
X2 Maybe in some peoples opinions "the US Media and the Gov't would (need to ed.) learn what a dictatorship is." But from the streets of Egypt and from DrModem... they already know what a dictatorship is and you don't need a dictionary or wiki to explain it. | |
|
| | kmcheng
join:2002-02-12
Elmhurst, NY
kudos:1 |
to hottboiinnc4
sure, an "elected" president - for 30 freaking years
what's the different besides the title? | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 |
to hottboiinnc4
Why do you wish the US media and govt would learn what a dictatorship is? ... you need to stop reading the BS websites and study history a little closer. The U.S. has helped sponsor and fostered the "election" of this guy.. in all terms, he's a dictator. The U.S. knows all well what he is - just ask Carter.
Further, WE are NOT a democracy.. we are a democratic republic - there is a HUGE difference. If we were a true democracy, which is a bad thing, we'd all be praying to Jesus, carrying bibles, and ... you get the point. Popular/majority rule is a BAD thing.. we'd still be burning woman who knew math if we were a democracy.
By the way, while we're on the subject - people keep saying that Egypt needs to be a democracy.. no, what Egypt needs is LIBERTY.. there is a difference. For the most part, in this country, it's our LIBERTY that's under attack,.. not democracy. | |
| | | | sageb1
join:2010-12-29
Delta, BC |
sageb1
Member
2011-Feb-11 11:07 pm
Re: Looking back (for them)True freedom cannot be enacted by law.
Nor is it facilitated by what is right.
License is not freedom.
What most people ignore is the fact that freedom is absurd, since few people are truly free.
Yet freedom can be measured by how we treat a madman. If a nation hides away its madmen in an asylum, then how free is that nation?
In the old days, I feel people had the freedom to become a respected shaman, even though a successor was chosen by the previous shaman.
Today, if a person acts like a shaman, then he is given as much respect as a madman with the potential to be run out of town or imprisoned.
So true freedom can be measured by how a nation treats the insane. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 |
fiberguy
Premium Member
2011-Feb-16 1:53 am
Re: Looking back (for them)said by sageb1:So true freedom can be measured by how a nation treats the insane.
that may be where you're from or how you see it, but I don't subscribe to sayings and phrases... sorry, but I don't. We keep the "insane" secured to protect OTHERS from their harm AND we also keep them "safe" from themselves... So tell me, if that society lets its insane OUT and "FREE" as you say.. should I then be FREE to kill him when or if he or she tries to harm me or my family? Sorry.. that "freedom can be measure by how we treat a madman" is b.s.... Down here, we are a nation and society of rules and laws. We, here in the U.S., don't get our freedoms from "law"... you might want to study up on our culture before you bring that discussion here.  We get our freedoms from our creators.. and then we have a constitution that limits the powers of the government. There is a big difference on what I said, and what you said. | |
|
| |
"Kill Switch?"Sounds an awful lot to me like the kind of internet "kill switch" that Obama wants for here. I don't get why people treat this guy like he's their savior. | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
We get our freedoms from our creators.. and then we have a constitution that limits the powers of the government.
