16 ms·

Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

122 points by acqbu 4y ago

ftyhbhyjnjk 4y ago
Fck these people who take such actions. Public should cut the food and water supplies to their families. Fcking bastards.
zmgsabst 4y ago
Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
- cyberlurker 4y ago
  Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    >The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. >Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
    - soco 4y ago
      Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        It takes a special type of hubris to read Orwell on censorship and say you know better.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.
    - jliptzin 4y ago
      Social media != the government
      - yourusername 4y ago
        Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
        jliptzin 4y ago
        Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
        clarkmoody 4y ago
        FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
        4y ago
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
    - cyberlurker 4y ago
      They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
      - ssizn 4y ago
        They didn’t have to.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        They had officials coordinate with social media companies to coordinate takedowns of accounts and messages which disagreed with them.
        cyberlurker 4y ago
        So, public health officials asked social media companies to stop accounts from spamming that vaccines cause autism? There was no law and no threat, just public and private coordination. I have no problem with that. Sorry, this is not even close to censorship.
        ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
        If a member of the government asks their friend in a social media company to quietly take down a post, they are using influence and corruption (of the company) to impose government censorship. If they ask the legal representatives of the company to make a policy decision to take down a post, there is the implied threat of regulation, and it is government coersion. Both are legally violations of the first amendment.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  I think pretty much nobody stands by their principles. Because ultimately principles are a means to an end, and if the end is not achieved, they're discarded. And this really makes perfect sense to me when you think of it. We're not logical robots. If whatever principles we hold backfire badly enough, we'll discard them or add exceptions because the reason for those principles is that we believe they make a better world. If the world is not made better, then the principles failed in their aim. Morality needs a degree of flexibility to survive, or somebody will exploit it.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Except that, in this case, discarding them led to a worse world: - bitter divisions in the nation because they subverted the consensus mechanism - poor policy decisions because we didn’t have a robust debate about options - poor medical outcomes because we didn’t exercise due caution The reason we had those principles in the first place was to avoid repeats of past bad outcomes from not having them — and they were discarded at a societal level for shortsighted reasons. Your job as a leader is to uphold those principles in hard times because they’re the path to a better outcome. And our leaders badly failed us.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      Actually I'm not sure what you're talking about. Give specific examples of those things?
  - dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
    I guess it depends on what you define as a principle. You are in a manner correct, but saying that "nobody stands by their principles" is not nuanced enough. I personally would broaden the definition that a principle depends on the context, and in the simplest sense a principle has to work in your favor in the long run. For example honestly is generally a good policy, but not if you are a Jew trying to hide your ethnicity in Nazi Germany.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Its not even random people you don't see - its us. Us, in HN, the people you are talking to now - we would rather have censorship than free speech. You get the government you deserve. The article yesterday "Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end" shows exactly what the majority of people here think.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    In short, the vast majority prefer "right speech" over "free speech". The vast majority prefer many things that are relatively low-quality, stupid, etc.
generalizations 4y ago
Time to start building long distance (100+ mile) mesh nets. Alternately, I wonder if there's any way to lay down fiber long distance that doesn't require govt authorization...and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
- mminer237 4y ago
  I doubt it. You have to get the consent of every owner of property for a connecting 100+ miles. You pretty much have to either have an uninhabited wasteland or eminent domain to do that. Plus, you have to hire people to do hard manual labor for 100+ miles. You can try to just lay it on preexisting poles without permission some places, but who knows how long that will stay up. And ultimately, fiber is something anyone with a shovel can destroy in 2 minutes. If the government doesn't want you to have Internet, a mesh network is a much more robust method if you can get it in place.
  - robryk 4y ago
    I agree with the latter part, but for the former note that Earth's surface is 2d: you can go around holdouts; unlike roads you don't care about the fiber being straight.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Simple, cheap mesh networks based on consumer WiFi hardware are very short range. To get any reasonable distance between nodes you need towers and directional antennas.
    - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
      Actually you do. Longer fibers need more repeaters, and the ideal fiber on land is strung down pipes (this allows later capacity upgrades). Both of these are cheaper if existing roads are paralleled.
      - robryk 4y ago
        Sure, you want to optimize for total length. However, you don't have any meaningful restrictions on turn radius, which do exist when you want to build a road and which make building a road around holdouts oftentimes impossible.
newaccount2021 4y ago
perihelions 4y ago
The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bill-limiting-presidential-internet-kill-switch/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... (" Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")
- 3pt14159 4y ago
  In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable response to abuse.
  - sojournerc 4y ago
    How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.
      - jasonjayr 4y ago
        But times change and so has technology. Adversaries have access to this technology too, and it's a power multiplier. If they can shut down access to those they are oppressing, then they become far too powerful. Yes, protesters can still protest, but without access to the same tech that those they are protesting can use, they can be out-organized, their voice muted, and their effectiveness minimized.
      - 4y ago
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501
- svnpenn 4y ago
  > Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    If I call out particular comments and users, I think I would come close to violating HN rules. I think I can talk about a few comments, not linked, without causing dang issues. I hope. - Second highest root comment talking about how people being removed from twitter isn't a big deal, its not 'my freedoms' and the real threat is the government putting people in prison and this other stuff just doesn't matter. - ctrl-f paradox - ctrl-f intoleran We, the people and the people on HN in particular, feel justified to silence those who disagree with us because its for the greater good. More to the point, are you saying you have never seen folks on here talking about how we should censor/remove-from-services/silence/shadow-ban people that state believes opposite them? A country gets the government it deserves - I feel like we are going to get one that is quite happy to silence individuals.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      There is a giant chasm between “Twitter gets to decide what it wants to host on its own web site” and “government censorship of speech”. It’s not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport. Nobody has the obligation to publish, broadcast, or amplify someone else’s speech. If you don’t like one particular social media’s content policy, choose from one of the dozens of others or one of the thousands of web forums, or post in your own blog, or use one of hundreds of chat apps, the telephone, newsletters, or the (real) public square.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I run infrastructure for a company that provides medical records services to medical organizations located exclusively in the US and have to deal with the usual scans/exploit attempts that come with running services on the public internet. Somedays I think it's just bonkers that anyone in China or Russia or wherever is allowed to contact my servers. I know that the internet is a "network of networks" to use an older term, and I don't really see an alternative, but it still strikes me some days.
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Not just China and Russia, though. Lots of weirdness from Turkey, Viet Nam and even Netherlands.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Well I added "wherever" as a catchall - public is pretty much public. And there's a chain issue - if you ban country A, but not country B, and A is allowed to connect to B, then A can still find a path through to you - it's all just one network with a near infinite number of paths.
  - refurb 4y ago
    I spent some time in Vietnam and it’s amazing how often website just block you outright (i believe US BLS is unreachable) or you’re flagged immediately as high risk (understandably since VN rarely prosecuted computer crime that originates there). Visit the same website from 100km away in Singapore and it’s like your in the US.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    banning and blocking is easy; building bridges is hard. It is documented in modern times that the first to leave a war zone are the teachers and the civilian medical people -- they can't function as they must in a world built with passkeys, barbed wire and bulk control rules. The PP here has a commercial medical system, so of course the first consideration is protecting --money-- privacy of --insurance records-- patients. Go ahead and block the world for the medical insurance, it is a block already by its nature. The question now is, will any civilian communication survive the battles of nations and currencies.
cheschire 4y ago
I think they mean WWW shutdowns? Or are governments killing VOIP, newsgroups, email, etc? Somehow I doubt that governments are successful in completely shutting down a network of networks that is designed specifically to resist shutdown attacks from internal or external. Maybe I'm naive. edit: Maybe they're referring to the ability to order ISPs to kill access at the router level. So yeah maybe the concept of centralizing access to the internet via service providers is the problem worth discussing. We don't have dialup anymore, we can't just simply point our comcast / verizon / whatever router to a new provider and have our access again. Not only do we not have dialup anymore, we don't even have landlines anymore in quite a lot of households. If the routers died, many houses would in fact be cut off.
- tetromino_ 4y ago
  It can mean government control over all IXPs in the country (including DPI hardware and a killswitch), and legal mandate for all ISPs in the country to use only government-controlled IXPs. So unless you have a satellite connection or a private microwave link to a friend's antenna on the other side of the border, you don't get internet.
  - toast0 4y ago
    International dial-up is an option too. Although providers are getting fewer. If you've got a landline, a modem and a technically oriented friend outside the shutdown, it doesn't take too much to setup an iffy dialup server. Can't do a lot of surfing with those speeds today though.
    - RegnisGnaw 4y ago
      Its not really an option. In the countries referenced by the article, the Government is the telecom monopoly or there is a few which will listen to the government. Its very simple to analyze calls to see if its voice or a modem. Guess what happens if its the later?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chiffre01 4y ago
Remembering all those "The internet has no borders arguments from the 90s and early 2000s: https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/eight-false-promises-of-the-internet/ https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/eight-false-prom...
- petermcneeley 4y ago
  "A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible." - Matrix Epilogue (1999)
  - wil421 4y ago
    “Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.” Begin Wake Up by RATM.
smm11 4y ago
The biz I'm at is on VOIP. We've still got a hot landline for the security system, and I've got a wicked Pentium II machine, Hayes modem, and dial-up account at the ready. NOT that I can push the ERP system to everyone, if, but my hope is that this one machine would be our lifeline to data.
AnonCoward42 4y ago
> This story was funded by the Judith Neilson Institute I can't help but think that we are reading a narrative rather than an actual report.
wtmt 4y ago
> India leads total shutdowns globally. In 2021, the world’s largest democracy shut off its internet 106 times – more than the rest of the world combined. Hardest-hit was the conflict-ridden region of Jammu and Kashmir, which was subject to 85 shutdowns under the guise of containing separatist violence. The blackouts shut down Zoom classes for students, stopped doctors from communicating with their remote patients and crippled the banking system, causing mortgage holders to default on their loans. Apple crops rotted before they could be sold and businesses were paralysed. India was a leader in Internet shutdowns in the years before 2021 too. Don't for a moment assume that the hardest hit region of Jammu and Kashmir is the only one. Internet shutdowns are routinely used in most states whenever the state executive or law enforcement thinks there could be some trouble. Sadly, the Indian judiciary is more of an ally to the executive, and doesn't consider these "sledge hammer" approaches as questionable or challenge-worthy. Strict control over the Internet and Internet based companies (which would be almost all) are of prime importance to the majority lawmakers and to the executive. That theme, which goes hand in hand with surveillance, is a major thread across the country, and a major threat to the "of the people, for the people" slogan (these are not "by the people", many of whom are taught what to think and believe by...media owned/influenced by the majority parties).
- webmobdev 4y ago
  As an indian, I don't see anything wrong with my country having a kill switch for the internet because (1) India is a democracy (2) It is a foreign platform and (3) A kill switch for communication platforms is necessary to prevent rumour mongering or disrupt coordination during tense political situations like rioting (which is common in India). Note that this is not a new thing - every government also has a kill switch for various other communication platforms; for e.g. governments often do cut-off cell phone communications in a particular region during tense moments. J&K though is a special case in India where indian government has indeed often curtailed democratic rights for many decades (often overreaching itself while fighting terrorism there), and has been guilty of over abusing their powers there, sadly without much repercussion. That's because J&K is a disputed area between India, Pakistan and China - India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan over it, China occupies some area of it, and had recently invaded India and even annexed some more area (China taking "incremental and tactical actions" to press territorial claims with India: Pentagon - https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/china-taking-incremental-and-tactical-actions-to-press-territorial-claims-with-india-pentagon https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/china-taki... ). The indian judiciary thus does grant the government more leeway for non-violent tactics like cutting of communication or holding an important political person under house arrest. But for violent abuses of power, the Indian judiciary has not hesitated to stand up for the rights of the citizens and has even ordered arrest and prosecution of Army and police officials when necessary. Unfortunately, Narendra Modi, the current indian Prime Minister is inexperienced in statecraft, has also made more of a mess by unnecessarily changing the status quo of J&K, thus creating more unrest in the state thus necessitating the current situation there (India’s Supreme Court Orders a Review of Internet Shutdown in Kashmir. But For Now, It Continues - https://time.com/5762751/internet-kashmir-supreme-court/ https://time.com/5762751/internet-kashmir-supreme-court/ ). That said, I do believe more restrictions and judicial oversight is necessary before the government is allowed to use such powers to kill communication platforms. Especially since the current right-wing religious fundamentalist Modi / BJP government has indeed abused this power undemocratically many times to use it even against legitimate opposition and blunt their protest movement and criticism against it: - India farmers’ protests: internet shutdown highlights Modi’s record of stifling digital dissent: https://theconversation.com/india-farmers-protests-internet-shutdown-highlights-modis-record-of-stifling-digital-dissent-154287 https://theconversation.com/india-farmers-protests-internet-... - India muzzles citizenship law protests, detaining thousands and shutting down Internet in several cities: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-muzzles-citizenship-law-protests-shutting-down-internet-and-detaining-protesters/2019/12/19/d5bc4ea6-21a7-11ea-b034-de7dc2b5199b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-muzz... - Govt suspends Internet in eastern state over military recruitment protests: https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/govt-suspends-internet-in-eastern-state-over-military-recruitment-protests-338189-2022-06-18 https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/govt-suspen... - Modi govt’s response to farmer protests stirs fears of a pattern: NYT: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/foreign-media/modi-govts-response-to-farmer-protests-stirs-fears-of-a-pattern-nyt/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/foreign-media/modi...
__jambo 4y ago
What about a network of hacked starlink nodes? Would that provide a way around it?
- Melatonic 4y ago
  Maybe - but probably the government could just order Starlink to shut down their stuff as well. There is always Packet Radio but it is slow as hell....
bell-cot 4y ago
For a bit of context, one might want to look at the history of governments exerting control over newspapers, telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, radio stations, TV stations, etc. during the century or few before the internet became popular. "Freedom of the Press" is in the United States Bill of Rights (c.1789) because government control of information and mass media was a really old & familiar tactic even back then.
senectus1 4y ago
Assuming starlink remain "good guys"... good luck with that idea :-P

122 points by acqbu 4y ago

Fck these people who take such actions. Public should cut the food and water supplies to their families. Fcking bastards.

zmgsabst 4y ago

Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?

cyberlurker 4y ago
Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  >The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. >Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
  - soco 4y ago
    Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      It takes a special type of hubris to read Orwell on censorship and say you know better.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.
  - jliptzin 4y ago
    Social media != the government
    - yourusername 4y ago
      Social media censors partly because of pressure from governments that make it clear that regulation will be coming if they don't do it "voluntarily".
      - jliptzin 4y ago
        Examples of such pressure from the government? Do you mean when Trump threatened to remove section 230 protection from social media companies because he didn't like "the way he was treated" on their sites? https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-proposes-weakening-social-medias-legal-shield https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/916096008/justice-department-...
        clarkmoody 4y ago
        FB censored the Hunter laptop story during the election at the behest of the FBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ
        4y ago
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
  - cyberlurker 4y ago
    They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
    - ssizn 4y ago
      They didn’t have to.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      They had officials coordinate with social media companies to coordinate takedowns of accounts and messages which disagreed with them.
      - cyberlurker 4y ago
        So, public health officials asked social media companies to stop accounts from spamming that vaccines cause autism? There was no law and no threat, just public and private coordination. I have no problem with that. Sorry, this is not even close to censorship.
        ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
        If a member of the government asks their friend in a social media company to quietly take down a post, they are using influence and corruption (of the company) to impose government censorship. If they ask the legal representatives of the company to make a policy decision to take down a post, there is the implied threat of regulation, and it is government coersion. Both are legally violations of the first amendment.
dale_glass 4y ago
I think pretty much nobody stands by their principles. Because ultimately principles are a means to an end, and if the end is not achieved, they're discarded. And this really makes perfect sense to me when you think of it. We're not logical robots. If whatever principles we hold backfire badly enough, we'll discard them or add exceptions because the reason for those principles is that we believe they make a better world. If the world is not made better, then the principles failed in their aim. Morality needs a degree of flexibility to survive, or somebody will exploit it.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Except that, in this case, discarding them led to a worse world: - bitter divisions in the nation because they subverted the consensus mechanism - poor policy decisions because we didn’t have a robust debate about options - poor medical outcomes because we didn’t exercise due caution The reason we had those principles in the first place was to avoid repeats of past bad outcomes from not having them — and they were discarded at a societal level for shortsighted reasons. Your job as a leader is to uphold those principles in hard times because they’re the path to a better outcome. And our leaders badly failed us.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    Actually I'm not sure what you're talking about. Give specific examples of those things?
- dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  I guess it depends on what you define as a principle. You are in a manner correct, but saying that "nobody stands by their principles" is not nuanced enough. I personally would broaden the definition that a principle depends on the context, and in the simplest sense a principle has to work in your favor in the long run. For example honestly is generally a good policy, but not if you are a Jew trying to hide your ethnicity in Nazi Germany.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Its not even random people you don't see - its us. Us, in HN, the people you are talking to now - we would rather have censorship than free speech. You get the government you deserve. The article yesterday "Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end" shows exactly what the majority of people here think.
- swayvil 4y ago
  In short, the vast majority prefer "right speech" over "free speech". The vast majority prefer many things that are relatively low-quality, stupid, etc.

generalizations 4y ago

Time to start building long distance (100+ mile) mesh nets. Alternately, I wonder if there's any way to lay down fiber long distance that doesn't require govt authorization...and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

mminer237 4y ago
I doubt it. You have to get the consent of every owner of property for a connecting 100+ miles. You pretty much have to either have an uninhabited wasteland or eminent domain to do that. Plus, you have to hire people to do hard manual labor for 100+ miles. You can try to just lay it on preexisting poles without permission some places, but who knows how long that will stay up. And ultimately, fiber is something anyone with a shovel can destroy in 2 minutes. If the government doesn't want you to have Internet, a mesh network is a much more robust method if you can get it in place.
- robryk 4y ago
  I agree with the latter part, but for the former note that Earth's surface is 2d: you can go around holdouts; unlike roads you don't care about the fiber being straight.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Simple, cheap mesh networks based on consumer WiFi hardware are very short range. To get any reasonable distance between nodes you need towers and directional antennas.
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
    Actually you do. Longer fibers need more repeaters, and the ideal fiber on land is strung down pipes (this allows later capacity upgrades). Both of these are cheaper if existing roads are paralleled.
    - robryk 4y ago
      Sure, you want to optimize for total length. However, you don't have any meaningful restrictions on turn radius, which do exist when you want to build a road and which make building a road around holdouts oftentimes impossible.

newaccount2021 4y ago

perihelions 4y ago

The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bill-limiting-presidential-internet-kill-switch/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... (" Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")

3pt14159 4y ago
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable response to abuse.
- sojournerc 4y ago
  How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.
    - jasonjayr 4y ago
      But times change and so has technology. Adversaries have access to this technology too, and it's a power multiplier. If they can shut down access to those they are oppressing, then they become far too powerful. Yes, protesters can still protest, but without access to the same tech that those they are protesting can use, they can be out-organized, their voice muted, and their effectiveness minimized.
    - 4y ago

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501

svnpenn 4y ago
> Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  If I call out particular comments and users, I think I would come close to violating HN rules. I think I can talk about a few comments, not linked, without causing dang issues. I hope. - Second highest root comment talking about how people being removed from twitter isn't a big deal, its not 'my freedoms' and the real threat is the government putting people in prison and this other stuff just doesn't matter. - ctrl-f paradox - ctrl-f intoleran We, the people and the people on HN in particular, feel justified to silence those who disagree with us because its for the greater good. More to the point, are you saying you have never seen folks on here talking about how we should censor/remove-from-services/silence/shadow-ban people that state believes opposite them? A country gets the government it deserves - I feel like we are going to get one that is quite happy to silence individuals.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    There is a giant chasm between “Twitter gets to decide what it wants to host on its own web site” and “government censorship of speech”. It’s not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport. Nobody has the obligation to publish, broadcast, or amplify someone else’s speech. If you don’t like one particular social media’s content policy, choose from one of the dozens of others or one of the thousands of web forums, or post in your own blog, or use one of hundreds of chat apps, the telephone, newsletters, or the (real) public square.

hotpotamus 4y ago

I run infrastructure for a company that provides medical records services to medical organizations located exclusively in the US and have to deal with the usual scans/exploit attempts that come with running services on the public internet. Somedays I think it's just bonkers that anyone in China or Russia or wherever is allowed to contact my servers. I know that the internet is a "network of networks" to use an older term, and I don't really see an alternative, but it still strikes me some days.

bediger4000 4y ago
Not just China and Russia, though. Lots of weirdness from Turkey, Viet Nam and even Netherlands.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Well I added "wherever" as a catchall - public is pretty much public. And there's a chain issue - if you ban country A, but not country B, and A is allowed to connect to B, then A can still find a path through to you - it's all just one network with a near infinite number of paths.
- refurb 4y ago
  I spent some time in Vietnam and it’s amazing how often website just block you outright (i believe US BLS is unreachable) or you’re flagged immediately as high risk (understandably since VN rarely prosecuted computer crime that originates there). Visit the same website from 100km away in Singapore and it’s like your in the US.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  banning and blocking is easy; building bridges is hard. It is documented in modern times that the first to leave a war zone are the teachers and the civilian medical people -- they can't function as they must in a world built with passkeys, barbed wire and bulk control rules. The PP here has a commercial medical system, so of course the first consideration is protecting --money-- privacy of --insurance records-- patients. Go ahead and block the world for the medical insurance, it is a block already by its nature. The question now is, will any civilian communication survive the battles of nations and currencies.

cheschire 4y ago

I think they mean WWW shutdowns? Or are governments killing VOIP, newsgroups, email, etc? Somehow I doubt that governments are successful in completely shutting down a network of networks that is designed specifically to resist shutdown attacks from internal or external. Maybe I'm naive. edit: Maybe they're referring to the ability to order ISPs to kill access at the router level. So yeah maybe the concept of centralizing access to the internet via service providers is the problem worth discussing. We don't have dialup anymore, we can't just simply point our comcast / verizon / whatever router to a new provider and have our access again. Not only do we not have dialup anymore, we don't even have landlines anymore in quite a lot of households. If the routers died, many houses would in fact be cut off.

tetromino_ 4y ago
It can mean government control over all IXPs in the country (including DPI hardware and a killswitch), and legal mandate for all ISPs in the country to use only government-controlled IXPs. So unless you have a satellite connection or a private microwave link to a friend's antenna on the other side of the border, you don't get internet.
- toast0 4y ago
  International dial-up is an option too. Although providers are getting fewer. If you've got a landline, a modem and a technically oriented friend outside the shutdown, it doesn't take too much to setup an iffy dialup server. Can't do a lot of surfing with those speeds today though.
  - RegnisGnaw 4y ago
    Its not really an option. In the countries referenced by the article, the Government is the telecom monopoly or there is a few which will listen to the government. Its very simple to analyze calls to see if its voice or a modem. Guess what happens if its the later?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chiffre01 4y ago

Remembering all those "The internet has no borders arguments from the 90s and early 2000s: https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/eight-false-promises-of-the-internet/ https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/eight-false-prom...

petermcneeley 4y ago
"A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible." - Matrix Epilogue (1999)
- wil421 4y ago
  “Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.” Begin Wake Up by RATM.

smm11 4y ago

The biz I'm at is on VOIP. We've still got a hot landline for the security system, and I've got a wicked Pentium II machine, Hayes modem, and dial-up account at the ready. NOT that I can push the ERP system to everyone, if, but my hope is that this one machine would be our lifeline to data.

AnonCoward42 4y ago

> This story was funded by the Judith Neilson Institute I can't help but think that we are reading a narrative rather than an actual report.

wtmt 4y ago

> India leads total shutdowns globally. In 2021, the world’s largest democracy shut off its internet 106 times – more than the rest of the world combined. Hardest-hit was the conflict-ridden region of Jammu and Kashmir, which was subject to 85 shutdowns under the guise of containing separatist violence. The blackouts shut down Zoom classes for students, stopped doctors from communicating with their remote patients and crippled the banking system, causing mortgage holders to default on their loans. Apple crops rotted before they could be sold and businesses were paralysed. India was a leader in Internet shutdowns in the years before 2021 too. Don't for a moment assume that the hardest hit region of Jammu and Kashmir is the only one. Internet shutdowns are routinely used in most states whenever the state executive or law enforcement thinks there could be some trouble. Sadly, the Indian judiciary is more of an ally to the executive, and doesn't consider these "sledge hammer" approaches as questionable or challenge-worthy. Strict control over the Internet and Internet based companies (which would be almost all) are of prime importance to the majority lawmakers and to the executive. That theme, which goes hand in hand with surveillance, is a major thread across the country, and a major threat to the "of the people, for the people" slogan (these are not "by the people", many of whom are taught what to think and believe by...media owned/influenced by the majority parties).

webmobdev 4y ago
As an indian, I don't see anything wrong with my country having a kill switch for the internet because (1) India is a democracy (2) It is a foreign platform and (3) A kill switch for communication platforms is necessary to prevent rumour mongering or disrupt coordination during tense political situations like rioting (which is common in India). Note that this is not a new thing - every government also has a kill switch for various other communication platforms; for e.g. governments often do cut-off cell phone communications in a particular region during tense moments. J&K though is a special case in India where indian government has indeed often curtailed democratic rights for many decades (often overreaching itself while fighting terrorism there), and has been guilty of over abusing their powers there, sadly without much repercussion. That's because J&K is a disputed area between India, Pakistan and China - India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan over it, China occupies some area of it, and had recently invaded India and even annexed some more area (China taking "incremental and tactical actions" to press territorial claims with India: Pentagon - https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/china-taking-incremental-and-tactical-actions-to-press-territorial-claims-with-india-pentagon https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/china-taki... ). The indian judiciary thus does grant the government more leeway for non-violent tactics like cutting of communication or holding an important political person under house arrest. But for violent abuses of power, the Indian judiciary has not hesitated to stand up for the rights of the citizens and has even ordered arrest and prosecution of Army and police officials when necessary. Unfortunately, Narendra Modi, the current indian Prime Minister is inexperienced in statecraft, has also made more of a mess by unnecessarily changing the status quo of J&K, thus creating more unrest in the state thus necessitating the current situation there (India’s Supreme Court Orders a Review of Internet Shutdown in Kashmir. But For Now, It Continues - https://time.com/5762751/internet-kashmir-supreme-court/ https://time.com/5762751/internet-kashmir-supreme-court/ ). That said, I do believe more restrictions and judicial oversight is necessary before the government is allowed to use such powers to kill communication platforms. Especially since the current right-wing religious fundamentalist Modi / BJP government has indeed abused this power undemocratically many times to use it even against legitimate opposition and blunt their protest movement and criticism against it: - India farmers’ protests: internet shutdown highlights Modi’s record of stifling digital dissent: https://theconversation.com/india-farmers-protests-internet-shutdown-highlights-modis-record-of-stifling-digital-dissent-154287 https://theconversation.com/india-farmers-protests-internet-... - India muzzles citizenship law protests, detaining thousands and shutting down Internet in several cities: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-muzzles-citizenship-law-protests-shutting-down-internet-and-detaining-protesters/2019/12/19/d5bc4ea6-21a7-11ea-b034-de7dc2b5199b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-muzz... - Govt suspends Internet in eastern state over military recruitment protests: https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/govt-suspends-internet-in-eastern-state-over-military-recruitment-protests-338189-2022-06-18 https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/govt-suspen... - Modi govt’s response to farmer protests stirs fears of a pattern: NYT: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/foreign-media/modi-govts-response-to-farmer-protests-stirs-fears-of-a-pattern-nyt/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/foreign-media/modi...

__jambo 4y ago

What about a network of hacked starlink nodes? Would that provide a way around it?

Melatonic 4y ago
Maybe - but probably the government could just order Starlink to shut down their stuff as well. There is always Packet Radio but it is slow as hell....

bell-cot 4y ago

For a bit of context, one might want to look at the history of governments exerting control over newspapers, telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, radio stations, TV stations, etc. during the century or few before the internet became popular. "Freedom of the Press" is in the United States Bill of Rights (c.1789) because government control of information and mass media was a really old & familiar tactic even back then.

senectus1 4y ago

Assuming starlink remain "good guys"... good luck with that idea :-P