The first computer scientists pursued the ideal of complete freedom of information. For example, the members of the MIT artificial intelligence lab engaged in hobby lock picking. They were much less interested in what lay beyond the locked door than they were stimulated by the challenge of opening it. The computer scientists in the Bay area started a project called Community Memory that served as a repository for postings by the counter-cultural, libertarian community residing there at the time. Community Memory consisted of a public terminal in a record shop linked to a computer off site. At the time, most computer research was funded by the government and the Department of Defense. The Berkeley hippies didn't share the same enthusiasm for using computers in a military role. The Community Memory project aimed to use technology to free people rather than control them. In the same vein, Stewart Brand started the Whole Earth Catalog with the idea that technology could be liberating rather than oppressive.
These earliest computer pioneers must be watching aghast as events unfold in Egypt. At around 6:00 PM eastern time on January 27, Egyptian authorities ordered the internet service providers in the country to shut off the internet. Yes, this is actually possible. The graph below shows the country disconnecting from the internet one service provider at a time. It also suggests that the mandate to shut off the internet came from a central authority because all of the service providers started withdrawing connections at the same time. The internet service providers acknowledge that the mandate came from the government and that this mandate is legal under Egyptian law.
 |
| Egypt leaves the internet |
Countries such as China routinely block access to certain sites or services, but these restrictions can sometimes be circumvented using techniques such as proxy servers. The internet blackout in Egypt also started as a partial block on certain sites, but late on the 27th, the government took the unprecedented action of blocking the entire internet.
By this time the protests taking place in Egypt have innundated headlines worldwide. The fact that the government took the extreme step of blocking access to the entire internet is both shocking and disappointing. Dissidents use the internet to organize activity, rally support, and inform the world of their cause. Blocking the internet is a desperate measure by the government to shut down this line of communication. Regardless of one's opinions about the current situation in Egypt, nobody who supports freedom of speech or the right to a free democratic society can condone this internet blackout.
The existence of the internet makes the sharing of information easier than ever before. While some uses of the internet (pornography, propoganda) are controversial, others are undeniably good (government disclosure, research). The open architecture of the internet enables all of these uses to flourish. As tempting as censorship of certain questionable material may be, it opens up Pandora's box and tacitly approves more censorship. This flies in the face of the goal of the first internet pioneers--the complete freedom of information.
In the past day, Egypt has reentered the global internet community. Let's just hope that the blackout was an isolated incident perpetrated by a heavy handed government and not a prototype for governmental responses going forward.
"Regardless of one's opinions about the current situation in Egypt, nobody who supports freedom of speech or the right to a free democratic society can condone this internet blackout."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I can completely agree. Most who support the Egyptian government would say that the blackout was necessary in order to protect its citizens (the silent majority not taking part in the protests). The internet was allowing the dissidents to co-operate within the country; and was essentially the means by which the chaos in the streets was being organized.
The goal of the blackout was not to censor government opponents or quiet those who disagreed with the government-- rather to prevent violence from erupting into the streets. While I don't mean to take one side or the other in regards to the Egyptian protests, it's not beyond belief to think that shutting down Egyptian internet access may have helped disorganize violent protests, and perhaps save the lives of innocent Egyptians.
Mr. Gun,
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point about why the government shut off the internet. I wasn't aware of their reasoning.
Once again, my contention isn't that censoring the internet couldn't have a positive result in certain cases. Rather, I think that the founders of the internet would frown upon ANY censorship. Their commitment to an open internet would have prevented them from condoning censorship no matter the reasoning.
The notion that the Egyptian government's internet blackout was a purely altruistic act aimed at the protection of the Egyptian people is preposterous.
ReplyDeleteWhile stories were still getting out out Egypt they were replete with police brutality, detention without charges, reports from Doctors being coerced into not recording treatment for gunshot wounds and the like. Generally speaking, things governments like to keep under wraps.
Even if some small portion of their thought process was in regard to the safety of the Egyptian populace, the notion that removing information and adding uncertainty into an already volatile system would dampen violence and promote safety is idiotic.
By no means am I claiming that there was not violence on both sides. Nor am I saying that the Egyptian police and military forces did not take large scale positive action particularly in the defense of neighborhoods against rampant looting - a far more destructive issue than the protests themselves. That said, the internet blackout was a dying breath of a doomed autocracy and to view their action in any other light is simply naive.
President Mubarak's days are numbered and given the developments today of clashes between anti-government protesters and apparently state-sanctioned pro-government mobs it seems unlikely for better or worse that Mubarak's "offer" of a peaceful transition of power in September will be accepted. While Mubarak offered 30 years of relative stability, there is serious danger that his rule may be replaced with an autocracy or theocracy far worse. Despots thrive on uncertainty and fear and a great step in promoting the establishment of a democracy would be to re-establish communication both within Egypt and to the outside world.
P.S. Google voice has set up a phone number which Egyptians can leave voicemail which is instantly tweeted @speak2tweet. Respek.