Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Your Rights Online

Egypt Coming Back On the 'net 137

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the welcome-back-to-the-future dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in with the good news that after 5 days of blackout, "Egypt is coming back on-line. Some sites that didn't used to be available and are now back include two telcos: Vodafone Egypt and Etisalat Egypt. Guess that we can't have those IPv4 addresses back after all then."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Egypt Coming Back On the 'net

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by gcnaddict (841664) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @09:51AM (#35078942)
    "Guess that we can't have those IPv4 address back after all then."

    Okay, that was good.
  • Egyptians and their fans too, of course.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I'll hold off cheering until AFTER they install a democ government.

      but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.

      change - for change sake - does not always get us what we were hoping for.

      I'll hold off cheering until I see WHO is going to run that country.

      • by Suki I (1546431)

        I'll hold off cheering until AFTER they install a democ government.

        but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.

        change - for change sake - does not always get us what we were hoping for.

        I'll hold off cheering until I see WHO is going to run that country.

        I am cheering this event and only this event thankyouverymuch.

        • So... if I fall off a building, I should not worry about the impact and cheer the fact that I am flying?

          • Well, you would be falling... likely not flying. So yes, if falling excites you, then run with it... no need to worry about the inevitable, it will be quick and rather painless anyways.

            Assuming the building, or the height at which you began falling is tall enough that it would kill you... if you are sort of falling/stumbling down the side of a pyramid, it would probably be a good idea to attempt to prevent yourself from falling further, since there's the possibility you will live, but not be happy that you

          • Well worrying won't stop gravity, so what do you really have to lose?
          • by sjames (1099)

            You might as well! It's not like worry is going to generate any lift.

      • by h00manist (800926) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:20AM (#35079190) Journal
        An orderly transitional government, to setup fair and open elections, would likely lead to more debate of the issues, and a government reflecting the people, which are mixed, secular and religious. If it turns messy and confrontational, more emotional and less rational, radical groups get better chances, be they right, left, military, religious, corporate or whatever.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ToadProphet (1148333)

        I'll hold off cheering until AFTER they install a democ government.

        but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.

        change - for change sake - does not always get us what we were hoping for.

        I'll hold off cheering until I see WHO is going to run that country.

        Assuming you are not from Egypt...

        Why would that be worse for you? Why is this about what you are looking for? Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?

        If you deny those people the right to live under a government of their choosing, which may not be a western Liberal Democracy (which is what you really mean), you've created a whole new problem.

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by Nadaka (224565)

          America is not a western liberal democracy. It is western, absolutely not liberal, and a democracy in name only. The following statements are true:

          The Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East seek to establish a global caliphate, convert or execute all infidels, overthrow reason and science, rescind the last thousand years of social and ethical progress, and have all people submit to the absolute authority of a few wealthy imam.

          The Christian fundamentalists in the US seek to establish a global church, con

          • by cayenne8 (626475)

            "The Christian fundamentalists in the US seek to establish a global church, convert or execute all heathens, overthrow reason and science, rescind the last thousand years of social and ethical progress, and have all people submit to the absolute authority of a few wealthy preachers."

            Wow..mind telling me which church you went to that actually spouted this kind of dogma?

            I mean, sure, they do like to convert people, but I've never seen or heard of a christian church that wanted to do everything you said. On

            • by Nadaka (224565)

              I grew up in a christian fundamentalist church. And that is what they preached (except the wealthy part, the guy who got 10% of several hundred peoples income kept that on the down low). This is far, far more common than you think. A lot of these groups don't preach the hardcore stuff publicly or use euphemisms and innuendo to set a tone without explicitly calling for the inquisition to start burning heretics at the stake. But its there, you just have to know what to look for.

              • by Culture20 (968837)

                the guy who got 10% of several hundred peoples income kept that on the down low

                Probably less than 1% unless your church met in alleys or parks and had no charitable giving programs. There are a lot of legitimate expenditures whenever you get a lot of people together on a regular basis on land that their group owns, to sing songs that they probably have to pay performance licensing fees for.
                Also, Jesus didn't teach "Death to the Pharasees!" or "Death to the Pagans!". The closest he got was telling his followers to buy swords before he was crucified (a caution that they'll need to de

                • by Nadaka (224565)

                  the guy who got 10% of several hundred peoples income kept that on the down low

                  Probably less than 1% unless your church met in alleys or parks and had no charitable giving programs. There are a lot of legitimate expenditures whenever you get a lot of people together on a regular basis on land that their group owns, to sing songs that they probably have to pay performance licensing fees for.

                  Also, Jesus didn't teach "Death to the Pharasees!" or "Death to the Pagans!". The closest he got was telling his followers to buy swords before he was crucified (a caution that they'll need to defend themselves, not attack others).

                  its there, you just have to know what to look for.

                  It's not there at all, and my guess is you're reading your own beliefs into their comments.

                  I am not talking about what Jesus taught. I am talking about what christian fundamentalists teach. I was an insider, I was one of them. I know first hand how evil, corrupt and two faced they are. If you are a "compassionate christian" you likely have no idea what is happening on the other side of your faith, both through inexperience and willful ignorance.

                  It is hard to tell if Jesus was a good hearted crazy guy who thought he was the son of god, or if he was a manipulator pushing his political agenda (howev

                  • by Culture20 (968837)

                    I am not talking about what Jesus taught. I am talking about what christian fundamentalists teach. I was an insider, I was one of them. I know first hand how evil, corrupt and two faced they are. If you are a "compassionate christian" you likely have no idea what is happening on the other side of your faith, both through inexperience and willful ignorance.

                    I am a Christian fundamentalist. The point of fundamentalism is getting back to the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e. what Jesus taught. Fundamentalist churches are a lot more extreme in their forgiveness, charity, and outreach than more established churches. They're also less structured, so you can end up with a church hiring the wrong preacher more often (maybe what happened at your church).

            • by Omestes (471991)

              Some of them, on the other hand, want to bring about the second coming of Jesus, and thus the end of the world. Meaning death and damnation to billions of people.

              Sure, they are killing people now, but its the thought that counts.

          • Extremists will be extremists wherever you go.

            As an Atheist living in one of the most right-wing Bible thumping states in the US, I have not been cast out or stoned or burned at the stake for my heresy lately, so I still feel pretty safe (at least in that sense) living here. I am not sure it would be the same if I chose to move to one of the more fundamentalist parts of the Middle East.

            Opinions may vary, but at least from what I understand, the idea of separation of church and state holds a little stron
            • by Nadaka (224565)

              As atheists, You and I are mostly physically safe, for now.

              If things keep going the way they are, the US could be as bad of an oppressive theocracy as the worst parts of the middle east within our lifetime.

              • by Anonymous Coward

                Funny - I hear religious people say the same thing. "If things keep going the way they are..."

                Maybe your both, i don't know, a little paranoid? Yes there's people that want to join the church and state again. There's also people that want to ban allowing all religions. And there's a third group that believes that jam will evolve into a higher life form and wipe us all out.

                Stop living in fear of the boogyman and get on with your life already. Yesh.

        • Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?

          Egyptians are probably going to get what they want, or at least what they want at the instant of transition. That doesn't mean it won't be bad for us, them, and the rest of the world as well. I haven't read up on the Iranian revolution, but superficially the protests in Egypt seem similar- they're not really about anything, except the removal of Mubarak; a large proportion of the population is Muslim; and there's no obvious candidate to fill the leadership vacuum.
          It's easy to imagine Egypt voting for a new

        • by cayenne8 (626475)
          I think most of us pretty much hear this and go..."Who cares?"

          I mean...it really doesn't affect me and my life much at this point. Hope they work it out over there in Egypt, but not really a concern for most people in their daily lives.

          On positive aspect of all this...the Egyptian riots did knock the Charlie Sheen story off the headlines...I guess that is worth something.

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?

          Only so long as they want a democratic form of governance. Statistically speaking, there is a very clear causation that democracy translates to peace and prosperity with the likelihood of war being dramatically reduced - especially with another democratic government.

          So basically, factually, statistically speaking, its better for the Egyptian people and the rest of the world if they have some form of a democratic government. Period.

          And as the middle east's long history proves, any other form of government i

      • Dude... it's not about you.

      • by guruevi (827432)

        Why would a muslim-based one be worse than the current dictator based one or our christian-based one? The muslims in Egypt are very moderate compared to others in that region. The whole muslim world wants to be more moderate, that's one of the reason you see the young uprising in those regions that and it's unemployment and poverty rates since you could say extremism and poverty seems to be closely linked. The current favorite if Egypt will have it's government prematurely ended is a liberal muslim a lot li

      • Okay, first off why is a "Muslim" government necessarily a bad one?

        Second, why can a "Muslim" government inherently not be Democratic?

        Third, how is the rest of the world worse off if Egyptians choose a Muslim government for their country?

        • by Nadaka (224565)

          An Islamic government abdicates all authority to Islamic religious leaders. Leaders (and followers) who believe that their words are the words of god and are therefore absolute law. When you have a tiny cabal of wealthy religious people making all decisions for a nation because it is the will of their god, you don't have a real democracy even if voting is allowed because the only opinions that matter are those of the religious leaders.

        • by Cederic (9623)

          Okay, first off why is a "Muslim" government necessarily a bad one?

          Because all theocracies are implicitly corrupt and evil, and a muslim one would also be disciminatory.

          Second, why can a "Muslim" government inherently not be Democratic?

          Because it's a theocracy.

          Third, how is the rest of the world worse off if Egyptians choose a Muslim government for their country?

          Because Islamic theocracies cause trouble. See Afghanistan and Iran.

          Note that it's possible to have a democratic government whose members happen to be Muslim. That's not the same as a Muslim government.

      • I'd say they should elect a new pharaoh, but the whole thing would probably just turn into a big pyramid scheme.

      • by Omestes (471991)

        but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.

        Assuming your not Egyptian; who cares if WE are worse off? Its their country, they should be able to pick their own damn government, no matter how much we dislike it. Our government is, in a way, a Christian based one, something about 90% of our population being Christian. Much of the world would probably doesn't like this.

        Reading about this revolution, and the parties involved, no one comes off as a Muslim

      • I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.

        We will be worse off? I am sorry to burst your bubble but it is not about us, it is about the Egyptians. We (I assume you are from the US) were doing fine before this all happened, Egyptians were getting tortured and murdered by the police on a routine basis, not to mention living in poverty for the most part. I don't think they care what it means for us, and I don't blame them for not caring. It was the US that supported the current government so they will probably be glad that the end of torture and murde

    • Not looking good on the live stream [aljazeera.net]: Plain clothes government paid thugs [aljazeera.net] are attacking the demonstrating Egyptian public, trying to make them all go home.

      Al Jazeera media network is by far the best coverage, but unfortunately it is more or less censored in the US [thenation.com] apart from the above live stream (Censored in the same way that Paypal/Visa/MCard "censored" wikileaks, that is).

  • by Tokolosh (1256448) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @09:59AM (#35078994)

    Access to the internet and other forms of communication are one of our arms we have in defense of our liberties. The internet should therefore fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Resist the kill-switch!

    • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:12AM (#35079128)

      Actually the internet falls under Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words neither the Union Congress, the President, nor the Supreme Court were ever delegated the power to turn-off the internet.

      That power is reserved to the Member States in perpetuity, until such time as they amend the Constitution to give that power to the central government. Which has not happened.

      The power to turn-off the net remains in the hands of your Local Legislature, which is where it should be - close to the people. (My legislator lives on the same street as me - if he ever turned off my internet, I and my neighbors would probably toilet paper the house.)

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Interstate Commerce clause.

        Look it up.
        • by pclminion (145572)

          Internet. Look it up. Does it say "Network of computers with the sole and express purpose of facilitating commerce?"

          If the Commerce clause gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce on the Internet (which I think is obvious), then fine, but it does not grant the government the right to turn the whole damn thing off under the guise of "regulating commerce" because commerce is not the only thing which happens on the Internet.

      • Many of the things that Congress does fall under Amendment 10. Unfortunately they've used the Interstate Commerce Clause to short-circuit the 10th and somehow they got the Supreme Court to go along with it.

        Here's a fun thought exercise. With the Constitution in mind think about specific things that the Federal Government does, either through agencies or law making.

        Now try and find justification for those things according to a black letter reading of the Constitution.

        Here is an example to get you started. Mo

        • True dat. High school social studies: pretty much everything congress does, they do through the ICC. That is, or course, as long as that thing crosses state lines, which seems fair to me. I'm pretty for federalism, myself.
      • 2 words: Commerce clause

        • 2 words:

          "INTRAstate commerce" aka Commerce INSIDE the states. It is reserved, by amendment 10, to the Member State Legislatures/parliaments. The Union government has no business to interfere with local businesses that only transfer money from in-state customers.

      • by Lunzo (1065904)

        I understand that state governments and lower have the right develop their own kill switches for their portion of the internet.

        However, I don't think any government should have the power to turn off their section of the internet. Can you imagine the chaos if state governments had kill switches and used them during perceived emergencies?

    • Getting a little tinfoil hat'ish?

      Besides, if this happened in the United States, before you blinked an eye most of the major internet providers would be down due to "national security". The infrastructure is very fragile in the US, as the 'net is mostly corporate run and with a little phone calling and martial law put into effect, you'd see no packets. Cell phone transmissions would be severed as well, or at least governed.
      The constitution is not a shield in that "worst case" scenario of a civil uprising,

    • by WWWWolf (2428)

      Access to the internet and other forms of communication are one of our arms we have in defense of our liberties. The internet should therefore fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Resist the kill-switch!

      Oh, those Americans and their explosive solutions! I keep thinking of the old publication from pirate radio folks called " Radio Is My Bomb [roguecom.com]". The more nefarious sort of governments might make case that the Internet is exactly like unregulated radio broadcasting (normal people who are talking about stuff that might offend some other people, while playing some music with naughty words and luscious rhythms!), and as such it's not governed by laws guaranteeing free ownership of guns, but rather the laws guarante

  • Dirty tactics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zoolander (590897) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:00AM (#35079010)
    It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to see what's probably happening here: first make a speech to the people talking a lot about stability and warning of chaos, then bring the net back up, send in paid thugs - confirmed as poiice in plain clothes - to attack the protesters, letting the world see the 'chaos the protests have caused' Mubarack: certified asshole, but a smart one.
  • by Cimexus (1355033) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:00AM (#35079018)

    Well if Vodafone Egypt is anything like Vodafone Australia, the distinction between the network being 'on' or 'off' will be difficult to spot! :P

    • by Anonymous Coward

      +5 insightful is more accurate than funny. Vodafone Italia has always been virtually unusable.

    • by mibus (26291)

      ...and on a day I don't have mod-points, too :)

  • by cloude-pottier (1150433) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:02AM (#35079034)
    I imagine that Egypt's ISPs tried cutting over to IPv6-only infrastructure. This is all just a coincidence, nothing to do with the protests. I'm glad they've rolled back to IPv4 though, we can't be depriving people of access to Twitter and Facebook.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by arkane1234 (457605)

      I think we should put Twitter and Facebook on the IPv4 network and move everything else over to IPv6.
      It'll be Darwinian Theory at it's finest.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Internet is back up after Mubarak knew his deceiving speech will create a divide among the youth. No they'll give them the internet back to fight and spread fear. A massacre is currently taking place in egypt and bullets are being fired and the army has withdrawn its troops to allow the secret police to attack the few that will stand their ground. Democracy lost and the whole world is watching its slow death.

  • I'm Egyptian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mhh91 (1784516) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:04AM (#35079060)
    they only brought back the internet to make people go home without internet,more people joined the protests because they had nothing better to do anyway now,people are urging others to join the protests via social networking sites I don't think the Egyptian government can do anything about these protests really,other than stepping down,that is
    • Re:I'm Egyptian (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:26AM (#35079246)

      These protests are incredible!

      And about time.

      I went to school with a few Egyptians and they were constantly telling me that they wanted a Democracy. Unfortunately, the US government, my Government, was giving that asshole Mubarak billions of dollars a year in "aid" so that we could have an Arab "friend" in the region - of course pissing off the Arab peoples and giving them yet more reasons to hate me and my country (justified).

      I really hope you and your people get what you wish for and I really really hope my Government doesn't fuck things up for you folks.

      --May Allah be with you and your people.

      • Re:I'm not Egyptian (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dkleinsc (563838)

        Yes, these protests are absolutely incredible. And from those Americans who have a clue what's actually going on in Cairo, Alexandria, Suez, etc, you're seeing a lot of support for the protesters. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans don't have a clue what's actually going on, and many that do are getting nothing but misinformation about who the protesters are and what they want.

        There are a few major reasons for that:
        1. For far too many Americans, "Arab", "Muslim", "terrorist", and "scary guy" are basically in

    • by tobiah (308208)

      I was wondering about that. In the US there's always a mini baby boom nine months after a major power outage knocks out the TVs. 'Cause, you know, we were "protesting".

  • by kubis (89893) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:05AM (#35079072)
    What are eGyptians without Internet? Gyptians! ;)
  • I subscribe to the "Fun Security" mailing list where one member posted the following:

    From: funsec-bounces@linuxbox.org on behalf of Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor,
    Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 4:11 PM
    To: funsec@linuxbox.org
    Subject: [funsec] Things that make you go "hmmmmm ..."

    I'm a co-moderator on the CISSP-Discuss mailing list (for people who are studying for their CISSP exam).

    We've had a lurking member called "noor_here4u" on the list.

    Today the last Egyptian ISP went offline. It was Noor.

    Tod

  • Well.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by xMrFishx (1956084) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:28AM (#35079258)
    It does take ages to re-aim the pyramids to pick up signal again. They also take a good while to reboot.
  • by audunr (906697)

    I'm sure they appreciate a link on ./ so everyone here can check that their hosts are reachable.

  • You can check the progress on Google's Transparency Report: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/?r=EG&l=WEBSEARCH&csd=1288218432558&ced=1296644400000 [google.com]
  • Am I off here, or should that have been: "Some sites that were previously unavailable..."?

    Grammar Nazis, help me out here....

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      The current phrasing is awkward, but I don't believe there's anything ungrammatical about it--but then again, I'm not one of the idiots who believes that Strunk & White is a book on grammar. :)

  • Now that this finally happened, I think it's time we give them a helping hand: the least that we, the /. crowd, can do is donate some bandwidth to the Tor network by adding relay/bridge nodes and for those who can afford it exit nodes, too. This way we offer them a safer way to communicate among themselves and with the rest of the world.

    For those yet unfamiliar with Tor, you can find out more here: Tor Project [torproject.org]

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @11:34AM (#35079776)
    Their 'president' of 29 years stepped down & now they get their Internet back? On the surface at least it looks like a victory for the lower classes, but I can't imagine that happening in this day and age. Maybe the businesses were just losing too much money on not having internet.
  • Please post some graphs of BGP route advertisements as the Eqyptian AS's come back online

  • Well, I guess their LAN party is over now.
  • In case you havn't noticed Mubarak didn't need any special law or a big red button to shut off internat access state-wide, just a few well placed phone calls to the the major ISPs.

    I wonder if that could ever happen here in the 'civilized' west (in London they chirurgically shut off mobile comunication during the student riots, remember?) and what counter measures would we have.

    Could we use the good old phone network to cohordinate? How many of you still remember their home phone number? you mother's? your f

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      The UK would be very interesting. You would be facing the GCHQ/NSA (US bases) at home. Would they suggest net/web 2.0 stays up to track everybody in realtime and offer locations of interest to ~Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs).
      Find and "remove" the leaders and the lone-wolf types who suddenly become very active.
      The "phone network" is the GCHQ so your data call to an ISP outside the UK would just add another number to be tracked back to you and then blocked/recoreded.
      Public phones, mobile phones may onl
  • One site stayed up. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @02:06PM (#35081390) Homepage

    One site that stayed up through all this was the Library of Alexandria [bibalex.org], which, among other things, hosts a copy of the Internet Archive. They now have photos up of their supporters surrounding the Library to protect it.

    They stayed up because they have a direct connection to the 10Gb/s FLAG [wikipedia.org], the Fiber Optic Around the Globe link. That has a cable landing at Alexandria, and the Library is tied in there, without going through a local ISP.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...