Why Has Cameroon Blocked the Internet? (bbc.com) 87
It has been over three weeks since English-speaking parts of Cameroon, a country on the west coast of Africa between Nigeria and Gabon, has had no internet connectivity. Residents believe, according to a BBC report, that the government is behind it. From the report: The two regions affected, South-West and North-West, have seen anti-government protests in recent months. Just a day before services disappeared, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications issued a statement in which it warned social media users of criminal penalties if they were to "issue or spread information, including by way of electronic communications or information technology systems, without any evidence." There has been no official comment about the internet since then (or any credible reports of technical faults) leading many Cameroonians to conclude that the severing of services is part of government attempts to stifle dissent. In criticising their government, some Cameroonians have also taken aim at the mobile phone companies who provide the services through which many access the internet. These firms may not have been able to prevent the outage, since they all rely on fibre-optic infrastructure provided by a state-owned company, but nor have they been objecting publicly about the interruption to their services.
Because it's a totalitarian government (Score:4, Interesting)
Block internet ==> I now know you are not a government worthy of honor or power.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
And you really believe it can only happen in backwater Africa? Think again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But this is the world we live in today with regards to discussion and debate.
Indeed. Yesterday the United States Senate voted to censor Elizabeth Warren and force her to shut up and sit down. So the idea that you can deal with opponents by silencing them certainly is not unique to Africa.
Disclaimer: I agree with Elizabeth on very few issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Rule 19 is specific, and she violated it. Framing it around a letter from LSK is just a dodge. Get your news from somewhere else besides MSM.
If you don't like rule 19, then by all means rail against that. Or if you don't like the hypocrisy in debates on the floor of the Senate, rail against that. But Pocahontas clearly violated that rule.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Elizabeth Warren was reading and quoting a letter by others, so quite literally she did not break the rule, as she was quoting some one else.
Not only that but she was reading a letter that had already been admitted into the congressional record. So apparently reading the congressional record is now against senate rules if it upsets Republicans.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What is disappointing is this Trump-ish trend of ending a less-than-140-char phrase with one or two perfunctory words, as if something as nondescript as "sad" could possibly be an appropriate response to anything. It's tempting to do it, even in jest, because it's so damn easy, but it's no longer funny.
Re:Because it's a totalitarian government (Score:5, Funny)
it's no longer funny.
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
"Love Trumps Hate"
"Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon"
"Not my President"
"I am a nasty woman" ...
You object to Trump's use of Twitter, when the entire left is catchy sloganeering. They are reaping what they have sown. And not learning the lesson in the process.
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you get off Slashdot and go over to Brightbart or Stormfront and hang out with the rest of your Nazi buddies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
America should take a stand here.
Sounds like we should send over some Freedom(tm)
Re: (Score:3)
IDK if we have all that much to spare these days...
Re:Sounds nefarious (Score:4, Funny)
You aren't using much, so there must be a big stockpile somewhere.
When I say big, I mean yuuuuuuge.
Re:Sounds nefarious (Score:4, Insightful)
Their citizens deserve a voice! America should take a stand here.
This idea that America needs to try and help every country in the world when we have our own problems is what gets people like Trump elected. "America First" isn't just about foreign labor.
Re:Sounds nefarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that may be the falling point. They're not so good on puppet governments. They don't like foreigners barging in and trying to tell them what to do.
Re:Sounds nefarious (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea that America needs to try and help every country in the world when we have our own problems is what gets people like Trump elected.
Standing up for human rights worldwide does not diminish our ability to deal with our own problems. A far better argument is that efforts to "fix" other countries have been futile and counterproductive. Look at North Korea and Cuba. We have isolated and embargoed them for decades, and their oppressive regimes have lasted far longer than any others. The Castro and Kim dynasties would likely be long forgotten if they had been unable to blame their economic incompetence on foreign devils, and unable to accuse their opponents of being American stooges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, sanctions don't hurt the dictators, they hurt the people..
Decreased trade impacts the people, while those in power continue their black market trading, and reduced communication makes it easier for such regimes to control the flow of information to the people.
If anything, increased trade and closer relations with such governments would be far more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Standing up for human rights worldwide does not diminish our ability to deal with our own problems.
Yes it does. People will only expend a certain amount of their time and effort on their jobs -- this goes for our elected representatives, too.
Human and monetary resources focusing on improving situations halfway around the world are not available to be focused on domestic issues.
In other words, politicians are going to be ignoring the U.S. while focusing on trade sanctions, diplomatic relations, or military actions to fix problems that frankly are none of our business.
Political opponents (Score:4, Funny)
Communications Disruption (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just as easy to block.
Re: (Score:2)
Imperialism! (Score:2, Funny)
Shame on you, ex-British Prime Minister David Cameroon!
Mesh Networking (Score:1, Insightful)
This is why Mesh networking protocols are so important, we need to get ahead of this here in the U.S. because:
DT:I can't be live they insulted me on the internet, I want to get rid of that thing. ... ...
Sir you can't just 'get rid' of the internet
DT:sure I can, I'll just shut it off.
Sir, there is no way to sut off the internet.
DT:Do it, shut it off now, it's a matter of national security.
click.
three weeks since no internet connectivity (Score:3)
So it's working then?
This day and age... (Score:2)
I should laugh about Cameroon's government censorship and feel sad about people affected by it, but then again, just today I heard about some moronic politician in Brazil trying to pass a law that has some extremely broad lines like penalties and fines for anyone who tries to spread "false information" on the Internet... dumbfucks are just everywhere.
Quite simple. (Score:2)
Wait. That is not the Cameron you are talking about right?
International Internet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you're making this post from Cameroon right now, I don't think you have any moral high-ground to stand on here. Ostensibly this is something that is within the purview of NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wireless mesh, ad hoc networks. Even with all its latency it's still faster than the pony express...
Re: (Score:2)
"I have a plan for solving this immediate problem after a half decade or so of work" is not a terribly helpful solution for an immediate problem.
Is there actually a single working example of such a system being deployed "in the wild"? The cafeteria of a university with a large computing science department not being "in the wild". A town of 50000 people being more like an "in the wild" example.
Re: (Score:1)
It should have been developed a long time ago. The problem has existed for quite a while. The people with the money and talent have other priorities I guess. And like with good encryption, obstruction is probably the biggest cause of the delay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And no government is going to want multiple interfaces to the outside world.
Precisely... They want control. And don't conflate standardization with monopolization.There is no such thing as a 'natural' monopoly. All monopolies require protection by force, in other words, obstruction. Let's not forget who the government serves. All the antitrust regulation is a sham. Transportation, energy production and communications are perfect examples
Re: (Score:2)
Themselves.
YOU might have a constitution that says differently, but I'm sure your government themselves want to change that inconvenient truth.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you misunderstood. I was saying that the government serves the biggest 'contributors' and most lavish lobbyists. It will regulate/tax competition (which would include ad hoc networking where running an open wifi is prohibited) out of existence. It must, or the money will go to the 'opposition'. That is how a monopoly prevails. The constitution is just a piece of paper. It hardly merits any consideration in the discussion.
Just waiting (Score:2)
I'll just wait here for someone to call the Cameroon government right-wing, or start making comparisons to the Trump administration.