[HN Gopher] Belarus has shut down the internet amid a controvers...
___________________________________________________________________
Belarus has shut down the internet amid a controversial election
Author : ikse11
Score : 421 points
Date : 2020-08-11 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| crispyporkbites wrote:
| So hacker news, what's the tech solution to this? P2P mesh
| networks? Encrypted DNS?
|
| How do we build a network today in peaceful countries that is
| resilient to state actors?
| jarnix wrote:
| I think it's going to be the same during the next elections in
| Russia. It's really sad to see the declaration of the main
| opponent (Tikhanovskaya) (1)
|
| Protesters are in jail (more than 2000 people), a guy has been
| killed by a truck, etc.
|
| 1: https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1293127604330016769
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| The first video in the twitter thread you link to was
| _extorted_ from the winning opposition candidate by senior
| Belarusian officials in the office of the Central Electoral
| Commission.
|
| The declaration she made after arriving in Lithuania is here
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DzisJ388Xs
|
| In it, she roughly says "I thought I've been hardened by this
| campaign and that I will handle it. But I am still the weak
| woman that I was initially. I made a difficult decision. God
| save you from the kind of choice I had to make. Take care of
| yourself. Kids are the most important thing that you have in
| life."
|
| And indeed, the internet is __completely __down in Belarus.
| Phone network still works.
| liability wrote:
| Ah, so they threatened her kids. Sickening.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| At some point in the past, she said that her kids were safe
| abroad, but it does not take a big country to successfully
| track and extort people anywhere in the world.
| webkike wrote:
| I believe her husband, who she has been running in the
| stead of after he was (unjustly) disqualified, is
| currently imprisoned in Belarus. That is probably one of
| her concerns.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| This is true.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| "Controversial Election"? Now that's an understatement if I've
| ever seen one...
|
| I don't think elections in Belarus have _ever_ been seen to be
| free and fair.
| Nginx487 wrote:
| So-called "elections" after 5th-6th term are a bad joke. Face
| it, ex-Soviet republics Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan never
| seazed to be totalitarian regimes with pathetic tries to
| convince the world they adopted some democracy.
| foepys wrote:
| I don't think it's impossible for elected officials to be
| liked for 5 or 6 terms. In Germany Merkel is so well liked
| that most people (>70% according to polls) are actually sad
| that she doesn't want to run for a 5th term.
| dgellow wrote:
| I think it's worth pointing out that a German chancellor
| has very limited power when compared to the Belorussian
| president.
| PeterisP wrote:
| As far as I understand, the 1994 election in which Lukashenko
| initially came to power was considered fair and representative
| of the people's will.
|
| The rest, not so much, _however_ even if we directly compare
| with previous Belarus elections, this time the election rigging
| went further than before, turning it into a farce that 's not
| taken well by the public this time.
| zzz61831 wrote:
| They were not, but since the polls were banned during elections
| the government at least had some deniability and fewer people
| were convinced it was all fake. But this time massive protests
| and polls and information online convinced everyone there is no
| real support left. Hence the shutdown of the internet.
| dmix wrote:
| I've noticed this in other countries where there are accusations
| of rigging the results that the ratios always super high, in this
| case 80%.
|
| If you're going to fake an election result that had some
| legitimate measurable opposition, why make it so extremely high?
| Does that mean nearly every vote counting place is rigged and
| it's so bad they don't even bother hiding it?
|
| Just like when Crimea voted to join Russia it was 97% [1]. People
| use it as justification pretty widely but it's also hard to tell
| what's true in such an environment. It's nearly impossible to
| trust such a number, even if a majority potentially existed.
|
| Note: I'm not suggesting it's at all accurate but it makes it all
| the more outrageous and suspicious. The protests are then
| predictable.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
| DenisM wrote:
| An autocrat himself is not rigging things, he assigns tasks to
| various people and holds them to account. For them it's safer
| to err on the side of caution, and for him it's better to
| reward the over-achievers than to be seen cutting slack to the
| under-achievers.
| LifeLiverTransp wrote:
| Its a dominance gesture
| jacquesm wrote:
| Fear. By going for 80% they play it safe. If they would aim for
| 55% they might just end up losing if the other side comes out
| even more on top than predicted. So you stuff as much as your
| margin of error dictates that you should.
|
| In this case they were apparently afraid of a 75-25% loss, to
| make up for that you'd have to aim for an 80/20 win or accept a
| real chance that your stuffing will end up being inadequate.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Benford's Law can provide better confirmation that something is
| afoot.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
| dagav wrote:
| It's possible that they fake enough votes to ensure a victory
| (like 51%), and then the real votes come in and turn the result
| into something unrealistic.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| Inertia for one. Last election Dear Leader got 82% so this year
| he cannot get 53%. Plus he's popular. Everyone loves him, and
| "everyone" means in the 80's not 50%+1. If his popularity was
| in the 50's he'd leave by himself and so on...
| moltar wrote:
| There were manu polls done and most show very high pro joining
| numbers:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referend...
| brnt wrote:
| I suppose it is intended to make you feel you're facing
| overwhelming odds, not just slightly more than a majority. It
| is different from the US, where a 51% score is enough
| legitimacy. At 51%, the Belarussians may smell jus enough blood
| to go for it.
| crispyporkbites wrote:
| They're not trying to hide it, everyone in Belarus and all over
| the world know it's not a real election. By going with a closer
| split you'd be showing weakness, as if you have to hide it
| you're not really in control.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Nothing beats 146% election
|
| https://i2.wp.com/euromaidanpress.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| It's really simple and sad: he has been in power since 1995. God
| knows what he has done as an absolute dictator. Also, to stay in
| power, tens or hundreds of thousands of others have helped him
| and they have their own fiefdoms.
|
| Losing that and risking jail, isn't going to happen because
| people want change. So people better be lucky, because if they
| lose this revolt, they will be crushed mercilessly. Not sure EU
| /USA has any say over him, after all staying in power is his
| goal.
| yurlungur wrote:
| About 20 years ago there was this optimism that Internet is this
| new unstoppable thing that will liberate the world to have free
| communication and knowledge sharing. Unfortunate that turned out
| to be such a false idea. Probably the infrastructure of it all
| simply wouldn't allow it...maybe that's what needs to change.
| jaggirs wrote:
| Peer to peer internet is what is missing I suppose.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| The Internet is peer to peer by design, even if the most
| popular user-facing applications do not take full advantage
| of peer to peer architecture.
| [deleted]
| zzz61831 wrote:
| 20 years ago we already knew that internet was too
| architecturally broken to be free as that was around the time
| early attempts of censorship resistance were born, like Freenet
| [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
| brightball wrote:
| This is why I'm excited about Starlink.
| sschueller wrote:
| Starlink is not the solution. A private entity then decides who
| gets what and the US government will also meddle in what is
| allowed.
|
| Do you think Starlink would be allowed to route TikTok traffic
| if it got banned?
| brightball wrote:
| I think people in China would be able to use Starlink without
| the great firewall being in the way. Just having access not
| be routed through ground based, hardwired facilities will go
| a long way toward preventing this type of thing.
|
| There's no reason to ban TikTok or other apps if people in
| China have unrestricted access to US companies.
| VMG wrote:
| competing Starlinks is the solution
| yabones wrote:
| I have some close acquaintances in BY, so this has been hard.
|
| We saw that (at least as of 8 PM UTC) outbound connections to
| HTTP servers wasn't really a problem. A fresh ec2 box with a
| basic web server wasn't effected.
|
| So, early yesterday I set up an OpenVPN server on ec2 (eu-west-1)
| to try to get some slow but functional internet access. What we
| saw was that about 15-30 seconds after the TLS handshake the
| connection would stall and drop out. To me this says they're
| doing some deep packet inspection to find TLS and dropping those
| firewall states. I also noticed while running `tcpdump` that
| almost every tcp segment from a BY address had incorrect CRC's
| after the IDS kicked in.
|
| Tonight we're going to try using an xor tcp proxy to obfuscate
| the VPN traffic. The system we're using has a name, but I'm not
| going to say it to risk KGB (yes it's still called that there)
| creating IDS signatures and killing our VPN. I'm sure that after
| a few hours it will start dropping these connections as well, but
| if we can buy some time that's worth while.
|
| This, really, is the real problem with the internet. In many
| small countries there's only one IX, often under government
| ownership or supervision. You might think that they know better
| than to do stuff like this, but push comes to shove they'll all
| lock it down as soon as there's a threat to their authority.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Do you have a clue on physical location of this middlebox?
| yabones wrote:
| Not sure. My information is largely based on observations
| made by people that live or have lived in BY. It's sort of
| common knowledge there that regardless which ISP or carrier
| you're on there's always one hop in common when
| traceroute'ing outside of the country.
| dylz wrote:
| As far as I can tell, virtually every network marked BY has
| a common transit or peer of AS6697 Republican Unitary
| Telecommunication Enterprise Beltelecom
| mimi89999 wrote:
| Maybe protesters should set up some mesh to keep the
| information flow and coordination if the internet will be cut
| completely.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| I don't get how XOR helps here? Isn't this stuff based on
| timing + length information?
| ck2 wrote:
| wow that headline/article really hedges like there are somehow
| other possibilities and they are supposed to be inclusive? I mean
| he's an authoritarian in power since 1991, it's a tyrants
| lifelong dream
|
| I wonder how the USA's 2020 is going to be written by outsiders
| hedging how it all could have been somehow legitimate.
| sulam wrote:
| We have an office there and people were able to use normal
| internet services on Monday (albeit over VPN in some cases). Some
| people did have home network service interrupted.
|
| I haven't heard of any escalations today, but obviously my sample
| size is limited (70 people in Minsk).
| shmerl wrote:
| One feed here: https://news.liga.net/world/chronicle/vybory-
| prezidenta-bela...
|
| Those fascists are really getting more and more brutal against
| people. And population will soon start treating them as they
| treated fascists during WW2.
| tapvt wrote:
| A case where I feel amateur (ham) radio would be a potential
| lifeline to the outside world.
| gruez wrote:
| If a tyrannical government is willing to cut off internet
| access, what makes you think they won't also ban ham radio
| transmissions (enforcing via violent means) as well?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Ham is harder. Internet comes (mostly) through cables; those
| cables at some points are subject to the control of the
| government, and can be either technologically filtered or
| physically disrupted. (Satellite internet is clearly the
| exception.)
|
| But ham radio is like satellite internet - it's hard to cut
| off. You can ban it, as you say, but then you have to
| actually enforce the ban - either by jamming, or by finding
| sites that are transmitting and cutting them off.
|
| But even worse, I don't think the point of cutting off the
| internet is to keep news from Belarus from leaking out. I
| think the point is to keep outside ideas (like the idea that
| elections should be fair, and outrage when one isn't) from
| coming into Belarus. Well, a ham can sit and listen and
| broadcast nothing. It's hard to track that down to be able to
| enforce the ban on the listening station.
| zzz61831 wrote:
| It was hard to jam radio transmissions in the past, but
| these days it's common. Russia did that to Ukrainian
| channels in Crimea and Donbass and Belarus has access to
| the same Russian technology.
| evan_ wrote:
| Why do you think a hostile state won't just send cops to
| drive around until they see a 50' aerial antenna and then
| shoot everyone in the house it's attached to? It'll only
| take a few before all the antennas come down.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Most hostile states aren't so powerful that they can
| openly do that kind of thing. Even in this case, Belarus
| doesn't _say_ they shut down the Internet; they 're
| pretending that it's a foreign cyberattack.
| evan_ wrote:
| So they'll pretend that the people they shoot are drug
| dealers. Works in the US.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| By international treaty, hams cannot discuss politics (like
| chaos following dubious elections) over the air. In fact, in
| many countries it is the custom for hams to avoid any topics
| that might be seen as "serious", instead they limit their
| remarks to general technical matters or the weather.
| retrac wrote:
| Yes, this would be a case of (IMO fully justified) pirate
| radio.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| http://www.dxsummit.fi/#/?dx_countries=Belarus
|
| Plenty of contacts on the spotter. I don't imagine they're
| about politics, though.
| danielam wrote:
| I just posted a link[0] with some of Friedman's response to
| what's going on. TLDR: aside from Belarus' geopolitical
| importance and predicament, it sounds like what's going on is
| largely a matter of speculation, though the events of the last
| decade read in light of geopolitical realities seem to suggest
| Russian involvement.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24121275
| bitL wrote:
| It looks plausible that Russia is trying to follow the US
| playbook in Ukraine, i.e. a controllable quasi-chaotic removal
| of a person in power that goes against their interests and
| outlived his usefulness (this time enlarging Russia), while
| getting a popular support for it and making sure the other
| party (US) can't do the same. I don't think Russia can afford
| losing another buffer separating it from EU, so anything is
| possible.
| sergeykish wrote:
| Unfortunately Russians can't afford peace and prosperity
| because of Russia interests outside of its borders. It would
| be great if all of this was just a computer game.
|
| Person in power was not popular and quite stupid -
| redirecting so much wealth in own pockets and own region,
| fooling on hot EU and language topics, imprisoning opponent.
| The feature was gloom, he had to leave. If someone helped
| that's fine for me. What was not fine is seizure of land by
| neighbor.
|
| All the best for Belarus, hope it would not be invaded.
| adventured wrote:
| You say the US re Ukraine. It's actually Western European
| powers, which have dramatically more influence over the
| situation in Ukraine - they always have, and they always will
| - than the US does.
|
| It's hilarious that people think the US controls every aspect
| of planet Earth, such that it can just point its finger at
| things and make them the way it wants them to be. The bipolar
| response to US capabilities is the amusing part, the US is
| either a god toppling governments at will or entirely
| incompetent, depending on whatever narrative the anti-US
| contingent needs to push.
| bitL wrote:
| I still remember the leaked Nuland's call saying "F __* the
| EU " implying that US was the main change agent and the
| other caller expressing views that EU was too weak to do
| anything and they had to act. It looks like Russia has
| learned from that, manufactured consent to get rid of
| Lukashenko utilizing his weaknesses and expected actions
| (i.e. unable to resist corrupting the elections,
| suppressing protests by force) and had trained people in
| the background ready to take over. I guess Russia decided
| to preempt any potential US/EU action by simply replaying
| the same scenario they saw in Ukraine, Georgia etc. with
| the ability to steer its outcome at a time that is
| favorable to them (COVID-19, economy down).
| gdy wrote:
| Russian state-controlled TV channels are portraying
| protesters in a very negative light.
| fuoqi wrote:
| You haven't looked deep into Ukrainian situation, do you?
| Western European countries have continuously expressed
| their frustration at the fact that Ukraine does not follow
| the Minsk agreements to no avail. They would like for
| mutual sanctions between them and Russia to be gone as soon
| as possible and Ukrainian unwillingness to follow Minsk
| agreements silently supported by US (and not so silently
| via supplies of lethal military equipment) makes it harder
| (since the civil war is still ongoing).
|
| Meanwhile Derkach tapes have shown that Ukraine wasn't far
| from a puppet state and for current government just a
| little warning from US was enough to stop any
| investigations into potential Poroshenko treason just
| because it _may_ influence US elections. Just think about
| it! Also US has a significant influence over WMF, which
| openly dictates how Ukraine should behave in certain key
| areas.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Geopolitics are not at the root of the current unrest.
|
| It's just that Lukashenka built himself an army of strongmen
| that have nothing to loose and a servile command state. Then,
| expectedly, he aged and his physical and mental health
| deteriorated to the point that
|
| 1. Lukashenka made enemies with Russia and Putin personally.
|
| 2. Over the last few months, he managed to loose all the
| remaining support base he had.
|
| 3. On August, 3 he acknowledged personally ordering killings.
|
| Here are some of the nastier facts about him:
|
| 1. He isolated his first wife, the mother if his two kids and
| his sex toy, the mother of his third kid. They could not leave
| their houses for years.
|
| 2. Aged 65, he sleeps with young girls and brags about it.
|
| It's no surprise that any united opposition candidate would win
| the election.
|
| But Belarusians had a lucky chance to have the best ever
| candidate.
|
| The world completely missed out a wonderful election campaign
| in Belarus by three beautiful ladies that took on the
| leadership after their men were jailed or ran away. They were
| calling themselves _Love, Might, Win_. The lead opposition
| candidate, the _Might_ of the trio emerged as the nation leader
| literally in a matter of weeks. Her speeches were simple,
| peaceful and straight to the point. She did not call people
| into streets. Still, every night, over 100,000 people confront
| the police and the army for her.
|
| Some died.
| fuoqi wrote:
| >suggest Russian involvement
|
| I highly doubt it. You don't instigate protests and
| congratulate "winner" on the next day after election at the
| same time. It's far easier to pressure known leader, who has
| bad relations with the West (and elections only made them
| worse), than risk instability and weak government puppeteered
| by foreign forces installed after a "revolution" (see Ukraine).
|
| I previously wrote about it here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24104304
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Can we call this the "Kashmir playbook"? Or is there a better
| earlier example of a temporary-induced communications blackout vs
| what e.g. the PRC does.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| yes. This is more like the kashmir playbook. stopping internet
| to prevent people from communicating, to prevent an uprising
| where external agencies can provide information, assistance,
| attacks and such. This same thing is happening in kashmir the
| moment i write this so its hardly surprising more countries
| havent done it yet because it is a kill switch and governments
| are willing to push it if it threatens them
| McDyver wrote:
| I had already commented this 7 months ago when Russia did the
| same thing.
|
| "In the interest of the people everywhere in the world, there
| should always be dial-up access points available, in different
| countries.
|
| The "national interest", for whichever country, should always be
| the people's interest; and restricted information has never been
| of any benefit except for those restricting it"
|
| Someone had raised the point that with the current technology,
| modems might not work internationally anymore.
|
| Is that the case? Can such a system still be put in place?
| gdy wrote:
| "when Russia did the same thing"
|
| BS. Russia has never done anything like that.
| actuator wrote:
| How do you dial into them if your line upto them would be
| stopped?
|
| I think radio based communication like amateur broadcasting,
| walkie talkie like things for short distances can be an
| effective tool to prepare for situations like this.
| McDyver wrote:
| If every physical line is blocked then I don't see another
| way around it. I meant for international numbers to be
| available. Unless the isps block all numbers, including
| "unlisted" numbers, then there could still be some hope.
|
| Regarding HAM radio, there are some alternatives
|
| [0] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:HAM_Radio
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
| actuator wrote:
| Fascinating stuff. I think the antennas for AMPRNet make it
| visually discoverable. I wonder if significant distance
| could be covered by something a little bit inconspicuous.
|
| I think one amusing thing is some phones before smartphones
| had radio receivers for FM. It would have been fascinating
| if same hardware was there in the current phones and could
| have been possibly used to power local broadcasts.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| I doubt it would help, since it is increasingly common for POTS
| traffic to simply be routed over the Internet, so an Internet
| shutoff would also affect phone service.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Some ISPs do provide dialup. For example:
| https://twitter.com/xs4all/status/274631880429670400
|
| It does take an "activist" ISP to set up a general access dial-
| up line though. There's not that many around.
|
| -- For those reading this still in need of dialup access but
| blocked from visiting Twitter, the details from the tweet are:
| Phone number: +31205350535 User: xs4all Password: xs4all
| stefan_ wrote:
| Of course ISPs can stop modems from working. But nothing to
| stop a directed, tracking satellite system like Starlink
| (except somewhat triangulate senders).
| McDyver wrote:
| The problem with relying on a single private company like
| SpaceX is that it still is a single point of failure.
|
| Who's to say that Musk, or whoever will own Starlink next,
| won't side with an authoritarian regime, and do the same?
| actuator wrote:
| That is not even an if. He like most humans would do
| anything to secure his profits. He has been mum on anything
| related to HK but wouldn't hesitate to drop statements like
| this.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/31/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-
| china-ro...
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| Context: Russian Mercs in Belarus:
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/belarus-arrests-dozen...
| blr_fko wrote:
| it's not related to riots that are happening now
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Yesterday, there were reports of Russian mercs arriving to
| help Lukashenka fight his people.
|
| Just saying.
| zihotki wrote:
| Belorussian here, there are no proofs for that yet, only
| rumors.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Hm... a real Belarusian would not call himself
| BelOrusSian.
|
| You are a dope.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| There was a video of strongmen wearing Russian uniforms
| yesterday. And texts about Russian mercs arriving in
| cargo helicopters at the Maryina Gorka airfield.
|
| That's all we have so far, indeed.
| OnACoffeeBreak wrote:
| There's no context in the above link.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| It's background to the situation. Direct background.
| jjcc wrote:
| If we can have different point of views that would be helpful
| for a better judgement:
|
| https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/08/the-russian-coup-plot-...
| sergeykish wrote:
| While possible their source is kp.ru, article could on one
| page with UFO conspiracy.
| ajuc wrote:
| This is a full blown dictatorship imprisoning innocent people,
| beating up protesters, blackmailing opposition candidate to
| escape the country by imprisoning her husband.
|
| There are already dead protesters.
|
| Calling these elections "controversial" is like calling WW2 "a
| disagreement".
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| this is nothing. shameless plug. I am a kashmiri typing this from
| 2G internet which apprently is the only acceptable thing for the
| indian government to allow me. 4G access has been stopped since 5
| AUGUST 2019. a freaking year has passed and no high speed
| internet. I didnt have 2G for like 7 months.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revocation_of_the_special_stat...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Kashmir#Censorsh...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Jammu_and_Ka...
| belarus can stop internet for all they want, as long as they
| want. they have the legal precedent to do so aka india via
| kashmir
| keenmaster wrote:
| You have my solidarity. I take so much for granted as an
| American. Stay strong, and live a fulfilling life regardless of
| the authoritarianism. That is the last thing they want you to
| do.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| funny enough. i was willing to spend a shit load of money
| because my business is online and i was not able to. months
| later when things calmed down a bit, say after january and
| that is what? 6 months and local businesses were given
| permission to internet with restrictions. here is one article
| i could pull from early november but these companies
| mentioned in the article were huge
| https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-
| natio...
|
| the local population was not allowed access till february and
| i happen to have photos of the "undertaking" that businesses
| were made to sign. https://ibb.co/Fnd6mPj
| https://ibb.co/6D6CWCN this isnt mine, i could not find that
| but a local shop. this was never about terrorism like this
| jammucoder guy is larping about. this is plain and simple
| censorship to prevent people from making a noise and bringing
| to attention the attrocities committed. "terrorism" is what
| got obama to bomb afghanistan, bush to flatten iraq and so
| on.
| keenmaster wrote:
| From the Economic Times link (second most read business
| publication after WSJ):
|
| "The Jammu and Kashmir administration has restored the
| Internet connections of more than 80 subscribers who have
| signed a bond agreeing to use the services strictly for
| business purposes...The bond directs users not to upload
| encrypted files containing any sort of video or
| photographs. "For the allowed IP, there will be no social
| networking, proxies, VPNs and Wi-Fi and that all the USB
| ports will be disabled on the network"
|
| Wow. I shouldn't be surprised but that's awful.
| [deleted]
| jammucoder wrote:
| I'm typing this from Jammu. Since 370 abrogation last year,
| number of terror incidents in J&K is down by 40%. Every story
| has two sides. While I hope the govt brings back full 4G
| connectivity soon, I am grateful to them for taking the terror
| situation seriously.
| majjaa wrote:
| OMG! The Indian r/t_d sub members are also on hackernews. No
| place is safe.
| [deleted]
| actuator wrote:
| Btw, before resorting to name calling like this. It would
| help you to know that he might be expressing genuine
| opinion. He named Jammu, Jammu is also an area of the
| region in question here.
|
| Even I don't agree with his assertions but he is free to
| have his opinion and as someone who actually lives there is
| free to express it.
| searchableguy wrote:
| I will need source for that.
|
| Which other countries deal with cheating in exams or rumors
| on whatsapp through internet shut downs?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Do you have any evidence limited speeds are the reason for a
| reduction in terrorist incidents?
|
| Unless you have some hard evidence that's a weak-sauce claim.
| Correlation _at best_.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| children havent gone to school since 5 august 2019 in
| kashmir. while the world is enjoying the benefits of zoom
| and stuff, everyone is stuck with 2G. that means no zoom
| parties, no conference calls, recorded classes are sent via
| voice notes on whatsapp groups for each class and children
| write simple exams on paper and photo a picture. things are
| THAT DEPLORABLE and the narrative "stopping terrorism" is
| given as an excuse to prevent 8 million people from
| internet? what gives?
| actuator wrote:
| Yeah, I think the whole situation is such a travesty. I
| have been following news of that region for a long time
| now and it is just sad what has happened there over the
| decades with atrocities committed from both sides.
|
| I firmly believe restricting internet access is just not
| humane at this point. There is too much dependence on
| internet and I consider it as a basic right.
|
| I think this heavy-handedness is going to backfire. To
| treat an infection, you can't just cut off the whole
| limnb.
| jammucoder wrote:
| My friend, although I feel the same as you about the 2G
| connectivity issue, I should remind you that just 3 years
| before 370 abrogation, schools in Kashmir were shut for 8
| Months [1] after the killing of Terrorist by security
| forces. This is the J&K I have grown up in. "Stopping
| terrorism" sounds like just another narrative, but not to
| those who have lived with its consequences.
|
| [1] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kashmir-
| schools-reopen...
| arcticbull wrote:
| What does that have to do with internet speeds? Citation
| needed.
| actuator wrote:
| He doesn't because from the data at least in the open, it
| does not even prove that situation has improved
| drastically there. I recall reading recent news about
| local politicians being killed there.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| what is your point? that its okay to actively prevent
| schoolchildren from studying? how does it matter schools
| were shut for 8 months 3 years ago. the point is, with
| the current pandemic, schoolchildren are stuck at home
| anyways and denying them high speed internet is denying
| them access to education. plain and simple. you argue
| because its been done before so everyone is used to it
| and thats somehow okay? its not
| actuator wrote:
| Although a very unfair comparison, and I don't agree with
| it. But I think his point was three years back people
| were more than willing to protest for an "armed
| millitant"[1] and a lot of that was organized through
| social media.
|
| But this doesn't mean it is right, internet is a
| fundamental right at this point. You can't just deprive
| people from it with a blanket ban.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhan_Wani
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| your words, "people were more than willing to protest for
| an "armed millitant" "
|
| where do you say terrorism in that sentence? did hongkong
| stop internet when there were protests? or BLM which were
| protests organised on social media, telegram, whatsapp,
| facebook? or do rules apply differently when protests are
| against injustices in usa and kashmir?
| actuator wrote:
| As I said, I support restoring internet access but giving
| the HK example wrt Kashmir is more like a strawman
| argument. HK situation is nowhere what Kashmir's is.
| HKers are fighting for democratically elected government.
| Look at what the guy in question was fighting for, here
| is a statement from his Wikipedia page. [1]
|
| > He oft-elaborated about the idea of India being
| entirely incompatible with Islam thus mandating a
| destruction at any cost, and aimed of unfurling the flag
| of Islam on Delhi's Red Fort.
|
| This is the exact sort of sentiment that have been used
| by the current Indian government and many others around
| the world to stoke fear and champion for their ideology.
|
| I honestly think you do disservice to your genuine
| concerns when you defend people like him and this makes
| it easy for your real concerns to be muddled with such
| bigotry. Same with the protests. This will not help your
| cause and I honestly believe whether it is Xinjiang or
| Kashmir, armed separatism is not the answer and is never
| going to succeed. Both the countries do really need to
| find a better way to deal with it though.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burhan_Wani#Biography
| aaomidi wrote:
| Shit like this has no place on HN.
|
| Using random statistics to justify taking away the freedom to
| access internet is NEVER okay.
| gjs278 wrote:
| shut the fuck up. we know nothing about this situation, I
| want to know why they're even doing this and this guy is
| explaining why. delete your account.
| core-questions wrote:
| Your anti-argument statements are what have no place here.
| If you don't like what the person is saying, you need to
| either engage with them, or downvote and ignore.
|
| > x is NEVER okay
|
| is a just-so assertion, not an argument.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Are we really at the stage where we argue about if we
| should have area-wide censorship?
| bhupy wrote:
| Um, yes? Nothing is off the table for discussion. If you
| don't like it, don't participate in the discussion, or
| downvote, or move on. Don't police other's willingness to
| engage certain arguments.
| core-questions wrote:
| Well, you seem to be trying to implement microscale
| censorship, and the other poster seems to be able to
| post, so I'm not sure what your deal is.
|
| I mean, you probably participated in and even supported
| the Coronavirus lockdowns, yeah? Why is a terror lockdown
| so philosophically different?
| gjs278 wrote:
| yes, we are. of course you work for microsoft, only a
| windows guy could be this fucking stupid.
| exolymph wrote:
| You are not the arbiter of acceptable discourse.
| orestarod wrote:
| Who is?
| bhupy wrote:
| I don't agree with jammucoder that information restriction
| is a justifiable way to reduce terrorist attacks, but I
| think HN is exactly the sort of place that tolerates this
| exact kind of viewpoint, especially directly underneath a
| comment that argues the opposite.
| keenmaster wrote:
| What if you wrote the following? (I'm being serious): "I
| don't agree with CubsFan that information restriction in
| the South Side of Chicago is a justifiable way to reduce
| the looting downtown, but I think HN is exactly the sort
| of place that tolerates this exact kind of viewpoint,
| especially directly underneath a comment that argues the
| opposite."
| bhupy wrote:
| Yes, there is nothing wrong with that statement.
|
| Arguing in favor of censorship is not the same as
| censorship. The whole point of free discussion is that
| you can talk about the philosophical merits of _anything_
| , regardless of whether or not the argument itself is
| "correct".
|
| On the flipside, policing other's willingness to engage
| certain arguments is _itself_ a form of micro-censorship.
| The pushback is against arguments like "This argument
| has no place on HN", which is not a useful argument and
| doesn't address the merits of GP's comment.
| keenmaster wrote:
| We're probably on the same page. We just have a different
| definition of "tolerate." I swiftly downvoted the comment
| and hope that others do too, and to me that's not
| tolerating the comment. I will gladly engage with the
| comment...by pointing out how insanely wrong and inhumane
| it is.
| bhupy wrote:
| No disagreements there.
| aaomidi wrote:
| HN values freedom and as software engineers who depend on
| the internet I don't think we'd tolerate bullshit
| comments like this.
| bhupy wrote:
| HN's values are limited to the site guidelines. Arguing
| against freedom of information is tolerated in the
| context of Tik Tok, and IMO should be tolerated in the
| context of terrorism in Kashmir.
|
| I want to re-iterate that I _agree with you_ that
| curtailing the freedom of information is bad, but that
| simply arguing about it and hearing from those that feel
| otherwise -- especially those that claim to be directly
| impacted -- is incredibly valuable for me, sitting in New
| York City.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Obviously, we are diverse group of people with equally
| diverse opinions on matter. But from what I've seen,
| there's a healthy amount of comments around in support of
| TikTok and against the CCP and USG's seemingly
| coordinated attempts to dismantle them.
|
| In fact, it was from HN that I learned of ByteDance's
| desire to distance themselves from the CCP and that the
| war on TikTok in both countries is likely in response to
| their refusal to play ball with the CCP. The American
| media's barrage of anti-TT reporting never really made
| sense until that revelation. After all, there are plenty
| of more significant Chinese tech companies whose apps are
| more pervasive, yet are rarely mentioned in the news,
| i.e., Tencent.
| jammucoder wrote:
| Well, I'm affected by the 2G connection as well here, and
| have lived all my life seeing state govts here shielding
| terror groups. Things are improving now since the 370
| abrogation and bringing J&K under central govt
| administration. And govt action isnt a one-dimensional
| thing, this is one of several measures the Indian govt has
| taken and people here are optimistic about the future.
| core-questions wrote:
| Have you got a link to anything that someone interested
| can read that tells your side of the story? I'm okay with
| reading something partisan if it's not egregious and
| sheds some light on how people are actually experiencing
| this where you are.
| [deleted]
| echlebek wrote:
| Sorry to hear you are struggling with internet access, but I
| don't see how the actions of India create legal precedence in
| Belarus?
| keenmaster wrote:
| He's being sardonic. Assad, Putin, Lukashenko, Modi,
| Bolsonaro, Duterte...they all use pseudo-legalistic
| justifications for authoritarian action. Assad in particular
| went as far as cataloging thousands of his torture victims to
| give an official veneer to the circumstances of their death.
| This is even though it seems insane to record evidence of
| one's own gruesome crimes of genocide.
| https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/16/if-dead-could-
| speak/ma...
| beepboopbeep wrote:
| >Assad, Putin, Lukashenko, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte,
| Trump...they all use pseudo-legalistic justifications for
| authoritarian action
| m0zg wrote:
| Except of course in the real world Trump resisted using
| federal forces until rioters started attacking federal
| property and Portland decided to let it burn. Can we here
| concede that burning a federal courthouse is not OK?
|
| He's still not using the federal forces: don't interfere
| when your opponent is making a mistake. The rioters and
| "police defunders" are making an amazingly powerful case
| for his re-election.
| MichaelApproved wrote:
| You're getting down voted for including Trump but his
| recent use of Federal officers to police the streets of
| Portland and his attempts to delay the November vote show
| he is in the same category.
| [deleted]
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| > _I don 't see how the actions of India create legal
| precedence in Belarus?_
|
| The person is frustrated and that part of the comment is
| sarcastic. I think it's understandable given the context.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I don 't see how the actions of India create legal
| precedence in Belarus?_
|
| It's a precedent for the world ignoring such actions.
| kube-system wrote:
| FWIW, it hasn't been ignored; the US State Department has
| condemned the restrictions in Kashmir.
| keenmaster wrote:
| There are a wide range of policy tools that the U.S.
| failed to use with regards to Kashmir and the oppression
| of Muslims in India, up to and including sanctions. You
| can disagree on the efficacy of any particular policy
| tool, but something with economic and/or diplomatic
| consequences must be done. Academic research has shown
| that even the threat of sanctions can help. I'm not
| holding my breath that Trump will do anything to improve
| the situation. He has a very warm relationship with Modi.
|
| We should not wait for the arc of history to prove
| strongmen wrong. We owe it to the oppressed peoples of
| the world to advocate for non-militaristic measures which
| help reduce or eliminate their oppression. Some self-
| doubt is healthy, and the West has done a lot of bad
| things in the past. We can't let that self-doubt paralyze
| our foreign policy though. The world would devolve into a
| worse place. Obama misused MLK's belief on the arc of
| history (bending towards justice) to justify what is
| increasingly looking like a terrible foreign policy
| regime (hands off on Russia --->Syrian
| genocide--->refugees flooding Europe--->alt-right
| backlash and Brexit--->Crimea --->alt-right
| worldwide--->widespread election manipulation--->shaky
| NATO and EU--->hyperventilating Eastern
| Europe--->emboldened strongmen--->??? But wait, there's
| more! Do the claims that sanctions can cause WWIII seem
| hollow now? Is it becoming clear to everyone that Russian
| imperialism and Iranian imperialism need just as much
| scrutiny and backlash as Western imperialism?).
|
| On that note, sanctions on Belarus are very limited.
| Here's the thing with sanctions: sanctions on one bad
| actor can be dodged if there are other, larger bad actors
| who aren't being put in their place. However, systematic
| sanctions, against all major human rights abusers, would
| be really hard to dodge. That is especially if we give
| them a well-defined route out of the sanctions regime,
| where sanctions are gradually relaxed until the abuses
| are stopped.
|
| "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is
| right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for
| justice. A man dies when he refuses to take a stand for
| that which is true." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
| actuator wrote:
| I honestly don't think any country in the world cares at
| this point. There are far worse things world has ignored, I
| hardly think this needed a precedent.
| PeterisP wrote:
| There's a saying that the good always prevails, so
| whoever wins is the good side. This is a fight that the
| people of Belarus have to win right there on the ground
| in Belarus, because in cases like this the world will
| just accept the de facto winner as legitimate and work
| with them, whoever they may be. Any atrocities involved
| will be condemned with loud proclamations and no real
| consequence.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| #KeepItOn.
|
| Internet shutdowns are disastrous economically and the countries
| that need to resort to them are just feeding fuel to the fire.
| There are countries that simply shutdown access to certain social
| media platforms (not that that's better) but shutting down the
| entire internet is the very definition of desperate to me.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Shutting down the internet is more or less as the major online
| platforms colluding to shutdown one side of the political
| spectrum.
|
| Sometimes it's the government, sometimes it's people that aspire
| to be in the government and aren't yet. It's all about control.
| ciguy wrote:
| This is incredibly sad. I spent a few weeks in Belarus last
| summer (2019) and everyone seemed incredibly hopeful and
| positive. It's a beautiful country and Minsk is a gorgeous city.
|
| I've been able to contact a few of my friends there sporadically
| over the past few days, but have heard nothing from them for 24
| hours. Initially it seemed like a block on communication apps
| like WhatsApp and they could get around it with a VPN but now it
| seems that it's turned into a full internet shutdown.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I was there in '17 - and nobody, _nobody_ I met had a good word
| to say about the government. The main theme was "it's going to
| change, soon" - which makes the credibility of this result all
| the less probable.
|
| Sure, it's apocryphal, but after a month there travelling all
| over, the only person I met who thought lukashenko was good for
| the country was a multimillionaire from "business".
| ciguy wrote:
| Yeah I got the impression that people really believed things
| would change next election when I was there. And similar
| experience regarding general opinion of the government.
| Though I always take that with a grain of salt because the
| people I talk to are generally not a good random sampling of
| the population, definitely selection bias at work.
| oddx wrote:
| > I've been able to contact a few of my friends
|
| Try to use Telegram for communication, it might work. It's not
| full internet shutdown, some programs like Telegram or VPN
| Psiphon, Tachyon work from time to time.
| obogobo wrote:
| wondering what / if any impact "the space internet" (or like
| networks) will have on national government's ability to disrupt
| comms. or if it just shifts the goalposts to a different network
| operator
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Belarus currently allows satellite phones:
|
| https://blog.telestial.com/2017/11/countries-where-satellite...
| ryanmarsh wrote:
| Imagine a US company of strategic importance becoming the
| defacto internet provider for much of the developing world.
| There's no way Starlink is happening organically or in a policy
| vacuum. This is like a CIA/NSA wet dream.
|
| Also, people forget that low latency global internet is a
| requirement for next generation drone operations, particularly
| removing pilots from high performance aircraft. Again, this is
| strategic and something the Pentagon has gushed over for 30+
| years. To see it as anything but is naive.
| OnACoffeeBreak wrote:
| An ISP must be registered with the government and must follow
| laws in place for filtering content and working with the
| government. Whether the ISP is using any local infrastructure
| or "going to space" doesn't matter.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > An ISP must be registered with the government and must
| follow laws in place for filtering content and working with
| the government. Whether the ISP is using any local
| infrastructure or "going to space" doesn't matter.
|
| An ISP should not be registering with the government, and it
| must follow any laws. Oppose censorship.
|
| Anonymous, censorship free communications is a lethal threat
| to rogue regimes.
|
| It allows opposition to organise and subvert their
| governments without a threat of its leaders being exposed,
| and killed.
| enkid wrote:
| The question isn't whether or not there are laws against it,
| it's how you enforce the laws. For example, the USSR had to
| jam radio stations to stop external content getting into it's
| borders. Would a country like Belarus try to do the same type
| of thing when it comes to satellite internet?
| petre wrote:
| I donct know if they jammed anything, they built radios and
| TV sets with Eastern band. But that was easily
| circumvented.
| FreakyT wrote:
| I guess the idea would be that, like with satellite phones
| now, you could theoretically use a hypothetical satellite
| internet from any country and get the same experience. It may
| run afoul of local laws, but there wouldn't be a _technical_
| obstacle, barring country wide jamming.
| onetimemanytime wrote:
| 1. They make it illegal and good luck! You may escape but
| others might be beaten and jailed.
|
| 2. Any company will think really hard about doing something
| against the government wishes. They might be frozen out for
| ages and the next dictator will not like what you did either.
| fuoqi wrote:
| Unfortunately it's very easy for governments to make ownership
| of unblockable receivers illegal and to simply jam appropriate
| wavelengths on top of that. Just look at how radio was
| regulated after its invention.
|
| Usually there is no proper technical solution for a political
| problem.
| petre wrote:
| One can still go to a radio silence area like on top of a
| mountain or uninhabited countryside. They would need a very
| strong sat based jammer.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Jamming, and radiolocating satellite terminals is not that
| easy.
|
| China for example been trying to crack down on vsat ownership
| for decades, to no avail
| fuoqi wrote:
| Yes, continuously jamming a whole country (even not a big
| one such as Belarus) is not feasible, and AESA terminals
| make this task even more difficult. But I meant that during
| critical events (such as massive protests) government can
| jam population centers by simply relying on an overwhelming
| power of jamming signal, thus making proper coordination
| significantly harder.
| rndmze wrote:
| ISPs must follow the laws of the countries they operate in so I
| am not sure this will work out.
|
| On the flip side, I don't think they can block communications
| forever, so is that tactic even going to work ?
|
| People are still going to be pissed in one month.
| est31 wrote:
| It will shift a lot of power from the countries where the
| internet users are located to the countries where the space
| internet companies operate from. Both in the free countries
| like the EU, and in non-free countries like Belarus. That being
| said, the user's country still has some level of control:
|
| * the companies want to be paid by their users somehow, and
| local governments usually have control over money flows inside
| their own banking systems
|
| * the country can ban receiving/sending equipment. It's not
| small and thus easier to spot but people will likely get
| creative and build their own equipment instead of importing it
|
| * the country can also install jammers but those cost money to
| set up and maintain and while you can put jammers close to the
| users, you can't put jammers close to the satellites. I'm not
| sure what that means about ability to jam both directions, as
| directional receivers on the ground should still be able to
| receive a signal, but maybe ground jammers can just send at
| larger strengths.
| gpm wrote:
| * International treaties and national laws prohibit sending
| radio signals into the country if the countries government
| doesn't give you permission. Space ISPs are very unlikely to
| do so without permission except at the behest of their home
| government.
| betterunix2 wrote:
| Serious question: how would a satellite ISP know where a
| user is located? Moreover, how can a satellite ISP ensure
| that its signals are not entering a particular country,
| especially a geographically small country?
| gpm wrote:
| If you just took a standard antenna that approximately
| speaking broadcast evenly in every direction, you
| couldn't (or at least you would have to bother
| triangulating the signal). If you did that though you
| wouldn't be able to offer high speed internet because you
| would be incredibly bandwidth constrained.
|
| Instead, what these satellites are doing is using
| something called a phased array antenna, that let's them
| narrowly select what area they are broadcasting to and
| receiving from at any point in time with some fancy
| electronics controlling an array of many little antennas
| that constructively/destructively interfere. As a result,
| they have to know where the base stations are reasonably
| precisely.
|
| I'm not actually sure how they discover where base
| stations are, my guess would be GPS on the base stations
| and omni-directional signalling to find them, in which
| case they know to within meters where a base station is.
| If that guess is wrong, you might be able to be a small
| amount over a border and have SpaceX not know it, but not
| substantially.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Yeah, I continue to be baffled by this argument that
| starlink et all are going to somehow crack open
| totalitarian states. There's not a chance in the world of
| any of these companies risking their licensing and
| relationship with the ITU. No one is going to be smuggling
| in ground terminals, let alone macgyvering their own,
| because the network isn't gonna talk back.
| manquer wrote:
| in a small enough country , location could be spoofed
| perhaps ? Or in the border regions it could be harder to
| block ?
| jbay808 wrote:
| Yes; can't they just declare that Starlink's particular
| transmission bands are reserved for Belarussian military
| use, and then fine them for broadcasting on military bands?
| petre wrote:
| How would a state extract fines out of an external entity
| who does not operate in that state? International court?
| Those only deal with human rights, resources and border
| disputes.
| steve_musk wrote:
| Shoot down the satellites?
| liability wrote:
| For a constellation as large as starlink, that would
| probably require a lot of missiles, even accounting for
| Kessler effects.
|
| Also, doings such a thing to an American corporation
| that's only one or two degrees of separation from the
| USDoD may prove to be a costly mistake. I think Belarus
| would need to depend on the strength of their
| relationship with Russia to avoid retaliation. That
| hasn't protected Syria though, so maybe Belarus
| [Lukashenko] should think twice before attempting some
| hotheaded shit like that.
| Causality1 wrote:
| That's much harder to do under the table though. Most of
| these I ternet blocking orders do their best to avoid
| leaving a paper trail of responsibility.
| enkid wrote:
| Can you point to a specific treaty? Radio Free Europe has
| been doing it for decades. Photons don't stop at national
| borders, and the footprint of a satellite is likely going
| to mean that Belarus will have transmissions from
| satellites, even if no one wants that to happen.
| gpm wrote:
| Will try to find the relevant treaty again tonight if no
| one else does first. It might have been space specific/it
| might have a cutout for the government (either would
| explain radio free europe).
|
| SpaceX uses phased array antennas, so they know where
| they are sending their service.
| gpm wrote:
| Article 18.1 or the ITU Radio Regulations (a binding
| treaty) states that
|
| > No transmitting station may be established or operated
| by a private person or by any enterprise without a
| licence issued in an appropriate form and in conformity
| with the provisions of these Regulations by or on behalf
| of the government of the country to which the station in
| question is subject (however, see Nos. 18.2, 18.8 and
| 18.11).
|
| SpaceX cannot help establish, or help operate, these
| ground stations. Technically could they sell them in
| another country? Maybe, I don't think the ITU would
| accept that considering that have to have control over
| the software for routing purposes, and that they know
| exactly where the ground station is because of beam
| forming.
|
| The Outer Space Treaty article 3 also states that
|
| > States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities
| in the exploration and use of outer space, including the
| moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with
| international law, including the Charter of the United
| Nations, in the interest of maintaining international
| peace and security and promoting international co-
| operation and understanding.
|
| (Later incorporated against private entities in a
| different article).
|
| It would not be much of a stretch to consider this a
| violation of this article as well.
|
| It is slightly less clear cut than I remember though.
| petre wrote:
| Yeah, like that stopped Radio Free Europe delivering real
| news into the Eastern block.
|
| They can imprison people with terminals but they can't
| radio shield their airspace.
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Now we're calling state-sponsored propaganda outlet "real
| news"
| enkid wrote:
| I don't see Starlink shutting down subscribers if the
| Belarussian government asks them to, at least not very quickly.
| If the terminals are available, this is going to make all of
| the national internet projects (Russia, China, Iran) much more
| difficult to pull off.
| AnssiH wrote:
| I'll be surprised if Starlink satellites are going to be
| transmitting any signals to countries where they are not
| holding the appropriate licenses to do so.
| petre wrote:
| Do GPS sats stop transmiting while over adversary
| tertitory? No. But GPS is a military project.
| toast0 wrote:
| My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers for
| small countries, but large countries like Russia and China
| may have more influence.
|
| The real question is if there's going to be enough receivers
| to make a difference.
| est31 wrote:
| Any country which has the capability of shooting down
| satellites has more influence than countries which can't do
| it. But even a country with like 100 million residents, if
| it doesn't have a space program (or someone protecting it
| with a space program), it doesn't have much of a say.
| bleepblorp wrote:
| Shooting down an American-owned satellite would be an act
| of war against the United States. Not many countries have
| enough control over the US domestic political process to
| keep the potential risks of that low enough to justify
| the benefits.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Anti-satellite weaponry doesn't really apply here for the
| same reason land based artillery doesn't apply for trying
| to block pirate radio coming from a neighboring country
| enkid wrote:
| Countries that have that capability can't shoot down
| 40000 of them.
| sergeykish wrote:
| A few hits would provide enough junk for runaway process
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
| marvin wrote:
| I don't think a country with space capability is
| seriously considering making orbit useless over
| censorship. That'd be like shooting yourself in the foot
| right after you've trained for a marathon, in order to
| ingratiate yourself with firearms manufacturers.
| sergeykish wrote:
| And private company would not consider such risk either.
| Like with nuclear weapon ability to shoot is enough.
| Funny how it works with
|
| s/country/private company/
|
| s/space/nuclear/, s/orbit/land/
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| If this becomes a thing, they will put a laser on a
| satellite and call it a day. All of the big 3 (military,
| not economically, you know who I am talking about) can do
| this easily.
|
| edit: In response to below - they are putting SHORAD
| lasers on Strykers soon. Things have become a lot more
| compact.
| est31 wrote:
| High powered lasers on an aircraft carrier work because
| it has a nuclear power plant onboard. How will you launch
| a nuclear power plant into space?
|
| Note that the response to star wars contributed to the
| Soviet Union's bankruptcy :).
| grecy wrote:
| Even countries that have the ability to shoot down
| satellites probably aren't going to shoot down hundreds
| or thousands of starlink sats, which is what it would
| take to end coverage.
| est31 wrote:
| Good point, and indeed they can't, but they can cause a
| mess by shooting down a few. The other satellites will
| have to evade the debris which will cause headaches to
| the operator company.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > My guess is Starlink isn't going to turn off subscribers
| for small countries, but large countries like Russia and
| China may have more influence.
|
| That Musk guy lives in America? What about some extra
| persuasion?
| tech_timc wrote:
| Russia and China have already moved to prohibit access to these
| LEO internet services, or try to compel the providers to bring
| down all data that originates in their country to in-country
| servers for review and control. They are also developing their
| own constellations in order to provide a service which they can
| control.
|
| https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/russia-bans...
|
| https://www.scmp.com/abacus/tech/article/3085146/does-elon-m...
|
| https://www.scmp.com/abacus/tech/article/3089481/satellite-i...
|
| Russia to create orbital Internet satellite cluster by 2025 -
| Tass https://tass.com/science/1005554
| SergeAx wrote:
| Yesterday and day before editors of Telegram channel nexta_live
| [0] managed to report events in Minsk and other cities in
| Belarus. They are now seeng subscribers count boost from 300k to
| 1.1m in 2 days. The entire country connection was badly shaped
| but still alive. Telegram is famous for it's ability to work on a
| very thin bandwith, and also anti-blocking techniques.
|
| Today all mobile data is switched off, but there are still small
| streams of information, I think using sat connections.
|
| [0] https://t.me/nexta_live
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| To put this into context, population of Belarus is below 9.5m:
| https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/belarus-popul...
| SergeAx wrote:
| I think lots of subscribers there are from Russia (myself
| included), Ukraine or other ex-USSR republics. But still.
|
| BTW, it's 1.25m already. Gotta be 1.5m tomorrow. And those
| users are extremely engaged - view counts on post from just
| an hour before is north of 0.5m.
| [deleted]
| caleb-allen wrote:
| I have coworkers in Belarus who have been cut off from our (US
| based) company since the weekend. I've been able to hear from one
| of them intermittently, but it's a scary thing, I can't imagine
| what they're going through.
| hamiltont wrote:
| FYI - we have been able to get regular SMS and voice calls
| through (using Google Fi as our carrier). It was great to go
| from "absolute zero communication" to "we know you're currently
| OK"
| PopeDotNinja wrote:
| Time to break out the 56K modems!
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| Surely if there are telephone communications then someone can
| modem out? Or are they scanning for non-human communication
| over telephony?
| gpm wrote:
| The number of people with the hardware and know how to send
| data over a telephone line is probably very small.
| OnACoffeeBreak wrote:
| Folks I've been in contact with cannot be reached by WhatsApp
| and email, but SMS seems to work. "We go from home to work
| and then straight home. Afraid to go out after dark so as not
| to get picked up by accident. Otherwise, everything is OK."
| is the message I got.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| I presume the ISPs had shut it down on the Govt. orders. But how
| does VSAT providers act in such situations? e.g. if Starlink had
| subscribers there, would it need to comply with Govt. orders or
| would Govt.(except U.S.) have no control over it and has to
| physically cease the devices(and ban it from selling it further).
|
| Anyways, VSAT + WiFi nodes for non-cellular mobile Internet[1]
| seems to be a good case for protecting the freedom of Internet.
|
| [1]https://needgap.com/problems/51-non-cellular-network-
| mobile-...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-11 23:01 UTC)