Slashdot Mirror


Fourth Undersea Cable Taken Offline In Less Than a Week

An anonymous reader writes "Another undersea cable was taken offline on Friday, this one connecting Qatar and UAE. 'The [outage] caused major problems for internet users in Qatar over the weekend, but Qtel's loss of capacity has been kept below 40% thanks to what the telecom said was a large number of alternative routes for transmission. It is not yet clear how badly telecom and internet services have been affected in the UAE.' In related news it's been confirmed that the two cables near Egypt were not cut by ship anchors." Update: 02/04 07:13 GMT by Z : A commenter notes that despite the language in the article indicated a break or malfunction, the cable wasn't cut. It was taken offline due to power issues.

37 of 499 comments (clear)

  1. Cue... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the bombs in 3... 2... 1...

    Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this is either a precursor to military action, or a direct attack on Iran's about-to-launch Euro-based oil market?

    4 cuts, as far as I am concerned, is no co-incidence. I literally expect to turn on the TV and see bombs falling any day now. Economy down, turn up the war machine. It really is a common historical sequence.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Cue... by dattaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well the Pentagon has recently declared the internet as an enemy weapons system.

    2. Re:Cue... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It does seem like it's not coincidence, but I just don't see the link between this and an attack on Iran. What could possibly be the connection between two cables in Egypt, and us bombing Iran? Do you honestly think that people within the agency that created this network are foolish enough to think that even several more of these cuts will stop the flow of traffic? It's more likely that a middle eastern group is doing this to reduce western influence without any real grasp on just how resilient the network is.

    3. Re:Cue... by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be political suicide indeed, for a politician to start a war shortly before an election -- in which he was running. Bush isn't.

    4. Re:Cue... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're not thinking outside of the tin-foil box.
      These are obviously failed attempts to tap internet traffic.
      The NSA has long been rumored to be able to live splice
      undersea fibre optic cables.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    5. Re:Cue... by fohat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cue: Vogon Contsructor Fleet
      "People of Earth, Your attention please..."

      --
      Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
    6. Re:Cue... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wish the US would stop trying to impose themselves on the rest of the world.

      I don't think this is the U.S. The U.S. would make sure to cut all the cables at once, therefore ensuring maximum disruption and surprise at the time of the attack. The way this is being done is slow and relatively uncoordinated. Which suggests either a probing maneuver or a lack of resources.

      The U.S. is fairly straightforward with its objectives. The brass doesn't like taking things slowly when it comes to war. The plan is to get in, blow stuff up, rebuild the critical infrastructure, then leave. It doesn't always work that way (e.g. Iraq), but it is the ideal scenario that every General and Admiral desires. Long and protracted wars are far too costly. Not just to the U.S. itself, but also on a personal level for the brass.

      Which raises the question: Who would gain from slowly cutting international Internet access in the Middle East? The myriad of plausible answers contrasted with the lack of any solid suspects scares me a hell of a lot more than any U.S. military operations. IMHO, it's in the best interest of the U.S. to find out what is going on NOW. Something big may be coming down the pipeline in the middle east. If and when it comes, it's not going to be pleasant.
    7. Re:Cue... by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...the bombs in 3... 2... 1...

      Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this is either a precursor to military action, or a direct attack on Iran's about-to-launch Euro-based oil market?

      4 cuts, as far as I am concerned, is no co-incidence. I literally expect to turn on the TV and see bombs falling any day now. Economy down, turn up the war machine. It really is a common historical sequence.

      I think it's going to be the end of the world. The four horsemen draw near. OMG FOUR horsemen?! Coincidence? I don't think so.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    8. Re:Cue... by McFadden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but the Republican party still wants a chance at this election. If another war was started, it would guarantee a Democrat victory.
      The Neocons aren't Republicans by any definition of the term. They are a group of ultra-right extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party as a suitable vehicle to advance their cause. I don't think they care about what happens to the Republican Party - they're just hell-bent on carrying out as much of their destructive agenda as they can before Bush gets booted out, or (as some are predicting, although I don't believe it will happen) they declare martial law.
    9. Re:Cue... by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are a group of ultra-right extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party as a suitable vehicle to advance their cause. Why do i keep remembering William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" book?
      Somehow i have a Deja Vu sense...

      I bet EUR 100 (to be donated to Doctors without borders) that before this year runs out, we will have another major war with another country.

      Anybody willing to dare?
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    10. Re:Cue... by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...

      You do know where you are, right?

      it doesn't even have to agree with me.

      Ah, I see the answer may be yes.

    11. Re:Cue... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Says who? The press? Ahmadinedschad? Remember that the former want to sell and the latter is a politician. It's popular in the Iran to bash the US, so he's bashing. And, lo and behold, he gets elected. Look around yourself and notice that this works all over the globe. No, not US bashing. But looking for an external foe to distract from internal problems.

      Politicians rarely tell you their point of view, or what they are really going to do. They tell you what you want to hear. Can you point me to any Iranian actions that support a "threat" scenario? I don't care for politicians' words anymore, usually it's opinion making and swaying, but little if any substance.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Cue... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are not failed attempts--these are diversions. It is hard to splice in without intercepting service, so the purpose of these is to make a splice further down the line indetectable. The splice goes in while service is out, then the diversion cuts are repaired and no one is the wiser.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    13. Re:Cue... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Operation Just Cause
      Operation Desert Storm
      Operation Urgent Fury

      History rarely remembers the successful campaigns. Mostly, we remember the screw-ups. Unfortunately, the brass remembers it the other way around.

    14. Re:Cue... by fredklein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea is, you cut the cable at point 'A', and make it look like it was an accident (ship anchor, etc). Then, before they fix the cable, you trot on down the cable a few (tens of) miles to point 'B' and cut the cable there, too. But now you splice in a repeater that copies everything sent over that cable and sends it ...to you! When the cable is fixed at the original spot, comm traffic starts up, and no one is the wiser.

    15. Re:Cue... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The fucking irony here is that Iran is a lot more of a real threat than iraq was.

      Just as ironic is the fact that even though they didn't fight in Gulf War II, Iran won the war.

      The U.S. has lost because we have failed to achieve our major strategic objectives -to create a stable, Western-style democracy in Iraq and beat back Islamic terrorism- and instead we have been left weaker in every single way. We have no credibility and no allies, so we're weak on the diplomatic front. Our military is overextended and its readiness to fight another war has been reduced. We're poorer, by about a trillion dollars.

      Iran wins because two of their major strategic objectives have been achieved: the threat of Iraq and the threat of the U.S. have both been neutralized. Iraq is no longer a threat, because Saddam has been deposed, the military is destroyed, and the new government is Shiite, and too weak to stand up to Iran. The United States is no longer a threat: we can't use diplomacy against Iran, because even if we had proof they were up to something, no one will believe us, and few of our allies will back us up because we're so unpopular abroad. We can't use military force, because we don't have the troops to spare, and again it's unlikely we could get any other countries to assist in a military effort. We do have aircraft and cruise missiles, so in theory we could use airstrikes. But if we try anything, they can use the Shiite militias to attack our forces in Iraq and stir up the civil war there, so even a limited air war with Iran would be tough. Finally, any major conflict with Iran would threaten the oil supply, and with it, the world economy.

      So we won't attack Iran, because we can't. And Iran knows it. Their president is a belligerent idiot, they harass our destroyers with their gunboats, they kidnap British seamen, and they send arms to Iraqi insurgents, and they continue to pursue nuclear weapons, all because they know there's not a god damn thing the U.S. can do about it. These are not the actions of a country that is afraid of imminent invasion.

    16. Re:Cue... by nicklott · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iran wins because two of their major strategic objectives have been achieved Three actually: the Taliban in Afghanistan are also no longer a threat. Historically speaking Iran, almost since the time of the Persian empire, has always had three hostile borders; The Russians to the North, Afghans to the East and whoever controlled the middle east to the west (Greeks, Romans, Turks, British, Arabs etc). In the space of 5 years two of these have been nullified and the Russians are currently friendly, plus they're sitting on the world's next fifty years of energy. It's little wonder they're so bullish.
    17. Re:Cue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The U.S. has lost because we have failed to achieve our major strategic objectives -to create a stable, Western-style democracy in Iraq and beat back Islamic terrorism- and instead we have been left weaker in every single way. We have no credibility and no allies, so we're weak on the diplomatic front. Our military is overextended and its readiness to fight another war has been reduced. We're poorer, by about a trillion dollars. We only lost the war if your premise is correct: that we wanted "to create a stable, Western-style democracy in Iraq and beat back Islamic terrorism."

      Here are the ways in which we lost:

      1. We didn't stabilize the country.
      - This assumes we didn't want a never-ending civil war in Iraq. Not necessarily the case.

      2. We didn't get a Western-style democracy installed.
      - When have we ever executed regime-change and actually let the people decide who the new leader was? I don't think there is any precedent to believe that's what we really wanted.

      3. We didn't fight terrorism.
      - I thought it was common knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam didn't like Al Queda, nor did he like their radical Islamic influence on his secular government. They were enemies.

      4. We didn't prevent additional radicals from becoming terrorists.
      - Assumes we don't want a never-ending War on Terror. I thought people like McCain have declared we are destined to have one anyway. Relates to number 5.

      5. We spent loads of money.
      - Only a problem to those that spent it. Not to those that received it. People heavily invested in the defense industry profit from war. People like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and most of the rest of this administration. All made big profits from the war. Also, preventing these uncontrolled dictators like Saddam from doing something outrageous like nationalizing the oil fields can be prevented, enhancing oil profits. Most of the same people profit.

      6. We will need to occupy Iraq for decades.
      - Perhaps we wanted to build those bases in a very strategic oil-heavy region.

      7. We lost many soldier's lives.
      - Only matters if they're your children. I don't see many Bush-Jr.'s in Iraq, do you?

      From that perspective, we are winning.
    18. Re:Cue... by pipatron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Their president is a belligerent idiot, [...] , and they continue to pursue nuclear weapons

      Hm, remind me again, which country are you talking about here?

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  2. Could be war -- or an attempt at self-isolation by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like a concerted effort to isolate muslim nations, to me. Singapore, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE. We're looking for airplanes aiming for buildings and they're attacking the world under the sea with a pair of clippers and a web cam.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  3. The cable was not cut - Bad summary, bad! by AchiIIe · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA: The cable was not cut, it was taken offline due to power problems.

    > the problem is related to the power system and not the result of a ship's anchor cutting the cable, as is thought to be the case in the other three incidents.

    --
    Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
    1. Re:The cable was not cut - Bad summary, bad! by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't interrupt us with facts!

  4. Oh no. by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Underwater backhoes.

    The last safe spot for the network admin has been found - and destroyed.

  5. Order of Battle by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Sun Tzu (IIRC):

    1. Attack the plan - Futility
    2. Attack the alliances - Division
    3. Attack the resources - Frustration
    4. Attack the army in the field - Attrition
    5. Attack the cities - Destruction

    The costs increase with each step, which is why the cities are last. Good, proactive intellegence and operatives can prevent things from happening. If not, they can foul things up so they can't happen. Communications is a resource, so it looks like step 3 is on the table.

    --
    Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
  6. Re:[Citation Needed] --NT by fohat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the link that was on reddit.com on Friday regarding this info:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JES20080202&articleId=7980

    --
    Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
  7. Cable Not Cut; Cable Merely 'Damaged' by n+dot+l · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The entire sentence you quoted from is:

    The cause of damage is not yet known, but ArabianBusiness.com has been told unofficially the problem is related to the power system and not the result of a ship's anchor cutting the cable, as is thought to be the case in the other three incidents. So it's really a question of what "damage" means in this case. Are we talking about a mundane problem that happens on a regular basis (which was only reported due to all the other links going down at around the same time) or did a component that almost never fails suddenly break down under mysterious circumstances?

    Not to run against the whole "this could mean only one thing" meme, but I think it's just as likely that some old hardware sitting at the ends of that cable got stressed past its breaking point because having the other links down finally pushed it past its limits.
  8. I guess this means... by afabbro · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that the Old Ones are finally stirring. Must be part of that Cthulhu For President 2008 campaign.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  9. Re:deliberate? still don't think so by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it's not the U.S. government behind it. It would more likely be some incompetent, rogue group that doesn't know what it's doing.
    So, like the United States Government then? :-D
  10. Cloverfield Promo? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not an overly elaborate promotional thing for a Middle-East release of Cloverfield is it?

    I mean, we're all getting bored of the alternate reality web thingies these films do to hype themselves before release, so it sort of makes sense to kick it up a notch (bam!)

  11. Also in terms of any intelligence related action by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The last thing you want to do is alert the enemy that they have a potential problem and give them time to fix it. For example suppose you discovered that all military telephones were routed through a single building in a country you were going to attack. The system was supposed to have some redundancy, but they didn't know that it ends up all relying on the one centre. So what you do then is hit it coinciding with the start of your attack. Suddenly, all their communications are down and they are being attacked. Makes it hard to deal with either.

    What you don't do is send in some guy to much with it, take their communications down, then do nothing, then still do nothing as they fix it and start to work on alleviating the problem in the future. That is even less useful than just leaving it alone.

    As a precursor to military action, something like this makes sense only if idiots are running the show. Not only is it going to do no real good (who gives a shit if civilians can't get on the Internet? It is the internal military links that are the issue) but it makes it less likely that any sort of complete blackout would be achieved. I guarantee the companies involved in this aren't just going to fix the cable and go "Ok well that'll probably never happen again." They are going to try and figure out why this happened, and what can be done to prevent it.

  12. Iran's Oil Bourse by lekker+biltong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to Wikipedia, Its Oil Bourse is going live on 1-11 February after delays.

    Is it a coincidence?

    I think not.

  13. Four Reasons No TAP by hhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are four very clear reasons why no nation would want to tap into four high speed data cables.. namely to get access to the data they would need 4 more cables to bring the data back to their "office."

    They could someone reroute some of the data on the cable and even use stolen or leased lines on the existing cable for their purpose... but they couldn't steal all of the signal without a way of back hauling home (to their office).

    England has always spied on all the data it could get its hands on and the US and every other country that can, probably does as well..

    My guess if these cuts are connected it's more to force the data to route through specific nodes that anything else, and as I have said elsewhere since phone calls run on these same cables, they might not be even after internet data. Perhaps someone wants to catch someone calling home...

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  14. Re:[Citation Needed] --NT by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I agree that it looks mighty suspicious, but I have a hard time seeing how it could be a conspiracy. First, look at who's affected: Eygpt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Sri Lanka, even India. Don't get me wrong, I despise the White House and wouldn't trust anything Cheney said while his lips were moving, but I have trouble seeing why the United States would want to attack even one of these countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. Even if they do support and export terrorists, the Saudi leadership are close allies of the United States- we just sold them a shitload of JDAM satellite-guided bombs, after all, why would we then turn around and take out their internet access? And even assuming the U.S. or some other nation did want to attack one of these nations, why do it this way, which attacks the entire Middle East indiscriminately?

    As suspicious as it looks, I think it's just really, really bad luck. But then again, maybe I need to get with the times and be a little more paranoid.

  15. Re:[Citation Needed] --NT by F34nor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well for one thing you may be mistaking the culprit.

    Al-Qaeda's main enemy is not the US. It is Arab countries who are not conservative enough. 9-11 was about getting the US out of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA,) not about freedom or anything a vague as that. If Al-Qaeda was able to cut off Internet service to the KSA, UAE, Qatar, and etc. that would be a huge coup for Al-Qaedi. What do they object to? They object to, anything that allows people to question their limited ultra-wahabi dogma. Currently UAE is the official named target of Al-Qaeda's wrath.

    Don't forget the largest US base in the region is in Qatar.

  16. Fun with Bayes by LaskoVortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Today we are going to use Bayes's theorem to determine the likelihood that all of this disabling of cables is malicious. We are not calculating the likelihood of conspiracy, just how likely it is that someone out there is disabling cables with ill purpose. (Of course, how many people does it take to disable or cut a cable with malicious intent? One? Two? More than one is by definition a conspiracy.)

    First, we need a prior. Lets assume that the likelihood that someone is out there was planning to maliciously disable a cable before this latest round of disabling was about 0.0001. That's going to be our prior, 0.0001. Not very likely, and hopefully not too contentious. At this point, it doesn't really matter too much what the prior is, just that we have one. We'll see that after a few rounds of calculations, this prior washes out pretty quickly.

    Now, lets assume that any time a cable is disabled, it is only about a 1% chance that said cable was disabled with malicious intent. Considering that historically these cables are cut or disabled only once a year, this assumption means that every 100 years, some asshole (or some assholes, for the tin foil hat crowd) is going to go out there and maliciously disable a cable. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation. I mean, every hundred years, someone burns a church, or knocks over a skyscraper with a plane, or invades a country for no good reason whatsoever. Could these cables be special in that regard? For the sake of argument, lets assume they are not special and are subject to the once-in-a-hundred-year rule.

    Now, we need to guess how likely it is that, if someone (or some people, for the conspiracy theorists) is indeed disabling cables maliciously, how many cables could he (or they, for the conspiracy theorists), cut per day? I'm thinking 0.5. In other words, every other day this person or people could cut a cable. The 0.5 number means that it is easy for a properly motivated entity who also has the proper means to cut cables.

    Remember, there is only a 1/365 chance that a cable will be cut on any given day due to an accident. We'll need to remember this to calculate the posteriors after a cable wasn't disabled back on Day 3.

    Okay, if we are all on agreement on the numbers so far, we are ready to do some Bayesian arithmetic to determine the likelihood of malicious intent.

    Day 0 (before any cables disabled): 0.0001 likelihood
    Day 1 (cable disabled): 0.0476644 likelihood
    Day 2 (cable disabled): 0.7144896 likelihood
    Day 3 (NO disabling): 0.5444762 likelihood
    Day 4 (cable disabled): 0.9835428 likelihood
    Day 5 (cable disabled): 0.9996654 likelihood

    In conclusion, the same math that runs your spam filter predicts (99.967% likely) that someone is up to something disabling all of these cables. Conversely, we have only a 0.033% expectation that all this disabling is coincidental.

    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  17. Re:[Citation Needed] --NT by kklein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. There's nothing worse to an al-Qaeda type than a sane and prosperous Arab Muslim state. Countries like the UAE show that Islam is not the culprit; idiots and assholes are. As usual.

  18. Re:[Citation Needed] --NT by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Countries like the UAE show that Islam is not the culprit; idiots and assholes are. As usual. Whether we're talking about Terrorist Organizations (eg Al Quaeda) or The Countries That Hate Them (eg The US of A), it's always the idiots and asswholes (eg Dick/DubYah/Osama/etc) to blame.

    The vast majority of the respective populations are not irrational, psychotic and unstable.
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.