Slashdot Mirror


Why Has Cameroon Blocked the Internet? (bbc.com)

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.

87 comments

  1. Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Block internet ==> I now know you are not a government worthy of honor or power.

    1. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Troll

      And you really believe it can only happen in backwater Africa? Think again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never claimed it can only happen in backwater Africa.

    3. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by aicrules · · Score: 1

      No, obviously you didn't. But this is the world we live in today with regards to discussion and debate. Very disappointing.

    4. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, 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.

    5. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by unrtst · · Score: 1, 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.

    6. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      it's no longer funny.

      Sad.

    7. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Block the Internet
      2. Stop the press
      3. Genocide
      4. Profit
      5. Leave the country, if outside forces restore democracy.

    8. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, if only thinking a government isn't worthy of honor or power had any meaning at all.

      If you don't live there, they don't care what you think. If you do live there, their soldiers won't care what you think while they're dragging your family away for treason.

    9. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Well, commenter's handle IS "Opportunist"

    10. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ This.

    13. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Required+Snark · · Score: 0
      Trump lies on a daily basis. Your "rebuttal" is completely meaningless because you are equating out and out falsehood with criticism. Even if the criticism is unfounded or nasty, the right to free speech is in the constitution. When Trump and his toadies in the Senate ban an elected official they are directly attacking the constitution.

      Why don't you get off Slashdot and go over to Brightbart or Stormfront and hang out with the rest of your Nazi buddies?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    14. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you get off Slashdot and go over to Brightbart or Stormfront and hang out with the rest of your Nazi buddies?

      Ooooo... "Nazi" was thrown out in record time... After you're finished burning shit in California, why don't -you- run back over to Reddit and slobber some SJW knobs.

    15. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The rule is "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.", 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. So Senator Warren did not make the claims, the Senator simply quoted other peoples works as such McConnell broke the rule and should be barred because he falsely implied Senator Warren broke the rule.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use the western "freedom" method:
      - let people spam and troll the net freely
      - it causes distrust against everything found in the net
      - only politicians and old media have credibility in a world of spam

      Maybe we have freedom of speech but usually only if the speech is worthless.

      Observe: when a nobody says something of real value and it gets people's attention, he will get punished for it. Whistleblowers, spies, soldiers, even some scientists if their field is politicized.

    17. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by AlanObject · · 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.

    18. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they need to fill the soup pot, but people were complaining in the internet? I would quarantine such countries. Pity for the conquerors or settlers who ended up in there. No one sees it as actually increasing OUR safety? I wonder if it was that country that had anything to do with an abbreviation: ANEE...

    19. Re:Because it's a totalitarian government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between where it can happen and where it does happen.

  2. Re: Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then round them up and torture them, because even if they're not guilty they still deserve it.

  3. Sounds nefarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we're still seeing traffic from Nigers and Gabons, the problem most certainly is government induced. Their citizens deserve a voice! America should take a stand here.

    1. Re:Sounds nefarious by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      America should take a stand here.

      Sounds like we should send over some Freedom(tm)

    2. Re:Sounds nefarious by SeaFox · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:Sounds nefarious by loonycyborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not every country. Just ones that have exploitable resources and where puppet governments can be installed.

    4. Re:Sounds nefarious by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      IDK if we have all that much to spare these days...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:Sounds nefarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      No, the idea that there is some "real" American who's elective ignorance and lifetime of bad decisions should be back-stopped by the reality-based community is what gets people like Trump elected.

    6. Re:Sounds nefarious by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    7. Re:Sounds nefarious by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Not the Norks. They'd be threatening their neighbors with nuclear annihilation if the US never existed.

    8. Re:Sounds nefarious by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Sounds nefarious by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      You aren't using much, so there must be a big stockpile somewhere.

      When I say big, I mean yuuuuuuge.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Sounds nefarious by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Sounds nefarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A racist furry, there's a new one. Do you feel guilty when you fuck around with kids outside your species?

    12. Re:Sounds nefarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea is still following the Juche ideology, even as the reality of modern technological and economical interdependence doesn't comply with it. As armistice is a state of war, they don't really have to blame others for economical issues to keep the power. The decades of mind cleansing state religion surrounding the glorious leaders is enough. It would be interesting if the Korean war would end and economic activities continue normally. How would NK really look after a decade?

    13. Re:Sounds nefarious by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Cameroon has modest oil potential and a lot of CO2 resources. Plus effective agriculture.

      and where puppet governments can be installed.

      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.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. You wouldn't need to ask - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had a shortwave radio.

  5. Political opponents by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ruling politicians sent their political opponents out to investigate the issue, but they never returned for some reason...

  6. Communications Disruption by jamiesan · · Score: 1

    This can mean only one thing! Invasion!

  7. Islamic Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My family recently left Cameroon owing to a groundswell of Islamic militarism and infiltration in government. There has been talk for multiple years now of an eventual Islamic coup, and there are many Islamic fundamentalist sympathizers in the Cameroon government and military. Perhaps that time is drawing near.

  8. internet on phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't these people have phones?

    1. Re:internet on phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "these people"...?

    2. Re:internet on phones by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Just as easy to block.

  9. So They Do Or Don't Have It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

    So 3 weeks ago, they stopped having no internet? IE, they now do have internet?

    1. Re:So They Do Or Don't Have It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the chances they do have internet, and they have a captive portal warning social media users of criminal penalties, and they're too stupid to click through the portal? What are the chances they have a captive portal, and the portal is broken, and they're too stupid to get around the portal?

  10. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a YUGE idea. Someone get Dtrump his own user account.

  11. Why has it blocked net access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's a third world shithole?

    1. Re:Why has it blocked net access? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Cameroonians I've known have been very nice and happy people.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. Imperialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shame on you, ex-British Prime Minister David Cameroon!

    1. Re:Imperialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet clearly failed to raise the bar high enough for him.

  13. Blocked the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That explains my lack of spam email....

  14. Mesh Networking by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Mesh Networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particularly since the outage affects only two regions of the country, people could just build a mesh to reach a region that still has access.

    2. Re:Mesh Networking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he'd never give up being able to tweet.

  15. Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to shut down protests by turning off the internet? Seems like throwing fluorine gas on a fire.

    I don't know about others, but shutting off my internet would be the fastest way to get me out of my house to go join protests. I mean, what else would I have to occupy my time without the internet on? I wouldn't even need to give a shit about whatever the protest was originally about, I'd just be out protesting the lack of internet.

    1. Re:Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about others, but shutting off my internet would be the fastest way to get me out of my house to go join protests.

      LOL!!!

      I mean, what else would I have to occupy my time without the internet on?

      I dunno, man, maybe you could, you know, use your techie skills to help fix the internet for your neighbors. You do have the skillz, don't you?

    2. Re:Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No skillz 2 fix, & too selfish 2 help neighbors. Gonna go protest now!!

      DUDES!!!!! FUCK THE WORLD!!!!! BRO!!!!!

    3. Re:Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that every person who uses the internet heavily is also a systems engineer?

      And are you also implying that any single person would be capable of turning the internet back on for a few neighbors while it is out in the entire country??

    4. Re:Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot! News for nerds! We the nerds of slashdot should know how to string a mesh network from one end of a country to the other!

    5. Re:Trying to incite riots and protests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could do it.

  16. three weeks since no internet connectivity by whizzard · · Score: 2

    It has been over three weeks since English-speaking parts of Cameroon [...] has had no internet connectivity.

    So it's working then?

  17. Re: Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree and support this. People should be tortured until they confess. You wouldn't be investigated if you aren't guilty.

  18. This day and age... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    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.

  19. Quite simple. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    David thinks if there is no internet, people would not be rabble roused into voting to leave EU. That is why.

    Wait. That is not the Cameron you are talking about right?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. International Internet? by Luthair · · Score: 1

    I wonder if we could convince NATO or some other group to provide free Internet (I guess via satellite, though people would need equipment...) that could help citizens under these oppressive regimes.

    1. Re:International Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't YOU spend some of the money you've "earned" by "changing the world" as a social app coder, and go to Cameroon, and provide satellite internet access to the people? Afraid to leave your safe space, first world armchair activist?

    2. Re:International Internet? by Narcocide · · 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.

    3. Re:International Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in Cameroon right now, giving the native njggers a twittering!

  21. has? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cameroon has internet??? hell .. where have I been

  22. Re: Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother waiting for the confession? We should just concentrate them in camps and be done with it.

  23. The more important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't the blockage been circumvented?? What is wrong with us?

    1. Re:The more important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too busy trolling, fuck the njggers, we got ours.

    2. Re:The more important question by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How would you circumvent it? In the cities, you'd get you internet from the national telephone company - whose routers would seem to have been switched off. Or you'd go to your mobile phone, which goes to the phone company's routers and then to the same switched off routers. Got satellite equipment? Ah now you've got an option.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:The more important question by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Wireless mesh, ad hoc networks. Even with all its latency it's still faster than the pony express...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:The more important question by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      And these exist ... where?

      "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.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:The more important question by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:The more important question by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Obstruction ... probalby. but that can just as well be passive as active obstruction. A telecoms infrastructure is (for one set of technologies) as much a natural monopoly as a railway system. When a new technology is introduced (e.g. canals meeting railroads, standard gauge railroads meeting wide gauge railroads, 500MHz digital mobile versus 1500MHz mobile [I forget the relevant frequencies]), then having different provider isn't unreasonable, but mixing multiple companies with profit incentives on the same technology is a recipe for disaster (as we're been watching with the last 20 years of railway privatisation in this country).

      And no government is going to want multiple interfaces to the outside world. To quote a manager of mine in a former life, "I want to be able to walk into the radio room, and with one blow of an axe know that the only person talking to my Boss is me". (The next day he banned mobile phones from being brought to the site at all. They had to be left onshore.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    7. Re:The more important question by fustakrakich · · 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

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:The more important question by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget who the government serves.

      Themselves.

      YOU might have a constitution that says differently, but I'm sure your government themselves want to change that inconvenient truth.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re:The more important question by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  24. Moronic, because there is no good answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DPRK and Cuba had a populace harmed by sanctions, but the harm to the citizens occurred prior to and despite those sanctions. Removing dictators by force has resulted in worse conditions for countries where that was attempted. (recently Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and an attempt in Syria but formerly Iran, Vietnam, etc..). Allowing mass migration and refugee status has removed the best and brightest from places so that the remaining populace lacks the internal wisdom and guidance to get to a stable state (again, see Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc..)

    "Standing up for human rights" has absolutely no meaning without defining the actions involved in "standing". Which do you claim works and is valid? Yeah, that's what I thought.

  25. Just waiting by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I'll just wait here for someone to call the Cameroon government right-wing, or start making comparisons to the Trump administration.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Just waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cummaroon njggers voted for an Obama third term and we got Trump.

    2. Re:Just waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ Troll post

  26. Beef Jerky Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you mentioned pigs in a blanket.

  27. this is where it ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when government and corporations start playing "truth" games, sure it sounds like a good idea, has plenty of justification, until eventually the justification allows for complete blockage.

    Allowing others to decide your "fake" and "truth" means they decide *everything*.