Slashdot Mirror


Congo Shuts Down Internet Services 'Indefinitely' (nytimes.com)

On Saturday Engadget wrote: Authoritarian leaders are fond of severing communications in a bid to hold on to power, and that tradition sadly isn't going away. The Democratic Republic of Congo's government has ordered telecoms to cut internet and SMS access ahead of planned mass protests against President Joseph Kabila, whose administration has continuously delayed elections to replace him. Telecom minister Emery Okundji told Reuters that it was a response to "violence that is being prepared," but people aren't buying that argument. Officials had already banned demonstrations, and the country has history of cutting communications and blocking social network access in a bid to quash dissent.
And today in the wake of deadly protests, Congo announced that the internet shutdown will continue "indefinitely." The New York Times reports: At least eight people were killed and a dozen altar boys arrested in the Democratic Republic of Congo on Sunday after security forces cracked down on planned church protests against President Joseph Kabila's refusal to leave office before coming elections... Congolese security forces set up checkpoints across Kinshasa, and the government issued an order to shut down text messaging and internet services indefinitely across the country for what it called "reasons of state security."

38 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. It's called "Rule of Law" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Look for it in your local 1st-World western society everywhere!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  2. Anonymous Coward Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A country that includes the words "Democratic Republic" in its name is neither democratic nor a republic.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward Law by thsths · · Score: 1

      I have always wonder why postings like this are acceptable on Slashdot. Most online communities have long embraced a "no personal insult" policy, and they are much better for it.

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward Law by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The USA is a federation of independent states. The people don't elect POTUS and VPOTUS, the states do. The concept of a federation has been watered down considerably when we got popular election of US senators and a federal income tax. Since then the federal government can easily circumvent the states by appealing to the public at large with tax incentives, and coerce the states into compliance by withholding taxes they collected directly from the people.

      There is a triad in the federal government to keep it in check of a separation of judicial, executive, and legislative powers. There is another triad of checks, bypassed somewhat with the 16th and 17th Amendments, between the states, federal, and the people.

      If we lose the electoral college then the state governments become largely redundant, the states become just administrative areas of a national government.

      What is interesting is how the federal government has been brought back into check. The first one that I see was the repeal of Prohibition. The states simply refused to comply with a federal mandate to prohibit the sale of alcohol. We're seeing it now again with marijuana. How long can the states openly violate federal law before the federal government must assert its (supposed) authority, or the federal government backs down and admits defeat? States breaking federal laws, and not being punished for it, puts all federal laws up to question.

      I believe that federal marijuana prohibitions will fall before Trump leaves office. And that would be a good thing for states' rights.

      The USA was never designed to be a democracy. The founders of this federation feared democracies since they knew their history. True democracies cannot stand forever. Some things must simply not be left up to public vote, natural law will have to be greater than the public vote or it all falls apart eventually.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Anonymous Coward Law by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      The states are the laboratories of democracy...and some of those laboratories are run by Walter White.

    4. Re:Anonymous Coward Law by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Is that such a bad state to be in?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  3. contingency question by beckett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm interested in any good ideas, countermeasures, rube goldberg devices that could be employed in or outside of a country like DRC that could restore, maintain, or circumvent a communications banhammer.

    mesh wifi? blimps? ad hoc 3g network? femtocells? type beam microwaves? airdrops of Pringles? angel investor for TamTam? Bonus points for ideas that are bespoke to Africa itself.

    1. Re:contingency question by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

      Wifi meshnet with clever routing is the obvious answer, but it should be implemented in a way that allows plausible deniability of ownership. Imagine a small, low power, low-observability, multiband pi that anyone can just plug in to an outlet and it starts functioning as a mesh net router offering free wifi for 50 meters in any direction. A dedicated repressive regime could track them down one at a time but it would be more trouble then it's worth, especially if people keep putting up new ones.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:contingency question by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      https://slashdot.org/story/03/...

      And remember the rules of country names: If it contains "Democratic" then it isn't, and if it says "People's" there's an implied "A Few Dozen" before it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:contingency question by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm interested in any good ideas, countermeasures, rube goldberg devices that could be employed in or outside of a country like DRC that could restore, maintain, or circumvent a communications banhammer.

      What do you hope to accomplish? Restored communications would empower the urban elite in Kinshasha, and further marginalize the rural people of the eastern Congo, who in some areas are already in open rebellion. The last thing the DRC needs is yet another full scale war.

      For all his faults, Kabila has mostly avoided pandering to tribalism, unlike his "democratic" opponents. In the 1st World, we tend to view "Democracy" as an unqualified "Good Thing", but in tribal societies, it usually just leads to the dominant tribe getting even more power to crush the minorities.

    4. Re:contingency question by iktos · · Score: 2

      If the cell phone service as such isn't shut down a modem app would make uucp possible.

    5. Re:contingency question by Gryle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately, the DRC has an electricity distribution issue. While the DRC has a lot of power-generating capability, civil infrastructure development is very lopsided and a lot of areas suffer rolling blackouts or brownouts. Also, never underestimate how far dictators will go to stay in power.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    6. Re:contingency question by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Your first problem is ensuring trust of the information and that it isn't coopted by the regime (or an equally unsavory party). Once you do that, the need for external communication, or your communication perimeter, is established.

      Then we have the question of what type of message would be trusted. Do we need 4K video, or just text? Do we need to be able to prove sender identity and chain of custody?

      Any peer-to-peer communications system you build is unlikely to be effective at more than 6 hops, and you would likely need a communication radius of at least 20 miles, ideally 100 miles. So, you end up with super-peers in the mix... back to trust issues.

      I just puked in my mouth... but Blockchain?

    7. Re:contingency question by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >I just puked in my mouth... but Blockchain?

      That would, in theory, do what? The government could out-hash the citizens, and if the outside world provides enough hash power to 'outgun' them, how is that different from any other system? And you still need a traceable connection to spread your message... radio sources can be triangulated.

    8. Re:contingency question by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      outdated electoral college system.

      The word "outdated" implies that the system was once good in the past but is no longer good now. Did I interpret your statement correctly? If so, I'd love to know what you consider good about the system in the past that no longer applies today.

    9. Re:contingency question by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If so, I'd love to know what you consider good about the system in the past that no longer applies today.

      The Electoral College system encourages candidates to focus on broadening their appeal rather than deepening it. In the past, these helped to reduce regionalism, which was a major problem up to and through the civil war.

      Today, that doesn't help much, since the political divide is no longer between regions, but rather an urban/rural divide within regions.

    10. Re: contingency question by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well it works at that. However it enables exactly the reverse to happen - a rural minority can impose its will on an urban majority.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:contingency question by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      It was good for convincing less populous states that they weren't going to get steamrollered by the more populous states.

      Personally I say let it stay, but make all electors proportional to the popular vote in their states. It would reduce the impact greatly, while not requiring a constitutional amendment to make such a change, and the rural states would still hold a slight edge in power, per capita.

      At the same time, enlarge the House of Representatives to whatever degree is necessary to make each representative stand for the same number of people, as closely as practical while keeping the total under, say, 600.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    12. Re:contingency question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's called a gun, until the people stand up it's a worthless topic.

    13. Re:contingency question by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Personally I say let it stay, but make all electors proportional to the popular vote in their states.

      Agreed. Fortunately, each state can do this by passing their own laws to do so. A few have. But not enough people understand the system well enough to advocate it or stand by it.

      At the same time, enlarge the House of Representatives to whatever degree is necessary to make each representative stand for the same number of people, as closely as practical while keeping the total under, say, 600.

      Can you clarify? When you say "each representative stand for the same number of people" what are you asking for? Right now, it is approximately one representative for every 700,000 people. It can never be exactly the same number of people per representative, unless we chop representatives into bits and reassembly them in the chamber. :-) Alaska would need about 1.06 representatives - maybe they should send someone with 6 fingers?

    14. Re:contingency question by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      The population of Wyoming was estimated at 586,107 in 2015. If we were to re-allocate, then it would be done on the basis that each representative stands for 586,107 people as near as possible. The population of the country was 320 million at that time, so that would mean 546 representatives almost exactly (assuming DC gets one). Vermont's population was 626,042, so perhaps it would be more fair to set the population-per-representative to 605,000 or so. (Wyoming would still get one.)

      That's the gist of the idea, but it would have to be modified slightly to accommodate states that would otherwise be left "in the cracks" as far as number of representatives. (Not such a huge problem with a large state, but it is if the options are one representative or two.) Thus, the actual population per representative might have to be tweaked mathematically to make the spread as fair as possible -- and this would have to be re-done every ten years, but we re-district every ten years already, so it's just adding one layer of complexity to a process we already do.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    15. Re:contingency question by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      How is that fundamentally different from what they do now?
      United States congressional apportionment

      Currently, each representative represents, as close as possible without cutting off body parts, the same number of people. There are 2 ways to do this. One is what you suggested, which is to fix the number people value per representative, then calculate the resulting number of representatives. The way we do it now we fix the number of representatives, then calculate the number of people per representative. The benefit of the current approach is that congressional seats aren't appearing and disappearing every census. So the house won't double in size if suddenly Wyoming's population cuts in half. In terms of fairness I'm not sure it matters. Your calculation, which had a bit of hand-waving around the details, resulted in 600k people/rep instead of the 700k/rep we have now.

    16. Re:contingency question by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      The problem with what we have now is that since no state can have less than one representative, a state with fewer residents than the average district nationwide has disproportionate power in the House. Also, increasing the number of representatives decreases the power advantage of the rural states because the electors that correspond to senators will be diluted.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  4. Wow. More Last Jedi Protests! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    As this movie opens around the world, the protests rage.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  5. My prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The media that screams the loudest about supposed tyranny and injustice will be the least interested in this story. It might get 30 seconds on the back end of the news, near the feel-good story of the dog who can walk on his hind legs.

  6. Ahead of Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's most likely true, but in a page taken from the administration over in the USA, what they're up to is being projected as the "other side's".

    Congo is shutting down internet services in preparation of the violence *the government* is preparing to unleash against those who would dare question their ruler. If the citizens of Congo have any wisdom or have ever read a history book, then they will strew their government's entrails across the capital before the military and "law-enforcement" forces have been fully mobilized.

    Otherwise the loss of life will be far greater, and almost entirely on the side of innocents.

  7. Back to the good old BBS days! by MavEtJu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Time to dust of these Fidonet Technical Standards printouts!

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:Back to the good old BBS days! by antdude · · Score: 1

      BBSes were rad. ;)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Re:Wtf is to stop em from doing it anywhere? by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

    Net neutrality rul... oh, wait.

  9. So... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    It's neither democratic, nor a republic.

    1. Re:So... by Jahta · · Score: 1

      It's neither democratic, nor a republic.

      As a general rule of thumb, if some person or group makes that sort of claim in their name then it's probably not true; see "family values" candidates, the Patriot Act, etc. etc.

    2. Re: So... by tepples · · Score: 1

      If affordability was the goal [of the misleadingly named US Affordable Care Act,] there would've been price caps.

      The medical loss ratio (MLR) regulation in the ACA places a cap on costs related to administrative cost and shareholder profit at 20% of the premium. A hard price cap would imply a coverage cap.

      The ACA also imposes a price cap of 8 percent of gross income. If no qualified plan for a particular person has a premium below that after applicable subsidy, he is exempt from the individual shared responsibility payment.

  10. Wow! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    They have internet???

  11. Re:Get ready USAmericans.. by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Look at the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now look at the Fifth Amendment. Understand those? The Fourth says the government can't just bust open your door and go looking for stuff, they need a warrant. The Fifth says they can take your stuff, but only after they've either determined you've had your day in court or they've compensated you for it.

    Now, look at the Second Amendment. All that says is that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment applies to your weapons too. The Second Amendment can be repealed but that does not allow the government to go searching houses and taking people weapons. The people still have the right to keep their stuff, guns included.

    What keeps government agents from just using strong arm tactics and breaking the rules on confiscating the guns any way? The risk of getting shot for trying. Oh, you think that people can't just shoot a cop and get away with it? That's where the Fourth and Fifth Amendments come in again. The government has to give the accused their day in open court. What keeps them from violating that rule too? The risk of getting shot.

    The Second Amendment is redundant. Those that know the law also know it's redundant. Those that don't understand this think that repeal of the Second Amendment would make them safe from getting shot too. Tell me, what's a weapon? In truth just about anything is a weapon. If we have a government that capable of taking your guns then they are capable of taking anything you own.

    The Constitution says, "this is mine and you can't have it", while the Second Amendment just adds an exclamation point to that statement.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  12. So they have anti-hate-speech laws in Congo, now by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... just like recently enacted elsewhere in the world, just a little more effective.

  13. Re:Get ready USAmericans.. by blindseer · · Score: 2

    Really? Afghanistan has kept modern armies from invading with little more than riflemen on the backs of camels.

    The United States got their freedom from a nation with the largest and most powerful military in the world at the time. They had farmers with turkey guns, on foot.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  14. Is it efficient? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    IIRC during Arab springs, blocking Internet caused more people to go outside, because they could not just watch anymore.

    China and Russia taught us it is much more efficient for the government to keep internet online, and to inject propaganda into social medias.

  15. Re: Another TRUMP Victory by Maritz · · Score: 1

    ISIS destroyed. You're claiming that? LOL.

    You really are just a bunch of stupid cunts, really. No curing that.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.