Fifth Cable Cut To Middle East 676
You may have noticed a number of stories recently about undersea cables getting cut around the world. Apparently the total is now up to 5, but the scariest part of this is that Iran is now offline. You can also read Schneier's comments on this coincidence. Update: 02/06 17:42 GMT by Z : As a commenter notes, though the country of Iran is obviously experiencing some networking difficulties, it is not offline.
Traffic Intercept (Score:5, Interesting)
not-so-thick-tinfoil
Plate tectonics (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Interesting)
"Afghanistan is now the #1 producer of cocaine and cannabis."
You forgot heroine(sp).
"Iraq has over 1 million civilian death by now and is close to complete anarchy."
I'd have to see the stats on the deaths. Does it include people that die of natural causes also?
As for anarchy, there will never be any. Local sheiks will always have control of their regions. Well, as much control as Islamic militants will allow.
The Real Economic Stimulus (Score:3, Interesting)
What if this is actually a US government plan. Make Hi-Tech industries from low-cost countries unstable and unusable. All of a sudden, companies panic and start to re-think the outsource planning that has been losing US jobs. What if the US is making a coordinated effort to rescue its economy by sabotaging others?
Occam's Razor cut the cables ! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Navy has had to deal with fishing boats intentionally dragging their lines across cables many times. Around their Japanese bases, the US had a couple of data lines strewn along the ocean floor. If the lines were cut, the Navy would have to fix them. To do that, they had to keep fishing boats out of the area when they were working, so they would compensate the fishermen.
Obvious Japanese fisherman's solution:
1) Drag anchor across US data line.
2) Skip work and receive generous compensation.
3) $ Profit $
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:3, Interesting)
Where's the Jimmy? (Score:1, Interesting)
Non Dollar Oil Trading (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I think we're doing this, and I do believe you have a valid point. But... that's the same reason we used to have a hard-line stance against torture. I don't think we've been doing particularly well lately at considering the consequences of our actions. It seems like the powers that be are so utterly convinced that they are right that they cannot grasp the possibility that something bad may come of their actions.
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:5, Interesting)
My guess is Islamic isolationists. That is, those people that, ever since Qutb [wikipedia.org], believe that that West is a corrupting influence on Islam. Internet access is a prime way for such influence to occur, so they would seem to have a very strong motivation to do this sort of thing.
Just a random theory, but none of the other ones make much sense to me.
Oil sales by Iran in Euros intercepted, actually (Score:3, Interesting)
"...Others maintain the damage signifies retribution for the impending opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse, which will allow trading in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, potentially diminishing the value of the dollar. (((As if the dollar wasn't busy diminishing itself, with or without submarines.)))
Clearly, the political impact, should the damage be attributed to military or financially motivated activity, poses severe implications, but apart from that, the mere impact on broadband connectivity within the region, and communications capabilities with Europe and North America have already been hampered, causing significant disruption to workflows at many businesses.
"This has been an eye-opener for the telecom industry worldwide," said According to Colonel R.S. Parihar, Secretary of the Internet Service Providers Association of India. "Today, the cause of the problem might have been an anchor, but what if it is sabotage tomorrow? These are owned by private operators, and there are no governments or armies protecting these cables."
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/02/the-undersea-ca.html [wired.com]
Since they won't let Cheney satisfy his invasion fetish, Cheney has to do something with all that free time on his hands.
DARPA (Score:1, Interesting)
Ah, obviously you, and perhaps the evildoers, the cable cutters themselves, need a little lesson in how the 'ol internet works. Because the answer is:
All of 'em. That's the beauty of the internet. Recall that this was one of the main design guidelines from DARPA. Like a big spider's web, take out one node, the traffic simply routes around.
So what's a little funny here is, the solid design of the internet, makes it quite hard to knock a country off the web
What is the source of all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, who has the most to gain from this? I would assume that these cables have already been monitored by the US, so I doubt it is the U.S.A inserting monitoring systems. Not, mind you, that I would put it past us, but I believe that they probably already had this capability. Also, I think they would be able to do it without being so blatant.
Could it be Iranian agents purposefully cutting the internet to sever information to and from the country? Could it be the US cutting the cables, not to insert monitoring, but to actually reduce information flow? Is there a common denominator we are over looking? Is Kuwait affected? Oman? Qatar? UAE?
If we assume it is not an accident, there must be a purpose. Is it an anti-cyber-terrorism preemptive action? It certainly an interesting set of events.
Re:What they are thinking. (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 1: You have a large stockpile of dollars, that are increasingly not worth much.
Step 2: Cut cables.
Step 3: Attack Iran.
Step 3-A: Stock Markets panick; U.S. securities start to plummet. (followed by U.S. dollar)
Step 3-B: A whole bunch of people in and around the middle east cannot gid rid of their dollars, or U.S. securities -- they cannot buy Gold or Euros on the international market. (Satellite and land lines are jammed by re-routed, regular traffic.)
Step 4: While a large portion of the world's money is cut-off, buy U.S. stocks at a premium.
Step 5: PWN the U.S.A.!
Step 6: Profit!!!
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly; Bush doesn't have to please to general public, he's on his last legs whether whether or not he kindles some favor.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Mahmoud came in promising wealth for the poor, and has delivered in many cases, but failed elsewhere. At the moment the Iranian economy isn't going well (e.g. inflation at 25%, according to non-government sources), and there has even been gas rationing (in a country with massive gas reserves!) which really didn't go down too well.
Then you have the Islamic reforms, with headscarfs being more strictly enforced and a suppression of the clothing young Iranians want to wear. This is popular with some but not others. There's also suppression of government criticism in the media, and media also needs to be very tame (think FCC-on-steriods). (Young) Iranians aren't ignorant (as I understand Iranian education stands out from other Middle-Eastern countries by a long way); they are often pro-West and pro-reform, and they don't like the media oppression or Mahmoud jailing the students which lead protests.
The nuclear program is an interesting one. It seems that, like Chavez, Mahmoud likes to be seen as a crusader for the little guy, even if it doesn't parallel what goes on in Iran. What's ironic is that you say Bush is stirring this up to gain some political favor, when in fact the opposite is true; Mahmoud milks the Iran vs the evil empire angle for all it's worth.
When they reach a new threshold with uranium enrichment, or manage to launch a satellite, cue the government media's patriotic music and euphoria. (I feel I need to point out that this is actual government media, not to be confused with the tin-foil Fox-is-controlled-by-the-government "government media")
Iran getting powerful weapons, launching satellites, and capturing British soldiers in defiance of the West is great for Mahmoud, and ever since a US report came out last year saying that they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons to the extent previously thought Mahmoud has become less and less popular.
I've read that in Iran they joke that Mahmoud wouldn't bother with his nuclear program if the US wasn't opposed to it.
Not only have his lesser government members begun to criticize his policy, but he recently got snubbed by the Supreme Leader of Iran himself, something which is a big political blow for him. (It's like a member of the Vatican getting chided by the Pope for something he said; it's not supposed to happen)
Read up about Natanz and Iran's dealings with the IAEA. Even Russia, who has supported and assisted with Iran's civilian nuclear program, is now saying they are concerned about Iran's recent satellite launch.
One thing for sure is that Iran is not Iraq 2. There aren't many parallels between them, and the biggest and most important difference in my opinion is this: In Iran Mahmoud is subject to checks and balances, he isn't a dictator and he has to watch where he treads. Economic sanctions and internal political pressure will definitely be enough, I would be astonished if it came to war.
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to an Iran speech by Gary Sick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sick [wikipedia.org] (former Carter adviser & author of October Surprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy [wikipedia.org]) where he argued that Iranian politics is somewhat similar to American politics.
For example, we aren't too happy with George W Bush, our current leader, yet when a tragedy happens or we are threatened, we seem to rally behind the current leader.
The only ones who benefit from international saber-rattling are the "establishment" who would otherwise be kicked out of power. There is actually a lot of discontent with the current leadership of Iran, but by threatening Iran we only strengthen them.
It's a test (Score:2, Interesting)
But I just can't stop thinking why anyone would do this and wich value it would have.
Strategic value in preparation for war?
It seems to me that if you want to disrupt communication you'd focus on internal lines, not the external ones. Even if you'd cut of Iran completely their internal networks will still function. Destroy all communication seems a bit far fetched, you'd need to do a lot more then this and a lot faster. There are still a lot of landlines left not to mention satelites, ground phone lines, hell even a pigeon can still do a lot of comm.
Terrorist attack?
If it is they picked the wrong continent (you should have googled a bit more Osama!). Besides, also for terrorist organisations the net is of great value for communication and coordination. It seems a bit silly to cut of your own recources.
Islamic Extremists?
The internet is the root of all evil and must be removed from our Sacred Land? If you have the money, skill and organisation to pull this of you also have the brains to realise that the cables will be restored in 1 or 2 weeks. The effort vs effect ratio is horrible, so that's a very unlikely scenario.
Cutting and tapping the lines?
For each line that get's cut you'd need a second physical line next to it to start tapping it. Apart from the fact that such a operation will get noticed it seems to me that there are other cheaper and more stealth methods to achieve this.
The only reason I can think of is that it's just a test.
Just a test/excersise from someone to see what the effects are when such a disruption happens.
What are the effects on the population, how will they react? Same with world news and governemts, how much exposure and repsonse does such a event get?
Does it impact the economy, and by how much?
How much effort, time and money does it cost to cut of a certain region?
How much time does it take to restore it.
How resilient will they be and find alternative methods and routes? And so on. There would be much to be learned from from such a operation. A cyberwar simulation, but then taken to the next level
I'm placing my bets on this one.......
I can't believe you people still defend America (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, most Americans dislike their government but no this won't be happening anytime soon. In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of people die every year because of direct funding by the Americans to terrorists. Ironically most of the victims are religious.
If you want to avoid war with America then you should be in favor of diplomatic action to prevent them from using nuclear weapons which could be a pretext for such a war. By preventing economic sanctions from going through you leave the world no choice but turn to the military option. Also it is worth noting that we've held toothless diplomatic talk with America for decades now and that didn't work (if anything, their government got more radical). They need to feel the heat for there to be any change.
Re:Iran has NOT "offline" (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt a lack of internet access will confuse the average Iranian, nor their military infrastructue. If news (of significance) relating to a brewing conflict is to be spilled, chances are it will be on CNN and beamed to the world. Failing that, I'm pretty sure comrade KGB would let the Iranians know what's happening. Iran will know just as well without the net what's going on - Digg, Slashdot and Youtube are not their primary information sources
Given the very low level of net access there, I can't see it having any impact on the day to day lives of the average Iranian either.
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to defend the current Iranian regime, but I don't believe for a moment that it's remotely as bad as Bush makes it out to be.
5? it was 50 last year (Score:4, Interesting)
So cool your jets people. it's not unusual. This is only a big deal with conspirators. As per usual the conspiracy nuts don't understand what they are talking about so start running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.
Re:Goldfinger meets Pogo (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem here is that this type of warning says: "Time for you to set up a non-hardline source for Internet access." That's why I don't really think it's a warning so much as a precursor to military action, or an action in and of itself, for instance to interfere with Iran's plans to set up a Euro-based oil market. I believe that they (as a country) are a net importer of oil, however this doesn't really reflect on an oil market. The USA is also a net importer of oil, and we certainly have oil markets. A market in Euros (further) destabilizes the dollar, and I would imagine that such things are on the front burner for our chief executive's advisers these days.
Bingo! (Score:4, Interesting)