The government is expecting people to respond to unchecked violence with unchecked violence?
Shocking.
The government is expecting people to respond to unchecked violence with unchecked violence?
Shocking.
The only country in this conflict who actually wants the conflict is Israel. It's quite clear Iran has been doing it's best to hold back for the past year to avoid escalation. They don't want a war any more than Americans do.
These kinds of discussions are between corporations who have defined SLA's that specify things like reliability, uptime, etc. It's likely this outage breached this agreement so the lawyers of the companies are discussing internally and behind closed doors. This kind of thing doesn't get reported on in general.
Zionists and AIPAC have enough money to make sure Trump is the most pro-zionist president ever.
Israel's escalation and invasion of Lebanon is most likely to make the Democrats more unpopular. It's not a coincidence that these escalations happened so close to the election. Israel has been wanting to attack Lebanon since at least the spring, and the US had to talk them down. These events just make the Democrats more unpopular and make a Trump presidency more likely. Which would be Israel's wet dream given how pro-zionist he is.
I sympathize with that. I've been that kind of person for most of my life. It sucks that the internet can be the kind of place where it discourages people to speak comfortably.
For what it's worth, I think you write very well. Based on these two comments only :).
It’s probably easier than you think. I suspect interconnects are consolidated into a handful of buildings.
That's true for pretty much all countries. Virtually all countries have a few sites that are responsible for routing the majority of the countries Internet traffic. The trick is keeping it that way. It's very easy to throw in some kind of band-aid solution to get it back up and running if you are able to throw enough resources at the problem.
Yeah sure, you can cut the cables. But like you said, alternate means of accessing the information exist as well. Technology limitations can be very difficult to enforce and maintain due to how quickly it can grow and evolve if people are motivated enough. Which the North Korean government definitely would be.
The internet is not some single entity. It's a collaboration of all countries all over the world sharing their IP addresses with each other using open standard protocols so that everyone can talk to everyone. To get a single country cut off from the rest of the world would require active participation from every country around the world which is highly unlikely. At most you'd just have some or most countries participating in the ban.
What would happen to North Korea in that case? For the common people, nothing. They are already living with very limited and filtered access. For the government agencies that have full access, they would likely work a deal with a country to get the rest of the internet routed through them.
Based off this I would see a federal law that penalizes corporation for doing this kind of stuff. Whether or not she does and if the punishments would actually deter these corporations is another matter entirely. The other problem is that it always happens after the fact. To give an example, in Canada there was a big scandal where a huge Canadian retailer, Loblaws, was caught in a bread price-fixing scheme with some other food retailers and it's parent company George Weston. After 14 years of reaping the benefits these companies whose revenue streams are in the tens of billions were fined only 500 million. It's more or less a slap on the wrist and just the cost of doing business to these people.