Unplugging Egypt

Amidst the protests, bands of looters, and general unrest, the Egyptian government did the unthinkable. In an effort to control the population and put a stop to the protests, Mubarak disconnected the country from the Internet. The fact that this seemed to be the most effective way to stop the opposition in its tracks highlights just how connected we have become. Rather than gain control of the streets, the government simply unplugged the population.
Egypt was disconnected from the world almost overnight. For five days, practically no information went in or out of the country via the World Wide Web. According to the New York Times, the government began by blocking social networks like Facebook and Twitter in an attempt to stop protesters from organizing and speaking out. Less then twenty-four hours later, “they drilled unexpectedly all the way down to the bottom layer of the Internet and stopped all traffic [flow].” This depravation of connection was met with anger and fear. Many argued that the blackout crossed the line, depriving people of the right to be constantly connected.
This exploitation of people’s reliance on technology sends a sobering message. While the ability to be constantly connected has enabled organization and mobilization of protesters, it could have become the Achilles Heal of the revolution. Like any machine, a movement that depends on the Internet dies when the connection is lost. Fortunately, the disconnection did not put a damper on the protests; in fact, it inflamed them. Some say that the tactic would have worked perfectly if they had brought “down the curtain” sooner. Either way, the continued protests show that the revolution cannot be unplugged, and that technology is being properly used as a tool in Egypt.
While many were outraged that they had been disconnected, others were simply astonished that the government had succeeded in the “dark achievement that many had thought impossible in the age of global connectedness.” The scope and speed of the shut down was “unprecedented” and could be devastating if used again. Indeed, the Internet “off switch” could prove to be the weapon of the future with the ability to isolate a population.
While the fact that the Egyptian government thought the protests could be shut down with the Internet speaks volumes about human reliance on technology, the fact that the Internet can be shut down on that scale is a much more pressing issue. This new reality forces us to look critically at our reliance on technology and ask ourselves some difficult questions. What would happen if something like this were to happen in America? Could we still function without being connected (whether it be to the world or with someone down the street)? Finally, why do we feel so violated when we are disconnected? Is being constantly connected a right, or is it just something that he have come to expect?

Twitter: More than Useless Data?

When social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook were first created, their primary usage was to communicate to the people that you know. Soon however, those mediums’ usage changed to become a way for one to network with other people. People with similar interests or goals would be able to meet others, creating online communities and friends. It wasn’t long until some users found it a viable platform to organize events such as surprise parties or reunions. Naturally, there was a continuation of this idea as protest organizers began using these websites to gain more supporters while also increasing awareness of what they are doing. What is extremely interesting however has been the evolution of Twitter, overcoming all other social networking sites as the main tool for a revolution.

Twitter was originally created as a platform to inform others of what you have been doing, and at first, users were unsure of how exactly use this piece of technology. Was it supposed to become the new Facebook? Or was it a replacement for something else? Was it supposed to become an open diary for all to use? For the longest time, Twitter seemed like it was going to be a useless invention that would never get anywhere.

Commonly described as a source of useless data flow, a place where people create updates to their lives in the hope that someone is listening. And for the mass majority of people, that is exactly what happens; over 90% of Twitter accounts die off in the first month, and 53% of active Twitter accounts do not post regularly. However, that does not mean that Twitter is a useless service. Quite the opposite, as Twitter has been in the news lately, and for once it’s not what Palin's latest miss-tweets are. Instead, Twitter has become an instrument of revolutions, a vital tool that both helps to organize rallies while also spreading the word of what has been done.

However, now these days Twitter is the must have object for every revolution. Many protesters cite its ability to rapidly inform others of what the latest events are. It has become an outlet for protesters to let the rest of the world know what has been transpiring, the brutality that dictators try so hard to hide gets revealed to the world. It has become such a critical tool that even when the Egyptian government sought to block out the use of Twitter, one of Google’s chief engineers developed a way to get around what had seemed like an “internet kill”. What was most surprising was how quickly this method was adopted by the masses as they sought to continue their revolution. Now, Twitter has evolved past just a simple website, it is now a symbol for freedom.

Computer vs. Brain

The idea of robots and computers taking over the world has long been the stuff of kids’ books and movies. Now, however, we seem not to be too far from this fictional technological invasion.
For the past couple years, leading computer company I.B.M has been developing its own humanly-smart computer. I.B.M named the computer “Watson” and it is extremely outstanding computer due to its ability to understand instantly and respond correctly to questions. Furthermore, Watson is programmed to recall facts, analyze complicated and confusing sentences, and quickly press a button. Therefore, the company decided to host a Jeopardy trivia challenge in which Watson competed against the two of the best Jeopardy players in the U.S. Even though its competitors were faster and more experienced, Watson managed to stay in the lead for most of the competition. Only during the “Final Jeopardy” part of the game did its creators think Watson would do poorly, because in this part the contestants are given thirty seconds to answer a general knowledge question. Since this question can tie many subjects and informational data all together, the answer requires deep analysis. Nevertheless, the humans’ creation ultimately beat the humans. Watson prevailed.


This triumph not only proved the power of technology, but also opened many people’s eyes to new ideas for future “Watson-usage”, primarily in the medical field. Scientists and engineers have already begun transforming this new machine into a “cybernetic assistant” model for doctors and physicians, claiming there is a limited memory capacity to the human brain whereas this computer can keep learning and storing information infinitely.
Although this is very exciting, innovating technological tool, I am sure it makes some of us feel a little unsettled. When I first read this article , my initial shocked reaction was accompanied with many questions. So machines can be smarter than humans? Are computers going to replace people in all job fields in the near future? Who is going to make sure the new computers are not taking over our society?
I do not think anyone can provide the answers to these questions. Even the creators of Watson admitted in this video clip that they never imagined this kind of technology would be plausible and available during their life time. We should approach this social-technological revolution just like we did with the invention of the internet- taking it step by step and seeing where all of these changes and new paths are taking us. I continue to hope it will be to a better place.

Google This, Google That

This is a fascinating article. It describes how Google recently linked to J. C. Penny for a wide variety of things. It was determined that J. C. Penny was causing this to happen by creating websites that linked back to J. C. Penny. That crossed the line as far as Google was concerned, so it made J. C. Penny less relevant in searches. This potentially cost J.C. Penny millions in lost sales. This is a good example of the power that Google wields and that's what I'd like to discuss in my blog.

First though, some Google background. I learned a bit about the revolutionary Google Algorithm in my linear algebra class. People had already thought to base websites’ relevance on number of links to and from other websites. What Google founders did was figure out how to weight which links in what way. This is all done with a system of linear equations (you know, actual numbers with just a few variables). From these equations, Google figures out what you are looking for when you type in “something interesting."

So then, what does Google do with their algorithms? Of course, the better question is: What doesn’t Google do? I don’t know. You can read books on Google, you can chat with friends on Google, you can even do 3D CAD modeling on Google (if you don't know what that is, Google it). Google.org is a massive charity and all-around-do-gooding enterprise backed by Google. Google might even be getting into law enforcement. The article presents Google as judge and jury, “…Mr. Cutts and his colleagues are acutely aware of the singular power they wield as judge, jury and appeals panel.” And also as a type of medium within the larger internet. Google is in some ways the ultimate port-of-trade, imposing tariffs, policing its merchants, and dictating traffic. In a way, it is even the very water in which one is shipping.

This, and Google’s tussles with the Chinese government, gives me an idea. What if Google became a sort of cyber United Nations? It would have much more power and unilateral decision making ability than the actual U.N. because it would be one body, not a coalition. And since most of the internet now flows through Google’s hands, it literally controls the (virtual) lay of the land.

I wonder if this is good. Right now I trust Google, for whatever reasons. But what if it loses that trust? What will we do?

Tunisia: Trouble in Paradise

Flash back a little more than one month ago to December 17^th of 2010—Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian citizen and recent college graduate with a computer science degree, had started a fruit and vegetable stand to make ends meet. There was already a sense of unrest n the air as Tunisia was supposedly undergoing some of the worst unemployment rates in recent history as well as a spike in food prices across the country.

Picture Credit

Due to Mohamed’s lack of a vending license, authorities shut down his cart, confiscated his wares, and were even said to have slapped him around a bit. In protest over a lack of jobs, Mohamed set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid, in front of a government building in an act of self-immolation. I seriously doubt that he had any idea of how great the scope of events his actions sparked would turn out to be: Mohamed became a symbol of resistance in the Arab world as several others copied his self-immolation protest in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. While he survived the initial suicide attempt, he died later in the hospital after a visit from the President Ben Ali.

Mohamed’s death turned out to be the United States’ equivalent of “the shot heard ‘round the world” in 1775. Thousands took to the streets in protest of the government and of how the country’s leader received 90% of the vote over multiple elections and had been in power for over twenty years along with the issues mentioned in the first lines of this post.

This might have all fizzled out with the government either making a few concessions to smoothen out relations thereby calming down some of the more moderate protestors, or simply with the passing of time. The government’s reaction, however, would be their undoing. According to a BBC article published earlier today, between January 8^th-10^th, there were dozens of reported deaths during the protests.

Many have referred to this movement and these protests as a social media, and more specifically, a Twitter revolution. There is some credence to these claims as protesters organized and spread the word through their use of Twitter and Facebook. There is no doubt that technology and the newfound connectivity between Tunisians, in how their plight was played out in the eyes of the international community, played a huge role in the sacking of the interior minister, the dissolving of the parliament and Ben Ali’s subsequent flight.

Many claim, however, that it would be inaccurate to attribute this revolution to social media as there was already great dissatisfaction with the government and how Ben Ali and his wife’s families seemed to own every big business in Tunisia. Apparently they possessed extravagant wealth even as the rest of the country struggled to get by. Condoleezza Rice, in a state visit to Tunisia during the Bush administration, praised the country for its stability. The price of this stability, however, was limited freedoms in press and television as well as an excessive display of propaganda around the capital city.

But would the protests have been remotely as successful (I’m using the word “successful” very loosely as the killings were inexcusable) without mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs? I don’t think so. But what really charged the atmosphere for us in the United States (who in general are oblivious to the struggles of those outside our own country) were the videos rife with acts of violence posted online as well as the cables released by WikiLeaks which assert, in detail, the corruption of Ben Ali’s administration.

Here's Obama's take on the situation:

"I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard. I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.

As I have said before, each nation gives life to the principle of democracy in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people, and those countries that respect the universal rights of their people are stronger and more successful than those that do not. I have no doubt that Tunisia’s future will be brighter if it is guided by the voices of the Tunisian people."

But there’s little value in arguing the case, what matters is what lies ahead for Tunisia and its people, and whether there are further implications for other oppressed nations and whether these tools promoting connectivity will play a role in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead. Already there is evidence of this as Slim Amamou, one of the most prominent bloggers in Tunisia, accepted the post of Secretary of Youth and Sport. He has promised to keep the people updated via Twitter and would like for other cabinet members to also use Twitters as a means of communicating with citizens.

Currently, with no opposition leaders taking the mantle of leadership, Ben Ali’s Prime Minister has taken control and the future of the country is uncertain, though he has promised to step down as soon as elections are conducted democratically. I suppose all that’s left to do now is wait and see what’s next.

*UPDATE*

Professor Pruitt has brought it to my attention that there is a discrepancy between my source, International Business Times, and NPR with regards to Mohamed Bouazizi's academic standing. In my post, I stated that he had graduated from college with a computer science degree, but the more recently published article from NPR says that he had dropped out of high school. Wikipedia agrees with NPR.

Also, I read an article titled "Tunisian TV boss arrested for 'treason' as popular station that supported deposed president is closed down." I highly recommend checking it out if you want to follow up on the country's progress.

Other sources:

• http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/arab-bloggers-cheer-on-tunisias-revolution/?hp
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/world/africa/18egypt.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/01/14/tunisia.protests/
• http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/social-medias-role-in-tunisias-revolution_b12963