Stanford: Digital Platforms and Democratic Responsibility

Excellent event to mark the launch of Stanford’s new Global Digital Policy Incubator, led by the incredible digital human rights leader Eileen Donahoe.


  • Moderator: Larry Kramer, President of the Hewlett Foundation

  • Juniper Downs, Global Head of Public Policy and Government Relations, Youtube

  • Daphne Keller, Director of Intermediary Liability, Center for Internet & Society, Stanford Law School

  • Nick Pickles, Senior Public Policy Manager, Twitter

  • Mike Posner, Director, NYU Stern Center for Business & Human Rights, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Stanford Law: Law, Borders, and Speech Conference - Big Picture Panel

Really fun conference, excellent and diverse participants, provocative policy brawls. Hosted by Stanford Law’s Center for Internet & Society.

The panel set-up: “Which countries’ laws and values will govern Internet users’ online behavior, including their free expression rights? In 1996, David G. Post and David R. Johnson wrote that “The rise of the global computer network is destroying the link between geographical location and: (1) the power of local governments to assert control over online behavior; (2) the effects of online behavior on individuals or things; (3) the legitimacy of the efforts of a local sovereign to enforce rules applicable to global phenomena; and (4) the ability of physical location to give notice of which sets of rules apply.” They proposed that national law must be reconciled with self-regulatory processes emerging from the network itself. Twenty years on, what have we learned? How are we reconciling differences in national laws governing speech, and how should we be reconciling them? What are the responsibilities of Internet speakers and platforms when faced with diverging rules about what online content is legal? And do users have relevant legal rights when their speech, or the information they are seeking, is legal in their own country?”


  • Bertrand de la Chapelle - Co-Founder and Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Project

  • David Johnson - CEO,; Producer,

  • David Post - Professor of Law (ret.), Temple University Law School; Contributor, Volokh Conspiracy

  • Paul Sieminski - General Counsel, Automattic

  • Nicole Wong - Ex-Obama White House, Twitter, Google

  • Me

NYU: Tyranny of the Algorithm? Predictive Analytics & Human Rights

With Michael Posner (Professor, NYU Stern School of Business, Co-Director, Stern Center for Business and Human Rights) and Sarah Labowitz (Co-Director, NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights).

On NPR: What Anti-Islam Film Says About Free Speech And The 'Hecklers Veto'

So I made an appearance on NPR's Morning Edition today, talking about YouTube, Egypt, free speech, divergent national and religious sensitivities, and the danger of the heckler's veto. (BTW, I can now report that NRP's Steve Henn either is or works with a Miracle Editor capable of snipping longwinded sentences into a semblance of pithiness).

The Fight for the Future: The Internet, Censorship, Surveillance, and You

Here's the keynote talk I did at the Portland Digital eXperience (PDX) event, in which I talk about the North African revolutions, the onslaught of Syria's pro-Assad hacker army, the new dynamics created by China's Weibo platforms, and the success of the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement in the United States, what ties those things together, how they reveal much about the world we are now actively building, and what all that counsels for policymakers and entrepreneurs alike.  Thanks to Mark Zusman and Rick Turoczy for the invite and the warm Portland hospitality, and to the Rich Report for recording & posting the video!

Best fringe benefit of the excursion, besides hanging out with my awesome sister Meg, was seeing Beirut play "Santa Fe" as the sun set over Portland.

Fight for the Future: Libraries, Tech Policy, and the Fate of Human Knowledge

Librarians + technology = a personal nirvana.  There is no more awesome set of people doing more important work than the librarians and their nerd allies at the bleeding edge of library tech -- they are engaged in an underappreciated struggle to work out how mankind is going to preserve, extend, share, and democratize the sum of human knowledge in our increasingly digital age.  So I was really psyched to go a do a talk at the 2012 Library Technology Conference about the technological forces driving the great policy issues of our age, along with an argument about why and where the library community should be engaged.  Bonus for me: The event was at Macalester College, where I spent my high school summers taking Russian while trying to look like something other than the huge dork I was.

Here's my keynote, "Fight for the Future: Libraries, Tech Policy, and the Fate of Human Knowledge."

Andrew McLaughlin @ Library Technology Conference 2012 from Library Technology Conference on Vimeo.

 The Prezi is here.

Stanford Law: From Public Squares to Platforms: Free Speech in the Networked World

The set-up: “From local issues like the BART protests to national and international movements like Occupy and the Arab Spring, individuals and organizations are increasingly utilizing the Internet, social networking, and mobile devices to communicate and connect. This diverse panel from academia, public interest, and private practice, will discuss the opportunities and challenges for free speech as it increasingly moves from the town square to the networked world. Co-sponsored by the California State Bar Cyberspace Committee and the Stanford Center for Internet and Society.”


  • Dorothy Chou Senior Policy Analyst, Google Dorothy Chou is a Senior Policy Analyst and leads Google's policy efforts to increase Transparency. She manages the day-to-day operations of the Central Public Policy team at Google's headquarters, and handles government relations for Google's Crisis Response/Disaster Relief projects as well as the Data Liberation Front. Dorothy began working for Google in the Washington, D.C. office four years ago, managing issues around China, free expression and child safety before moving to the San Francisco Bay Area last summer. Dorothy holds a B.S. in International Politics from Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service.

  • Linda Lye Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California Linda Lye joined the ACLU-NC as a staff attorney in 2010 after serving 5 years on its Board of Directors and 7 years on its Legal Committee. She was formerly a partner at Altshuler Berzon, a San Francisco law firm specializing in labor and employment law, as well as constitutional, civil rights, and environmental law. Early in her legal career, she clerked for Judge Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court. Prior to law school, she was a policy analyst for the fiscal committees of the Assembly in the California Legislature, and also worked as a death penalty investigator at the California Appellate Project. She has an undergraduate degree from Yale University and a JD from Boalt Hall, at the University of California at Berkeley.

  • Philip Hammer Of Counsel, Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel Philip Hammer is Of Counsel to the law firm of Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel in San Jose, California. Mr. Hammer successfully litigated the right to circulate petitions in privately owned shopping centers in the California Supreme Court (1979) and the United States Supreme Court: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

  • Laurence Pulgram Partner and Chair of Commercial and Copyright Litigation Group, Fenwick and West LLP Lawrence Pulgram is a Partner in the Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups of Fenwick & West LLP, counsel in intellectual property and complex commercial disputes. His practice emphasizes technology related litigation and frequently involves novel legal issues generated by cutting-edge information technologies.

  • Moderator: Nicole Ozer Co-Chair- California State Bar Cyberspace Committee, Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director, ACLU of Northern California Nicole A. Ozer is the Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director at the ACLU of Northern California. She works on the intersection of new technology, privacy, and free speech and spearheads the organization’s online privacy campaign, Demand Your dotRights ( Nicole is the co- chair of the California State Bar Cyberspace Committee and a founding board member of the Bay Area Legal Chapter of the American Constitution Society (ACS).

Beyond Conventions: A Ford Foundation Forum on Human Rights

The Ford Foundation has posted the video of a panel I recently joined on "[t]he possibilities and pitfalls of technology in the pursuit of human freedom."  The other panelists were (the legendary and eloquent) Sir Tim Berners-Lee, (the brilliant and soon-to-be-book-launchingRebecca MacKinnon, (the worldly and effective) Elisa Massimino, and (the multi-disciplinary and polymathical) Danny O’Brien.  The moderator was (the charming and prolific) Sewell Chan, deputy editor for The New York Times. For me, the most interesting part of the panel was an exchange primarily with Elisa about the pressing need for mainstream/mainline human rights advocates and organizations to view seemingly-specialized tech issues like net neutrality, competition policy, intermediary liability, encryption policy, and user data control as core human rights issues.

Let's go to the tape.

Assessing Egypt's Echoes: How to Check for Yourself What's Happening with the Internet in Another Country

As anti-regime demonstrations have been taking place in Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, and Algeria, are we seeing a tidal shockwave from Egypt’s people power revolution ripple across the Middle East and North Africa?  And what lessons are the region's besieged regimes drawing from Egypt?

The latest reports from the ground:

  •  Iran:  Massive street protests across Tehran and Isfahan on Monday, met with riot police using tear gas.  At least one killed.  Green Movement leaders, including Moussavi and Karroubi, arrested or detained.
  • Bahrain:  More than 10,000 Bahrainis took part in Monday’s Day of Rage, and at least that number have gathered in the central Pearl Square.  One demonstrator was killed by police on Monday, and another on Tuesday.  King Hamad is promising reforms, including easing censorship of media and the Internet.
  • Yemen:  Six days of continuous protests, with demonstrators now encountering swarms of police batons.  After 32 years in office, President Saleh is making populist-sounding concessions (and budgetary payoffs to the Army) to cling to power.
  • Algeria:  A weekend of demonstrations in Algiers resulted in hundreds of arrests.  The Bouteflika government announced a coming end to the 20-year-old state of emergency.
  • Jordan: Weeks of peaceful protests led King Abdullah to replace his prime minister and cabinet, bring opposition figures into government, and even invite the local Muslim Brotherhood branch to join.  Amid the tumult, Jordanians have started to air previously unthinkable public criticisms of the royal family.

[Sources:  NYTimesWPost. And the Atlantic is putting up occasional posts summarizing what we know about the situation in those counties.]

Amid the stream of conventional news reports, there are many unknowns:  How many people have been pre-emptively arrested?  What is happening outside the capitals?  What is actually happening in the places where communications are being blocked or suppressed?

One thing we do know is that, contrary to a breathless and unsourced (and nutty -- “Facebook accounts deleted”?) story in the UK’s Telegraph (British newspapers will evidently print anything), Algeria has not so far shut down its Internet or mobile connections or imposed new website blocks.  How do we know?  Well, to get a rough snapshot, we can look at real-time Internet traffic and routing data, as well as first-hand reports via Twitter and Facebook.  

Specifically, we can use a set of public, online tools to assess the state of Internet and mobile phone connections in each of those five countries.  

Here are three handy ways you can test reports about the Internet being blocked in X or Y country.

 1.  Google Traffic Data

Google maintains a very useful site that generates graphs of near-real-time, normalized measurements of network traffic to various Google services (search, YouTube, Blogger, etc.) on a country-by-country basis.  This means you can select a country and a Google service and generate a graph that shows relative traffic patterns over time. 

For example, here’s the graph for Google search traffic to Egypt from January 2, 2011 to now: 

The canyon-like flatline reflects the period in which Egypt’s Internet and mobile networks were shut down:  no network means no Google searches.  (Notice, by the way, how each day has two separate peaks -- one in the morning, followed a drop-off around lunch, then the afternoon peak, followed by a steep plunge at night.  Fascinating, huh?)

We can pull up the same charts for Algeria:





and Yemen: 

In none of those countries do we see evidence of a significant disruption or blocking of Google searches.  By itself Google traffic data indicates only that a country’s networks are generally operational (and whether Google is specifically being blocked);  it doesn’t afford any insight into whether other sites like Facebook or services like Twitter are being blocked in a targeted way, nor does it reveal whether the Internet is being intentionally slowed down or degraded -- a technique pioneered by Iran and currently used by Bahrain to inhibit citizen communications and, perhaps, to prevent larger video files from being uploaded and shared.  It also offers no information as to whether and to what extent a country’s Internet and mobile networks are subject to surveillance.  (Reminder: Activists, use Tor!)

Besides search, two other Google services are regularly subject to politically-motivated blocking:  YouTube and Blogger.  To get a sense of a country’s Internet situation, it’s a good idea to check the traffic data for them as well.  Click the following links to see the traffic data for YouTube (EgyptAlgeriaBahrainIranJordanYemen) and Blogger (EgyptAlgeriaBahrainIranJordanYemen).   

Those data show one interesting anomaly:  YouTube and Blogger traffic from Iran surged in the early morning hours of February 11.  To wit:

One explanation could be that a block on those sites was lifted, at least in part.  That would be surprising, given that news reports indicate that Iran is tightening, rather than easing, its Internet restrictions amid the recent street protests.  Another explanation could be that Google implemented a new, better technique for pinpointing the source of traffic.  If we look at the lower bar of the graph, though, which shows the long-term traffic trends since 2009, we can see that Iran has been attempting to block YouTube since the disputed presidential election in mid-2009, and that traffic levels appear to have just jumped back to pre-blocking levels. I’ve asked Google folks for any insight and will report back if I learn anything.

Bottom line:  The Google traffic data indicate that there is currently no general Internet shutdown in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, or Yemen.

2.  Twitter updates 

A second useful technique is to check the latest Twitter updates from the country in question, using a hashtag and some search parameters.  For example, you can go to Twitter’s website and enter a search like “#Bahrain Internet”.  A scan of the most recent updates will give a more nuanced picture of what’s happening on the ground.

At the moment, Bahraini Twitterers are reporting that their Internet connections are getting slower and slower, that some specific locations like the Sheraton Hotel are fully cut off, and that some sites are blocked.  And indeed, Batelco, Bahrain’s largest telecom provider, just two hours ago released a vague statement apologizing to its customers for “any service degradation they may be experiencing with their broadband Internet service” and asking for “our customers’ cooperation and understanding while we strive to restore full services, which we hope to do as soon as possible.”  In other words, something is happening to disrupt Internet service in Bahrain.  The slow-down could conceivably be due to a massive surge in Internet use, but, in view of Bahrain’s reasonably high-quality network infrastructure, is more likely the result governmental action, either intentionally slowing Internet traffic or taking network elements offline as they hastily install new surveillance and monitoring equipment.  At this point, we can’t tell exactly what’s going on.

Scanning through the latest Twitter updates, here’s a quick summary of what local users are reporting about their Internet connections:

  • Egypt:  Internet up and running normally.
  • Algeria:  Internet up and running normally.
  • Bahrain:  Internet connections are slow and getting slower, with some locations entirely offline.  Unclear whether this is due to an overwhelming spike in use, intentional governmental throttling, or as a side effect to surveillance-related tinkering with the network.
  • Iran:  Severe but uneven disruptions to Internet and mobile phone connectivity.  Reports that most of Tehran is cut off, and that news sites and VPN and webmail services are blocked.
  • Jordan:  Internet up and running normally.
  • Yemen:  Some user reports that, after two days of blocking, the Internet is back up. (Note that this is not consistent with the Google/YouTube/Blogger search traffic data, which may indicate sporadic blocking, or, e.g., mobile-network-only blocking).  Many tweets reporting site-specifc filtering.  The number of tweets from users actually inside Yemen appears to be so small that we can't draw any conclusions with much confidence.  Indeed, it could be that there is a government effort to block Twitter inside Yemen, or just very few Twitter users.
In addition to country hashtags (e.g., "#algeria"), there are usually event-specific hashtags that come into widespread use.  Since Egypt's uprising began in earnest on January 25, it will forever be known in Twitterland as #jan25.  Likewise, you can track events in Algeria with #feb12, in Bahrain with #feb14, and in Iran with #25Bahman.  Looking ahead, activists are planning protests in Libya on #feb17, in Algeria again on #feb19, Morocco on #feb20, Cameroon on #feb23, and Kuwait on #mar8.
Checking local reports via Twitter stream is one of the few ways to assess cellular network status.  Mobile packet data can be assessed using the same tools as any Internet network, but, as a technical matter, cellular voice and SMS connectivity are difficult for those outside the network to test.  You can attempt to call or text someone on a given network, but we lack amateur-friendly online tools that give a larger picture.  

3.  Expert analyst blogs

It is also a good idea to check for timely blog posts from noted experts in network connectivity.  Two that I always check are the Renesys blog (where the terrific James Cowie and his team post), and the Arbor Networks blog (where the terrific Craig Labovitz and his team post).  While the posts are sporadic, the content on those two blogs is always high-quality and reliable, built on solid data and deep networking expertise.

These, then, are three easy, quick-and-dirty techniques for assessing the state of Internet and mobile connectivity in a given country.  In a future post, I’ll explain how to use more complex, less user-friendly online resources like the global BGP routing tables and ISP route announcements to do more in-depth, fine-grained analysis of Internet traffic patterns. 


Marketplace Interview on Egypt's Communications Shutdown

This morning, I did an interview on the public radio show Marketplace on the techniques, effects, and implications of the Egyptian government's decision to shut down the Internet and mobile phone networks.  As the write-up of the segment says:

In the wake of massive protests in Egypt, other countries have been paying attention and sometimes covering things up. The government of China is suppressing mentions of the uprising. Iran is blocking access to news sites, perhaps fearing renewed protests in their country.

That's not all that surprising. They've been filtering the Internet for a long time. What Egypt did -- yanking the Internet almost entirely offline -- that's new.

On today's show, we look at the precedent set by Egypt's decision to block most Internet and cell phone access in that country. Jonathan Zittrain joins us. He's co-founder and co-director of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society and a frequent guest on our show. Jonathan says that while Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have means to filter the Internet, Egypt's online system has always been pretty open so when they wanted to block it, they had to go all the way.

Andrew McLaughlin also joins us. He's a former director of global public policy at Google and former deputy chief technology officer for the Obama administration. He says while it was incredibly difficult to get online within Egypt's borders, neighboring countries had no issues at all, even though in many cases, their traffic goes through Egyptian territory.

Andrew tells us that Egypt has worked hard to position itself as a trustworthy hub for underwater cable that goes through the Red Sea, connecting to nearby countries. That service has not been disrupted.

As for what this means for other countries facing similar protests, we just don't know yet since Egypt's actions were unprecedented. But as protests begin to gather in other countries (and keep in mind that Egypt's protests were fueled by the overthrow in Tunisia), it's likely more governments will need to decide what to do about the Internet.

Here's a link to the full interview.  Here's the .mp3 of the show.


Egypt's Big Internet Disconnect

Egypt's internet cutoff has failed in its central aim, but there may yet be further harms

As recently as a week ago, Egypt's internet was extraordinary in the Arab world for its freedom. For more than a decade, the regime has adhered to a hands-off policy, leaving unblocked everything from rumours about President Hosni Mubarak's health to videos of police beatings. Unlike most of its regional neighbours and other authoritarian regimes, Egypt's government never built or required sophisticated technical infrastructures of censorship. (Of course, the country has hardly been a paradise of free expression: the state security forces have vigorously suppressed dissent through surveillance, arbitrary detentions and relentless intimidation of writers and editors.)

Partly as a result of its liberal policies, Egypt became a hub for internet and mobile network investment, home to a thriving and competitive communications sector that pioneered free dial-up services, achieved impressive rates of access and use, and offered speedy wireless and broadband networks at relatively low prices. Indeed, Egypt is today one of the major crossing points for the underwater fibre-optic cables that interconnect the regions of the globe.

But last Thursday, the Mubarak regime shattered a decade's worth of accomplishment by issuing the order to shut down the mobile networks and internet links. Since the internet age dawned in the early 90s, no widely connected country had disconnected itself entirely. The starkness and suddenness of Egypt's reversal – from unrestricted to unreachable – marks one of the many tragedies of the Mubarak regime's brutal and hamfisted response to last week's emergence of citizen protests.

The internet cutoff shows how the details of infrastructure matter. Despite having no large-scale or centralised censorship apparatus, Egypt was still able to shut down its communications in a matter of minutes. This was possible because Egypt permitted only three wireless carriers to operate, and required all internet service providers (ISPs) to funnel their traffic through a handful of international links. Confronted with mass demonstrations and fearful about a populace able to organise itself, the government had to order fewer than a dozen companies to shut down their networks and disconnect their routers from the global internet.

The blackout has proved increasingly ineffective. A handful of networks have remained connected, including one independent ISP, the country's academic and research network, and a few major banks, businesses and government institutions. Whether these reflect deliberate defiance, privileged connections, or tactical exceptions --one might imagine, for example, that members of Mubarak's family and inner circle would want to have Internet access to move money, buy tickets, or make hotel reservations abroad — is as yet unknown.

Moreover, innovative Egyptians are finding ways to overcome the block. They are relaying information by voice, exploiting small and unnoticed openings in the digital firewall, and dusting off old modems to tap foreign dial-up services.

For democracies, one lesson here is clear: diversity and complexity in our network architectures is a very good thing. Likewise, enforcement of public policies such as network neutrality – the principle that access providers should not be permitted to control what their customers can do online – are important to prevent networks from installing tools and capabilities that could be abused in moments of crisis. For dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, however, the lesson will be quite the opposite.

A central unknown at this moment is what the economic harm to the country will be. Without internet and voice networks, Egyptians are losing transactions and deals, their stocks and commodities cannot be traded, their goods are halted on frozen transportation networks, and their bank deposits are beyond reach.

Also unknown is how many Egyptians have been harmed in non-economic ways – as human beings. As things stand, a worried mother who has not heard from her son or daughter can't send an email or check Facebook for a status update. A witness to violence or abuse can't seek help, document responsibility, or warn others via Twitter or a blog.

Life-saving information is inaccessible. Healthy, civil debate about the future is squashed. And in the absence of trustworthy news, firsthand reports and real-time images, rumour and fear flourish. In all those ways, the total internet cutoff undermines the government's own interest in restoring calm and order.

What is clear, however, is that the communications cutoff has failed in its central objective, which was to stop the Egyptian people from organising and mobilising in opposition. As hundreds of thousands of Egyptians gather on the streets to demand change, we must all hope that Egypt's officials and CEOs will see the writing on the wall, weigh the costs to Egyptian businesses and citizens – to their economic interests, family needs and human rights – and defy their president's unprecedented and increasingly ineffective blackout.

Originally printed and posted in The Guardian.


An Open Letter to Dr. Tarek Kamel, Minister of Communications and Information Technology of Egypt

Dear Tarek:

The news anchors are reporting that Egypt's Cabinet has just submitted its resignation, and a new Prime Minister has been appointed. As Egypt's Minister of Communications and Information Technology since 2004, you are now most likely heading back to private life.

As a friend, I write to urge you to take one final action before you walk out the door of your Ministry: Give the order to reconnect Egypt to the global Internet, and to drop all remaining blocks on wireless networks.

Unless you act now, in your final hours as Minister, to reverse the Internet cutoff, your name will forever be associated with an unprecedented human rights violation on a national scale, and an economic catastrophe triggered by a shortsighted regime's drive for self-preservation. That would be a tragedy for many reasons, but most of all because I am certain that you don't, in your heart, believe this decision to be right.

We have known each other since we jointly organized one of the first ICANN conferences on global Internet coordination, in Cairo in March, 2000. I know you to be a man of intelligence, integrity, and character. Your record is one of ambitious endeavors, large-scale accomplishments, and thoughtful innovation. Through your early work to bring network links to Egypt and your later service as a Trustee of the Internet Society, you demonstrated your understanding of, and commitment to, the Internet as a powerful tool for free expression and human development. And indeed, until last week, Egypt's Internet, under your administrative guidance, was notable in the Arab world for being free and open -- almost entirely uncensored. (Outside your domain of control, Egypt's security forces used other, brutally effective means of controlling dissent, like relentless surveillance and arbitrary arrests and detentions.) You helped design and build a truly impressive communications infrastructure, achieving impressive levels of Internet access and use, highly competitive mobile and ISP markets, and low consumer broadband prices. Unlike most of your regional neighbors, you allowed Internet voice services without restriction. Egypt is now one of the major crossing points for the underwater fiber optic cables that interconnect the regions of the planet. You led an aggressive initiative to get personal computers and Internet connections into every home in Egypt. At an early date, you used farsighted regulatory moves to enable free dial-up Internet services. Under your leadership, Egypt was among the first countries to launch an Arabic-language Internet top-level domain, making Internet addresses vastly easier for the majority of Egyptians to use.

All of these achievements, however, are now eclipsed by your participation in the Egyptian government's unprecedented decision to sever Egypt from the global Internet, and to shut down mobile phone services.

Even now, two days later, as cellular networks are starting to function again, nearly all Egyptians remain cut off from the Internet. A worried mother who has not heard from her son or daughter cannot send an email or check Facebook for a status update. A witness to violence or abuse cannot seek help, document responsibility, or warn others via Twitter or blog. Life-saving information is inaccessible. Healthy, civil debate about the future of Egypt is squelched. And in the absence of trustworthy news, first-hand reports, and real-time pictures, rumor and fear flourish. In those ways, the total Internet cut-off undermines the government's own interest in restoring calm and order.

Moreover, innovative Egyptians are finding ways to overcome the block. They are relaying information by voice, exploiting gaps in your digital Iron Curtain, and dusting off old modems to tap foreign dial-up services. To seek to lock Egyptians behind an airtight seal is triply wrongheaded: it harms Egyptians, increases tensions, and, ultimately, can't be sustained.

Finally, and not least, your use of the Internet kill switch is about to start inflicting serious harm to Egypt's economy, its markets, its workers, and its soundness in the eyes of trading partners and investors. Already, Egypt's reputation as a reliable hub for Internet services and infrastructure -- a reputation you have labored tirelessly for more than a decade to fashion -- has suffered incalculable damage. (Yes, your sophisticated cutoff techniques cleverly made your networks unreachable without interfering with other countries' traffic transiting Egyptian territory and seaways, but the perception that Egypt can't be trusted with critical communications is now widespread, growing, and grounded in reality.)

It is not too late for you to act. Even as your formal mandate is ending, your moral authority is still weighty with the Ministry team you built. A directive from you to restore the Egyptian people's communications at this critical junction in Egypt's history would not only encourage peace and help restore order, but will prevent you from falling, tragically but indisputably, on the wrong side of history. You can, and must, move now to restore your reputation and reverse what will otherwise be a harsh and condemnatory worldwide judgment of your role in silencing Egyptians and infringing their fundamental human rights to speak, write, read, watch, and communicate.

My friend, Dr. Tarek Kamel, for the sake of your legacy and the future of your country: Re-connect your people.

Very truly yours,

Andrew McLaughlin


Originally posted on the Huffington Post.