Track Iran's nationwide internet shutdown in real-time. 90+ million disconnected. Live BGP data, prefix analysis, and network status updated every 15 minutes.
A Whisper Security Investigation
Powered by WhisperGraph™
DISCLAIMER: This report processes extensive network telemetry data from multiple sources. We actively review and incorporate corrections as feedback is received. If citing these findings, we recommend independent verification or contacting us for support.
All network disruptions and censorship actions documented in this report are preserved with cryptographic timestamps as evidence for future accountability proceedings.
END OF REPORT // JAN 2026
||
Read the original article
Comments
By Huntsecker 2026-01-1318:4525 reply Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are.
does feel its back to might is right, and the last 80 years of relative peaceful times is sunsetting.
you may ask what has the above goto do with a tech article on Iran blocking the internet, its basically just how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid) that is, oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood, the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life which is obviously terrible just feels like even tech articles have become partisan.
"oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood"
I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with that, but this is actually different. This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship. It's the state literally disallowing people talking to each other. It's Orwellian: "we don't like what you're talking about, so we're going to make you completely unable to"
It's not the 80s or 90s anymore. The internet is rhe global backbone of how people communicate with each other. Shutting down access is a clear action of censorship and oppression.
By mathisfun123 2026-01-1319:04 > This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship
To wit: notice how few pictures we're seeing from there (a few were trickling in before the crackdown).
I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2026-01-1321:171 reply > right now a superpower is set on overthrowing the government [of Iran]
Okay, sure.
> and internet shutdown is perfectly justified
This doesn't seem to obviously follow. Can you explain the justification?
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2026-01-1420:021 reply I still don't understand the justification. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't see where you're going with this. Can you explain your point of view in plain terms?
By lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2026-01-1421:171 reply I'm not really interested in doing that. My question was asked firstly to give you an opportunity to explain your perspective around what I saw to be a not obvious claim and secondly to bring light to the fact that you can't explain it (if that happens to be the case as it seems here).
The opportunity for you to explain it is an opportunity to exonerate your point of view. You don't have to take it.
This is Orwellian logic.
You are essentially saying “The enemies of a government seek to undermine it so let’s stop people from talking to each other.”
I mean how is that logic different from what Stalin did during the Soviet Union? “The capitalists want to overthrow us, let’s deploy the totalitarian surveillance state to control and monitor the people to stop them from rising up”.
And how is any of this logic compatible with democracy or human liberty?
By maximinus_thrax 2026-01-1516:00 Just a couple of days ago, this account was anti-censorship https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46567052
Wanted to let you know you're arguing with a Russian troll, the type you hear about in the news.
By ViktorRay 2026-01-2222:44 The use of an external threat to justify internal suppression of basic human freedoms such as the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech naturally includes the ability to communicate with others. When the government blocks people from communicating with each other using an external threat as an excuse that is Orwellian.
It is Orwellian because in George Orwell’s novel 1984 the 3 governments remaining in the world are at war with each other and each government uses the threat of the others for total surveillance and suppression of their own populations.
US also censors information and also cancel and ban free speech. Of course US is a lot more subtle as it’s not the government directly controlling media but a group of very influential and wealthy people that usually have the interest of the capitalist class.
By kant2002 2026-01-1321:43 As person who was in blackout in Jan 2022 in Kazakhstan, I’ll say it’s very unpleasant situation when you known that some people go into protests. Some security service building was looted of arms. Police nowhere to be seen. No communications and you don’t know if should you do some limited self protection available in form of running or not. So even if government control what they say, it does not control your ability to find out what’s going on via other people. That’s big deal for your physical security and wellbeing
The US does this a bit, but even with that suppression of free speech, even with most mass media outlets being owned by oligarchs that are subservient to the President, the internet is still going. Europe has penalties for Nazi speech, yet the internet is still going there.
There's no comparison to what's going on in these countries to what's going on in Iran. Trying to "what about" with the US censorship of, say, the majority political opinion in a city by cutting off all federal funds that were previously flowing to the city is not very relevant. Yes, it's bad, but here we are talking about it on the Internet!
By kaveh_h 2026-01-1422:30 Every actor have it’s own means and tools, Iranian regime is weak and don’t have the capability to stop foreign influence effectively as US or China and other state so they use the crude methods at their disposal.
If US government was in weaker state it would take more radical measures.
By armchairhacker 2026-01-1319:121 reply > from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece, rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media
You don't clearly see America, there are at least two big mouthpieces. While I've never heard anyone praise the Iranian or Venezuelan government, I've heard many protest US intervention.
> how its written feels alot like propaganda (not saying the content is invalid)
I agree it sounds like propaganda. But in this case I think it's fair, the situation is almost black and white.
> the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours...not to diminish the other sad loss of life
Maybe they should've emphasized: the loss of life (and general restriction on daily living, offline) is the main problem, no internet for 118 hours is a symptom.
> even tech articles have become partisan
True. But again, this case (criticizing the Iranian regime) is so close to clear-cut black and white, it shouldn't even be partisan.
If you're talking about Chavez, I'd disagree quite strongly. But even Maduro had his western-based supporters, at least in the early years; for example this op-ed in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/04/venezu..."Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere – it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence."By epistasis 2026-01-1320:59 > by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence."
Side note: The self contradiction in adjacent sentences is so funny to me! It says a lot about the lack of mental coherency of the author and of the intended audience.
But I'm not 100% sure I follow your point, this is an editorial from way back in 2014, from a UK site not a US site. Though this could be published in the Guardian, I don't think a supporter of Maduro's government would get any TV time.
Search long enough and you will find supporters and detractors of all governments in the US, and openly doing it, because that's what the US's principles are supposed to allow. I remember in SF a political group which is half-mainstream, the DSA, starting a Maoist reading group, which caused a local uproar. That's particularly notable in SF, a city that has a very large Chinese population, with many of the families in SF to flee Mao himself!
The original assertion was that the US had one voice, without any opposition, in its media. While the viewpoints that make it into the mainstream media are somewhat narrow, you can find nearly every viewpoint somewhere on the Internet in the US.
By drc500free 2026-01-1318:563 reply They cut the internet so they could machine gun people, not stop them from ordering DoorDash.
By Huntsecker 2026-01-1319:021 reply Not sure they do tbh, I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising.
By filoleg 2026-01-1320:57 > I think they would machine gun them even with internet, it's more about stopping them from organising.
Yes, but cutting off internet access to the entire country typically makes machine gunning much more efficient (due to organizing being made much more difficult for the people) and much less costly in terms of the global outcry and reputation.
By kelvinjps10 2026-01-1319:081 reply They did just after the protest started, and there is no evidence that's actually happening but it's kind of the point since we are not receiving information from Iran since the government blocked them out from the internet
There are alternative explanations. For example, foreign agents may have been using Starlink, and the security services may have used the shutdown to find the Starlink terminals.
By gryphonclaw 2026-01-1320:161 reply Wow, are there actually people on here shilling for the Iranian government? Recent reports have as many as 12,000 Iranian civilians gunned down by their own government during this blackout.
By GordonS 2026-01-148:49 FWIW, your comment is untrue, and against HN rules.
People are allowed to have different opinions here, such as not supporting genocide or not believing western propaganda regarding yet another government overthrow.
By GordonS 2026-01-148:49 FWIW, your comment is untrue, and against HN rules.
People are allowed to have different opinions here, such as not supporting genocide or not believing western propaganda regarding yet another government overthrow.
By averysmallbird 2026-01-1320:31 They are attempting to find the Starlink terminals so they can machine gun protesters without accountability or documentation, not because they have a regulatory issue with SpaceX.
This is the third uprising. They have so far followed the same recipe. People raise up. Internet is turned off. People are arrested and killed by the authorities. They are using the death penalty to teach the Iranians that raising up will get you killed.
While I dislike trumpism, I do hope that the Iranian authorities will get bombed. They deserve to die for how they treat their own people.
That's not what I'm seeing.
Why would "the people" be burning hundreds of mosques, ancient libraries, police stations, buses and civilian homes?
How have over 100 police been killed so quickly by "organic" protests?
And why is Israeli media reporting that they have agents on the ground instigating violence?
By wojciii 2026-01-1321:13 I wouldn't know why they are burning things. I suppose they burn the religion of peace symbols of their oppressors.
I imagine that Israel supports a regime change in Iran, but I don't think that they can run this on their own. They probably support whatever goes on with covert agents.
Since little gets out of Iran let's not speculate any more. :)
By cyberax 2026-01-147:17 > Why would "the people" be burning hundreds of mosques, ancient libraries, police stations, buses and civilian homes?
Are they? Do you have a private feed into Iranian networks?
> How have over 100 police been killed so quickly by "organic" protests?
Quite easily. Guns get looted and people start shooting.
> And why is Israeli media reporting that they have agents on the ground instigating violence?
Links?
By BobaFloutist 2026-01-1319:09 Where is their evidence that the internet was cut to prevent evidence from disseminating?
By silencednetizen 2026-01-149:46 https://x.com/hey_itsmyturn/status/2011240433310191658
The Farsi text in the tweet says: "we knew that since four days ago but we haven't had any visual proof until now"
The Farsi text in the photo is a message from a civilian saying machine guns are in the streets.
By Weryj 2026-01-1319:10 The bit were the death toll was 70 after a week of protests, then the internet was cut and in 3 days it’s closer to 2,000.
By Lamad1234 2026-01-1318:59 [dead]
By jaredklewis 2026-01-1319:101 reply Yes, the US is not the center of the universe and there’s lots of room for different perspectives, but there is nothing good that can be said about the regime in Iran.
China, for sure there a lot of good that can be said about the Chinese government. Of course China’s human rights abuses have to be recognized, but we should also recognize the good things like economic and technological development. And I’m sympathetic to Taiwanese independence, but China’s own position should also be give a fair shake. Pretty much all governments, including the US, are a mix of good and bad.
But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all?
>But name one redeeming point of the regime in Iran. Why have any sympathy for the regime at all?
They helped Russia, for one thing.
By drysine 2026-01-2111:36 Exactly
By jaredklewis 2026-01-1323:09 Want to be more specific about your argument? I’d consider a government good if it is serves the people of that country. “Iran murders and tortures it citizens by the thousands, and impoverishes them by the millions through widespread corruption, but they sold some drones to Russia, so that’s nice.” Is that your argument?
People don't do politics anymore, they get their priorities the other way around (geopolitics before the politics of their own house, workplace or city), and the little they do is heavily misplaced (online instead of physically demonstrating).
On top of that add the huge boom of data in politics. No politician anymore has programs or language aiming at representing most of the voters, but it only focuses to get 50%+1, which in practice means that most politicians aim for the majority of the swing voters.
By tdeck 2026-01-1319:22 Is politics that thing where I vote every 2-4 years and maybe volunteer for the DNC or send some money to a presidential candidate, and spend thousands of hours passively consuming election and news content? That's what I learned growing up but it doesn't seem to be working. :shrug: /s
By iowemoretohim 2026-01-1319:00 > Think what's going on in Iran is very sad, but
> the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life
That's a lot of caveats.
The problem with other freedom-loving nations, the EU, etc is that they're a bunch of cowards and I feel like America is the only place that can stand up to the regimes like Iran/China. Who else if not US?
That's probably quite unfair. The EU nations don't have huge militaries that allow them to project force around the world. And they used to. They didn't just become cowards after WWII. Europe was reshaped by wars, and by American policy, and then yes they sat on their laurels for too long after the cold war when it came to defense spending.
Nobody has stood up against China really. Nearly the whole world, including the US, went along with the one China policy for the sake of money.
By tim333 2026-01-1412:58 I kind of agree with you but it's more complicated with the UK as Iran used to have a democratic government but in 1953 it was
>...overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States (CIA) and the United Kingdom (MI6). A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran...(wikipedia)
Not our finest hour really.
By seanmcdirmid 2026-01-1320:56 > that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are.
If you think American news is weird, you should try reading Chinese news. English ones like China Daily or globaltimes.cn, I would read it a lot when I was in China since American news sources were blocked.
It has gotten better since 2002, but is still pretty bizarre in how they frame conflicts. Forget CNN-level bias, they have FoxNews-level bias in how they do the news.
By mancerayder 2026-01-1318:473 reply Iran controls a string of proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and other places. Are you sure you're not forgetting that piece? When you write that we had 80 years of relatively peaceful times, you're glossing over that fact.
By dpe82 2026-01-1318:59 We haven't had a major conflict in 80 years. Little skirmishes all over the place, sure, but we've forgotten that significant wars between major powers used to be both terrible for everyone involved and also common. Our grandparents after WW2 decided to go a different path and created a largely rules- and trade- based international order that has largely kept the peace. We don't realize how good we've had it.
By mancerayder 2026-01-143:28 Absolutely, there's been no major conflict like this since WW2. The strategy shifted to proxy controlled damage in places not US, not Russia, not China, but the weaker states where there was some incentive for control (resources, geography, political alliance, etc). While not a big state (not since centuries), Iran was a proxy controller with the capacity to cause mayhem.
By Lamad1234 2026-01-1318:57 [dead]
By _DeadFred_ 2026-01-1321:34 Why is the top comment always this sort of concern troll derailing the topic? It seems intentional at this point to divert discussion.
When thinking about an entire country, "good/bad" doesn't make sense as a category. In Iran, the people are protesting and holy hell are there a ton of people risking their lives for the chance for a better life with less oppression, without hyperinflation, with some sort of voice in their own governance. The ruling class can not be conflated with the populace. The populace can not be conflated with the populace for that matter, there's no "one" thing even under a shared culture. This is also true in the US, you can't conflate the ruling class with the people in the streets ringing bells and blowing horns and risking their lives and freedom against a tyrannical government seeking to arrest millions of people and deport some of them.
Nothing is completely free of politics, much less the existence of the Internet, and it's incredibly important to realize the impact that technology has on the fabric of society.
> oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours,
This is not even remotely close to the meaning or impact of the site that's linked. It's about the dignity of life, the gunning down of thousands of people by their government, and the governments attempts to continue oppression by hiding their actions behind a veil. Your comment viewed in its most positive light is crass, more realistically is heartless and cruel.
My guess: you're commenting on the US from a Russified country, or from China? That's the only perspective on the world that I can imagine generating your statements, and if I'm wrong I'd love to know.
By Huntsecker 2026-01-1319:091 reply no, actually not, maybe a country that isnt very pro America given you're threatening to invade to take ownership of Greenland. But again in my post, the actual loss of life etc is very sad and shouldn't happen, but my point was more tech was one area where politics were left at the door and maybe I'm old but its sad I guess to see it here too.
By epistasis 2026-01-1417:14 Aha, that country also makes sense, and is an understandable response too. The US is in very deep trouble internationally. We in the US have been swimming against this madness for so long that it's almost refreshing to see somebody have an appropriate response. A good 1/3 of the country in the US is stark-raving mad and addicted to disinformation and forcing it on others.
I guess I've never seen tech as disconnected at all from politics, even on HN, and perhaps especially on HN, as the intersection of tech and politics has been a discussion point as long as I can remember.
Even classic programmer sci-fi, like Snowcrash and Cryptonomicon, is highly political, and largely about the political effects of technology on society.
By chao- 2026-01-1323:15 >rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media...at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are.
I'm not sure if you meant to imply that there was a uniform media response of "look how great we are" vis-a-vis the abduction of Maduro? If you did, I have to disagree. A significant amount of US media time was dedicated to how not-great this was.
The US media is full of propaganda. I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that the response to the Maduro abduction was not a uniform "This is great!"
By tim333 2026-01-1413:33 >back to might is right
Quite a lot of recent fighting is against that. Russia tried the might is right thing to take over Ukraine but is being fought back by an assortment of democracies. Maduro was looking like dictator for life backed by Russia and Cuba but got taken out partly due to years of protest by Venezuelans. Syria was also a Russian backed dictator overthrown by the locals. Iran looks similar - we'll have to see how it works out. Invading Greenland wouldn't be good.
One of the weaknesses of the post WW2 peace is there was limited support for democracy. I don't know if that could change a bit these days?
lol we are here because 75 years ago in the era of peace and tranquility, CIA deposed the democratically elected secular leader of iran
Iran's elections 75 years ago were about as democratic as North Korea's. They were just theater. Everyone was involved in rigging, candidates, the monarchy, foreign nations, etc., Mosaddegh included.
And peace and tranquility? Iran was in economic chaos before the PM was dismissed in 1953. They were printing money to pay salaries because the British refused to transport their oil, cutting off their main source of income.
When you look at it, you do notice how much of what is happening in that region was due to western (particularly British) intervention and colonialism, and continues to this day.
By tim333 2026-01-1413:12 If you look at the history on Wikipedia there have been invasions and the like going back way before the Brits got in there. Eg.
>the clash between the kingdoms of Aksum and Himyar in 525 displayed a higher power struggle between Byzantium and Persia for control of the Red Sea trade. Territorial wars soon became common...
etc. And on likewise for over a thousand years.
What is your point again? Why are you listing iranian domestic problems when we are talking about foreign policy. There are lots of failing countries all around the world and most of them don't hate America because the CIA didnt coup their popular leader.
By Aloisius 2026-01-1320:47 The PM wasn't democratically elected.
Iran wasn't in era of peace and tranquility 75 years ago.
The PM was not popular in 1953 after his promise of prosperity after seizing British oil fields not only failed to materialize, but instead led to the oil industry grinding to a halt; his failed half-hearted land reforms pissed off pretty much everyone; he jailed his political enemies; and was ruling Iran as a dictator.
It's unfortunate that Iran's propaganda around Mossadegh has been so effective at rewriting history, but people just like simplistic stories about good vs. evil.
By rootusrootus 2026-01-1319:05 > rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media, that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are.
You are not looking too hard at all. There are lots of dissenting opinions, in fact I'd wager that if you excluded official government mouthpieces, the lion's share of opinion (both private individuals as well as established media) is trending to open criticality of the US government's choices.
> how its written feels alot like propaganda
I almost feel bad for the established old school media companies. One side says they are spewing propaganda, the other side says they're ignoring it altogether. Both cannot be simultaneously true.
By EbbiURBiSharaf 2026-01-1320:53 > oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood
This is probably the most stupid thing I have ever read on hackernews.
Were you and family and friends and heighbors being gunned down by your own military during those days?
They cut communication systems for 3 reasons:
1 - So the world outside doesn't get to see the scale of their crimes against humanity.
2 - So the rest of Iranian nation doesn't get to see how "their government" [sic, actually a terrorist cult with deep Arab tendecies] is treating their fellow Iranians, lest they too pour into streets.
3 - So their deeply compromised cadres don't leave tracks for Israel to give them the Nasrullah treatment.
> the above is not to diminish the other sad loss of life
You are sad. Nothing "sad" about the valiant Iranian Nation fighting for freedom. Now go play with your whatever ...
> but from an outsider America has become one mouthpiece
Really? As a naturalized American I see diversity in the USA's media. Do you have an example?
From what I see, there are two big voices in the media politically.
> rarely do I see dissenting voices in the media
Again, we need an example. I see the official line from the current party in power, and the counter arguements from the mainstream media as a whole. The current party only has a media output from very few mainstream sources.
By Hikikomori 2026-01-1319:31 See manufacturing consent.
By bbor 2026-01-1318:56
I mean... I guess it depends on what you consider "the media"? I certainly don't consume any media that reacted with anything but shock and horror. With CBS under attack I suppose that's fragile, but I think it's important to appreciate the freedoms we do still have. When people say "all the media in AUTHORITARIAN_STATE supports the federal government on IMPORTANT_THING", they don't mean "a plurality of popular TV networks" -- they mean all.that is its always Iran/China bad and at the same time they Kidnap a foreign leader and its all wow look how great we are.
...I think you're coming from a good place, but you're failing to grasp the seriousness of a nation state shutting down telecommunications. Besides the immense power it shows, it also implies a level of desperation and/or severity-of-intent.oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhoodIt's very, very different than a nation losing access to the internet because of technical issues (or, in your case, because it wasn't invented/popularized yet).
By lr4444lr 2026-01-1319:16 "China bad"?
Do you have any idea how much Chinese economic leverage has caused Hollywood to censor against CCCP criticism?
As for Iran, we have a literal embargo, so it's not quite the same.
By TheMagicHorsey 2026-01-1319:12 Have you been on the Internet as an adult ever? Have you been on X? What about Facebook? America is "one mouthpiece"? This is one of the most puzzling takes I've ever seen.
Americans literally post 10K articles a day about how bad the administration is and all the bad that will result from going to Venezuela ... and multiply that for literally every other thing the govt does. There isn't one thing that happens that doesn't have hundreds of posts online and in papers explaining why America is so evil for doing it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you sampled the media landscape in Tehran or Beijing? I have sampled both ... FROM those locations. Its night and day.
Even the media landscape in your typical Western Alliance country (Singapore, Japan, South Korea, UK ... etc.) cannot come close to what you see in America.
By Ethee 2026-01-1319:36 >does feel its back to might is right, and the last 80 years of relative peaceful times is sunsetting.
Depending on your perspective, 'might is right' never changed. The US has forced its policies on other nations through quiet force for a long time. I think the only thing that's changed is that Trump wants to say the quiet part out loud now which makes it way easier to push back on. Combine that with the fact that Trump has 0 political ambitions outside of just being in power and it becomes very easy to just ignore what you hear coming from the top. Often it clearly has no thought put behind it, seems vindictive in nature, and is forgotten the next day, like a child's tantrum. To circle back a little, now that the US in such a passive state due to this, a lot of other countries feel safer to push their influence on the world because they see no repercussions for what others are doing.
By js4ever 2026-01-145:54 WTF, it's like if you don't understand why internet was blocked there or what is happening right now in Iran. Or like if you are a propagandist for IRCG
By laurels-marts 2026-01-149:48 Government cutting internet access to 90m ppl while killing protesters in the streets and “growing up without internet” is not even remotely comparable lmao.
By heraldgeezer 2026-01-1511:12 >that is its always Iran/China bad
I mean, yes? They are.
Cold war never ended.
You are on the wests side or you are not. If you live in the west I hope you appreciate it.
The people of Iran are protesting due to horrible economics and infrastructure of the country. They dont even have water anymore. Yes, some nations are better to live in than others.
By nailer 2026-01-1318:47 > the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours
...during mass violence against the population.
Being able to completely turn off the Internet in your country seems to be a non-negotiable capability to develop for any non-democratic state.
I think a lot of them took a look at how Twitter and Facebook were used for organising during the Arab spring and decided that it was by far the most dangerous non-military threat.
Still wonder how exactly they are interdicting Starlink, I've seen rumors that they are using Russian EW systems but those same systems are not so effective jamming Starlink-guided drones on the frontlines.
>Being able to completely turn off the Internet in your country seems to be a non-negotiable capability to develop for any non-democratic state.
Which technologically advanced democratic countries DON'T have this capability already developed and deployed?
Do you think the 3 letter agencies in the likes of UK, Israel, Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc don't know how to turn off the internet in their countries? They'd be really incompetent if they don't.
Switzerland even had all its bridges wired with explosives from like the 19th century and all the way through the cold war to blow them up inc ase of an invasion.
Do you think the internet infra is somehow spared this kind of strategic planning?
By whatshisface 2026-01-1318:4112 reply The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible.
Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.
This "current administration" thinking is exactly the problem. When your version of the current administration had the power to diminish the power of the administration, did it do that? None of them do.
Somehow there's always a failure of imagining that whatever the current administration is won't always be current.
By 0x1ch 2026-01-1320:37 Well, that's the fun part of democracy. You don't get to bet on the status quo remaining the same.
> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y
Famous last words.
I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself.
If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?
By ryandrake 2026-01-1318:49 I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
By worldsavior 2026-01-1319:042 reply I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US.
Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws?
History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.)
So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years.
Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
By worldsavior 2026-01-1321:56 You're right, but what do you care what happens in 500 years?
The world changes. Maybe in 50 years child pornography will be legal, who knows? It doesn't change based on what those rulers want, because in a true Democratic country, the people rule.
> Can you please give an example for a first world country that consistently ignores it's own laws?
In the US, it's standard to do ten miles an hour over the speed limit past a cop, and there's probably 20 Federally illegal marijuana dispensaries within a few miles of me. Our current President got convicted of 34 felonies, but any possible consequences were automatically voided when he got elected again.
By worldsavior 2026-01-1321:591 reply There isn't enough men power obviously for every marijuana dispensary, and also for speed violations.
By ceejayoz 2026-01-1322:18 This was very intentional policy.
By rootusrootus 2026-01-1321:01 > Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment?
At the risk of going off on an entirely different direction ... no, I don't think that was the point of the second amendment, not really. It was more about making sure they had something that would function like a standing army (in the absence of the real deal) should a foreign government invade. Defense against tyranny from our own government doesn't really feel like it was something they worried deeply about (at least with regards to the right to bear arms), and the self-defense justification for the second amendment wasn't even a commonly held viewpoint until about the 20th century.
By veidelis 2026-01-1319:05 The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.
By themgt 2026-01-1318:47 > The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible.
The link you provided says:
In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies.
The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet.
The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?
By hadlock 2026-01-1319:36 Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find.
For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.
By epolanski 2026-01-1318:57 Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved.
In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.
By xorcist 2026-01-1323:21 Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned?
Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned.
Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.
By bagels 2026-01-1318:45 Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.
By chasd00 2026-01-1318:49 I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.
By akabalanza 2026-01-1318:44 I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence
By vovavili 2026-01-1319:25 >cannot do it, because there is actually a law
Oh sweet summer child.
By cromka 2026-01-1318:51 > The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law
Good one, buddy. That's a good one.
I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet. Our government doesn't own our internet infrastructure, it's owned by private companies. The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass.
By elzbardico 2026-01-1319:041 reply Well. I can't talk for the current government of Sweden, but if I was the supreme leader of a Swedish Dictatorship, I am pretty confident that I could accomplish that by sending some very persuasive soldiers along with a government officer with some papers ordering those private companies to do whatever the fuck I wanted unless their executives wanted to experience some extra holes in their bodies.
Luckily Sweden is not a dictatorship and doesn't have a supreme leder. Our government can't just hand-wave things. There's the legislative branch which must've had the foresight to make laws that allows the executive branch to order operators to comply.
The parent asked "Which technologically advanced democratic countries DON'T have this capability already developed and deployed?" and there are many, every country on earth isn't run by warmongering corrupt idiots.
By joe_mamba 2026-01-1323:01 >Our government can't just hand-wave things.
Famous last words.
In case of war or major cataclysmic event, your government will definitely just hand-wave a lot of things you take for granted in order to keep the country and society from collapsing, including elections, democracy, freedom of speech, internet access, travel, etc since then the nation's survival becomes more important than your individual rights and freedom. See Covid hysteria, Ukraine war, etc.
I think coddled people from rich countries who never saw anything but prosperity since WW2 and no conflicts or events with major loss of life, have no idea just how radical governments can switch in an instant when society is threatened with collapse.
By SJC_Hacker 2026-01-1318:42 Guys with guns can be pretty convincing
By 2b3a51 2026-01-1319:02 Does Sweden not have the equivalent of the UK's civil contingency act?
Section 2 basically allows the Westminster government to make regulations as they see fit during an emergency, but with a short time scale (like a month or so) before parliament gets a say.
By alephnerd 2026-01-1318:49 > I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet
You guys do. Säpo and Telia were a customers of mine when I was still an IC.
By epolanski 2026-01-1318:58 The providers have to oblige any government order.
By cromka 2026-01-1318:53 > Our government doesn't own our internet infrastructure,
Does ANY country from the list above own their internet infrastructure?
>it's owned by private companies.
So what? If it's on Swedish ground then it's under Swedish government(military) enforcement in case the shit hits the fan.
>The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass.
Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime, or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply?
> Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime
Pretty much
> or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply?
They'll be dragging them to court. We're a democracy, we don't just send soldiers after our own.
By joe_mamba 2026-01-1323:12 No offense but you're out of touch with reality if you think that's how a country under existential threat acts, still treating citizens with oven mitts and keeping lengthy bureaucratic due processes for everything.
I think this type of idealistic fantasy world mentality is exactly why Europe has been so ill prepared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
By lurk2 2026-01-1318:56 The Americans often achieve the same ends with different means; use of mass surveillance to account for the threat of open communication, forcing sales of social media platforms to friends of the regime, domain seizures on pirate sites, Know-Your-Customer (KYC) laws, Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws, etc.
The American model is still preferable, but being preferable often gives people the false impression that open communication is a solved problem because they have limited assurances at the political level when what they should be after is more expansive assurances at the technical level.
By snowwrestler 2026-01-1318:541 reply Could you describe technically how it would be accomplished in the U.S.?
FBI agents show up at a few dozen major datacenters with bolt cutters?
Half the internet goes down by accident when AWS or Cloudflare have a big issue every few years.
By snowwrestler 2026-01-1321:132 reply Yes it would not be hard to take down a few data centers or services (just seize their domain) but that’s not remotely close to completely turning off the Internet. There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers.
We also run tons of crucial stuff over commercial links thanks to encryption. Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example.
> There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers.
And they largely rely on a surprisingly centralized infrastructure to function.
> Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example.
Sure, but in the sort of scenario you're considering "take the Internet down", that has already occurred.
By snowwrestler 2026-01-142:121 reply If the government has already been disrupted, then who is taking down the Internet?
No, the goal of “take down the Internet” is to degrade the organizing of protestors / agitators / insurgents, while preserving the ability of government to organize against them. It only works if the government has a separate sufficient infrastructure, or completely controls routing on shared infrastructure. Neither of those are true in the U.S.
To pick just one recent newsworthy example, the federal government does not have a way to deny Signal messaging to their opponents, while preserving their own use of it.
By ceejayoz 2026-01-1520:29 > If the government has already been disrupted, then who is taking down the Internet?
A disrupted regime can still be a dangerous regime. The Islamic State largely couldn't govern, but they could certainly get organized enough to wreck shit.
> It only works if the government has a separate sufficient infrastructure, or completely controls routing on shared infrastructure. Neither of those are true in the U.S.
Maybe it's hopelessly optimistic of me, but I like to think the giant organization that includes FEMA has some plans for what to do if the internet isn't available.
> To pick just one recent newsworthy example, the federal government does not have a way to deny Signal messaging to their opponents, while preserving their own use of it.
But could they survive without it? Probably. The protocol is open source.
By 627467 2026-01-141:34 The "internet" is different things to different people. For the masses: if you take down the datacenters - or more easily coerce the leadership of the magnificent 7 you effectively turn of the internet for most people
By pianopatrick 2026-01-1319:001 reply My guess is that in Ukraine the Russian EW systems are deployed tens of kilometers back from the line of contact to protect them from artillery strikes and fiber optic drones. These Russian EW systems are likely used to protect command posts and logistics bases but not the line of contact.
But because Iran is not yet an active war zone the Iranians can deploy those systems close to the cities.
Also, Starlink terminals can be located via their RF emissions. So using a Starlink terminal in Iran seems to come with a high risk that security forces can locate and arrest you.
By tucnak 2026-01-1319:12 > Also, Starlink terminals can be located via their RF emissions.
Starlink terminals use highly-directional antennas that point at the sky (see. beamforming) and therefore they don't leak much in terms of RF emissions. So unless you can afford to maintain a host of overhead drones on permanent rotation and wide-area coverage, it would be very hard to actually locate anybody. Not that it's impossible, but largely intractable at scale. We use Starlink a lot in Ukraine, and even though the russians have platforms with sophisticated signal processing capabilities (think Xilinx RFSoC) perfectly capable of locating emissions from most communication equipment, they are still unable to locate Starlink terminals. And this is along the frontline, mind you. To cover all of Iran would surely be prohibitive.
By ceejayoz 2026-01-1318:55 > Still wonder how exactly they are interdicting Starlink…
It's an active transmitter actively shouting "I'm here!" to the right gear.
IIRC, the Ukrainians found it's best to have a nice long wire between you and the terminal for this reason.
In addition to jamming the radio signals directly, Starlink terminals use GPS, so jamming GPS can hurt connectivity. Iran has been jamming GPS in an effort to reduce the effectiveness of foreign military attacks, but maybe they've stepped it up a notch in the past week. People in Ukraine are probably so accustomed to GPS jamming that they've all gone to Advanced -> Debug Data -> "Use Starlink positioning exclusively".
Ukraine has one other advantage: The jamming tends to come from one direction. If you set up a barrier on that side of the antenna, the signal from the satellites is less likely to be drowned out. People in Iran have no idea where the jammers are in related to themselves. If they're in a city, they might be surrounded.
Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies, so it's quite possible for governments to find the terminals and confiscate/destroy them. Still, it's a lot more difficult to shut down than a few fiber optic lines.
By Aloisius 2026-01-1322:34 > Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies
That's not quite true. You can conceal the terminal using a number of materials that won't significantly interfere with the signal like a thin piece of cloth or a thin plastic bag (like a garbage bag) as long as the cover doesn't get too wet.
By stuffn 2026-01-1319:19 The west would cut the internet the second shit got real. No question.
Europe is already flirting with it. Look at their draconian internet speech laws. If you think that ISPs would try to stand up to the government you should read about how quickly they bent over after the PATRIOT act.
By epolanski 2026-01-1318:55 To be fair though, the web can heavily and easily be flooded by foreign actors like the US in case of Iran.
It's naive to think that our countries don't play the influence and propaganda war online.
> Still wonder how exactly they are interdicting Starlink
a good cyberwarfare attack would be disabling whatever is being used to prevent Starlink from working. Even if it only lasts for 12 hours the flood of images, video, and just general communication from inside Iran to the world would be a blow to the regime.
By niemandhier 2026-01-1319:05 In Germany we have the Bundesnetzagentur an agency that drives around and measures the power of your WiFi. If its to high you get fined, and they really do manage to triangulate you.
I would guess the Iranian government is capable of at least the same: Triangulating specific radio frequency sources.
By parentheses 2026-01-1318:463 reply To be fair, shutting down all communications and power are our only defense against a runaway AI system.
This is a capability that makes sense to have to use when absolutely necessary.
I think the differentiator is always when governments choose to employ these things.
By Unfunkyufo 2026-01-1318:54 > This is a capability that makes sense to have to use when absolutely necessary.
I definitely disagree with this. Currently there is no reason to believe we'll ever have sentient AI, or AGI or whatever term you prefer, much less a runaway one. There is definitely reasons to worry about governments using this power in an era of increasing authoritarianism, I mean we're talking about this because it is literally happening right now to cover up a massacre.
I don't want the power to turn off all communications to exist, because I don't want my political enemies to have it if they win an election.
By gbnwl 2026-01-1318:49 > shutting down all communications and power are our only defense against a runaway AI system
Wouldn't a centralized ability to shut down all communications and power also be one of the most vulnerable targets to an runaway AI attack though? Seems like a double edged sword if I've ever seen one.
By fennecbutt 2026-01-1318:48 Eh if you're gonna go that far with your logic then a runaway AI system intelligent and malevolent enough to require turning off the whole damn Internet in a place (or more likely globally, defeating the point anyway) will also be intelligent enough to use alternative means of communication.
RF is rife in our brave new world.
Frankly, we need to get to a place where it is impossible to do shut down the internet in a country like this. P2P and distributed networks might see a resurgence here
By toomuchtodo 2026-01-1318:403 reply Any RF comms can be jammed, you will need ground to satellite laser communications to accomplish this (or you were close enough to a terrestrial free space optics ground station outside of nation state borders a satellite isn't required).
https://spacenews.com/aircraft-links-with-satellite-using-la...
By amatecha 2026-01-1318:47 RF comms can't realistically be jammed across the entirety of a whole country, though, so this is definitely a case of "something is better than nothing", and it absolutely makes sense to establish community-level networking/comms at least.
By SJC_Hacker 2026-01-1318:461 reply Planes can be shot down
By toomuchtodo 2026-01-1318:47 Plane was the test bed for the military application in my citation, the ground station could be ground or roof mounted and camouflaged. As it would emit no RF, you would have to know where to look for it to find it (unlike say, StarLink ground terminals, which are detectable).
If you emit RF in a contested environment as a civilian, you can be found using multilateration (for this context, I assume if you have military comms equipment, you have access to exotic RF that will make this difficult similar to have quick and saturn). SDR networks on the public internet enable this today, as long as there are enough receivers online in an area and you know what you're looking for, so I don't think it's beyond the grasp of nation state actors.
TDOA Transmitter Localization with RTL-SDRs - https://panoradio-sdr.de/tdoa-transmitter-localization-with-... - July 17th, 2017
By fennecbutt 2026-01-1318:49 Eh I don't think there are enough jammers to get everywhere. Otherwise a twinkling sea of laser light house to house repeaters, red stars in the dark is a pretty sounding dystopia.
By hearsathought 2026-01-1318:541 reply [flagged]
...whelp, this thread is gonna get shut down. Everyone was being reasonable, but all it takes is one person to say some out-of-pocket shit like "the country currently massacring protestors is the real democracy" for it to descend below HN's standards for political discourse.democratic states like Iran
And FWIW, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ostensibly a democracy, too. AFAIR the list of openly non-democratic states is quite small: Saudi Arabia, some microstates like the Holy See, and ~6 non-micro "Executive constitutional monarchies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#List_o...)non-democratic states like north koreaBy hearsathought 2026-01-1319:121 reply > ...whelp, this thread is gonna get shut down.
No. It's about iran, so it'll get stuck on the frontpage for a while. If this was about israel, then you'd have point.
> but all it takes is one person to say some out-of-pocket shit like "the country currently massacring protestors is the real democracy" for it to descend below HN's standards for political discourse.
The US has massacred people, even protestors. Are you saying we are not a democracy?
> And FWIW, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is ostensibly a democracy, too.
There is a difference between one claiming to be a democracy and another that actually is. No?
By bbor 2026-01-1319:35 It honestly blows my mind that some people read about a national government killing thousands of protestors in the span of a few days amid a backdrop of decades of authoritarian repression and think "meh, NBD, other countries have done bad things too".
Maybe you remember one of the most shameful, egregious acts of police violence against protestors in America, with 4 dead and 9 injured? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
EDIT: But WAY more importantly, c'mon the HN admins are not super biased. I disagree with them on lots of policy decisions, but implying that they're a secret Zionist influence is goofy. They delete political threads of all kinds with gusto unless it's incredibly important or somewhat tech-related.
By honeycrispy 2026-01-1318:164 reply They cut the internet and gunned down 12,000 protesters. Absolute tragedy. I've been semi-depressed this week just thinking about it.
This is exceeding the scale of the Tiananmen Square Massacre as far as death toll is concerned*
*According to a leaked diplomatic cable: https://www.axios.com/2018/01/05/declassified-cable-estimate...
By ge96 2026-01-1318:28 Like how they always show Mao even with that KD ratio
By adamanteye 2026-01-146:13 I feel deeply depressed just thinking about what happening there and what happened in China in 1989.
The world and ourselves seem to forget. The party and government simply waits for those who experienced the event to get old and die. After that, no one seems to care about it. And they can pretend this never happens.
If they cut off the internet how did this information get out and how can it be verified? There would be video of this kind of thing if it wasn’t just the Americans building support for regime change; I have yet to see any.
there are videos out of piles of bodies in hospital morgues, other videos of live firing at crowds as well as testimonials
according to iranian government sources talking with nytimes there are 3000 dead
> other videos of live firing at crowds as well as testimonials
I haven’t seen any of these and I have been looking.
> morgues
I did find this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2026/jan/12/bodies-l...
It doesn’t appear to be anywhere near thousands, but covered bodies have been put out onto the street, so something is going on there.
By breppp 2026-01-1321:27 > It doesn’t appear to be anywhere near thousands, but covered bodies have been put out onto the street, so something is going on there.
highly graphic:
https://xcancel.com/Osint613/status/2011155652769694033#m https://xcancel.com/Osint613/status/2011136906919362932#m https://xcancel.com/MokhtarGhazzawi/status/20110620873011409... https://xcancel.com/Osint613/status/2011042718768828742#m https://xcancel.com/Vahid/status/2011062943043969235#m https://xcancel.com/Vahid/status/2010367357865136363#m
Phones aren't blocked I guess, only internet is, but I agree with the sentiment that you should never believe any number you see.
By wojciii 2026-01-1319:39 Phones are blocked as well.
This is a total communication blackout.
By tibbydudeza 2026-01-1318:212 reply Unverified though - people are saying more in the range of 2000.
PS
In Islam they don't do cremation and burial is within a day before next sunset hence the horrible footage of hospitals releasing bodies publicly in the street - it is part of their faith and even the regime respects it.
By Aryezz 2026-01-1318:59
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/about-2000-killed-...Around 2,000 people were killed in Iran protests, an Iranian official told Reuters on Tuesday, blaming "terrorists" for the deaths of civilians and security personnel.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/world/middleeast/iran-pro...A senior Iranian health ministry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said about 3,000 people had been killed across the country but sought to shift the blame to “terrorists” fomenting unrest. The figure included hundreds of security officers, he said. Another government official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he had seen an internal report that referred to at least 3,000 dead, and added that the toll could climb.
By 2OEH8eoCRo0 2026-01-1318:491 reply It's interesting how nobody was skeptical of casualty estimates in a different recent conflict but suddenly we need verification.
By mhb 2026-01-1319:35 [flagged]
