Even though the internet does not stop bombs or regimes, it is interesting how countries now stop the internet and or cell phone service in a country when a demonstration or revolution takes place.  For example, the Libyan government, who owns the cell phone and internet service provider companies, shut off these services during the protests.  This is the same action that the Egyptian government tried to do which only incited the protestors.  Eventually the internet was successful in forcing President Hosni Mubarak out of power and it did so by putting alot of outside pressure on the Egyptian Government.

        So, is it true to think that the internet can topple a government?  This was not the case in Iran.  "But while the manic surrounding the manic Iran's Twitter Revolution helped to crystallize the main tenets of the doctrine, it did not beget those tenets ( The Net Delusion, p. 6)."  The Green movement, a group in favor of the opposing presidential canidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, used social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to help spread the word about their upset and corruption of the 2009 Iranian elections.  Even though social networking was used in Iran it was not effective in over throwing the corrupt government.  After the protests subsided, the Iranian government used the internet against the Green Movement.

        "Passport control officers at Tehran's airport asked Iranians living abroad if they had Facebook accounts; they would often double-check online, reagardless of the answer, and proceed to write down amy suspicious-looking online friends a traveler might have (The Net Delusion, p.11)."  The Iranian government then came out with a statement that if people were caught with anti government based information on their Twitter or Facebook page's that they would be arrested and tried by the Judiciary. 

Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan president, has warned against the use of Facebook and 's security forces have arrested activists who've posted online about the Libyan revolution. 

        Out of the Iran revolution only a small percentage of people were using Twitter.  "98 percent of the most popular links shared on the site during that period were Iran-related.  It's just that the vast majority of them were not authored or retweeted by those in Iran" (The Net Delusion, p. 15 ).  According to Vahid Online, a prominent Iranian blogger and activist, said that many were led to believe falsely that Iranian people were also getting their news through Twitter."

        So if the number of people protesting online inside a country are a very few percentage and if the Iranian government was not toppled, then why has Libya for example shutdown the internet and arrested activists for anti government content on Facebook?  We could look at what is being transmitted but the real answer here is that the internet is causing external pressure from the mass media which is causing internal pressure in Libya.  Gaddafi is afraid of excessive pressure from outside forces and being toppled as what happened to President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.  So shutting down the internet and cell phone service from the Libyan government standpoint seems like part of the solution in quieting the news propaganda.

        "Bizarrely, the irresponsible Iran-related punditry in Washington allowed leaders in Beijing to build credible case for more internet censorship in China (The Net Delusion, p.13)." "On the contrary, most often it's just unthinking acceptance of conventional wisdom, which posits that since authoritarian governments are censoring the Internet, they must be really afraid of it.  Thus, according to this view, the very presence of a vibrant Internet culture greatly increases the odds that such regimes will collapse (The Net Delusion, p.21)."

        It is not that the internet is a weapon against tyranical regims and the promotion of Democracy, it is a way of spreading information.  Even if the information is not true, the damage can already be done once the information is distributed on the internet.  Since anything can be created and distributed on the internet, this is why the internet can be labeled as the perfect propaganda medium that any group, country, or person can use to spread it's message. 

        If Gandafi wants to react by shutting down the internet and making claims that social media is an imperliast conspiracy then let him.  It is just him reacting to the wide spread reach and power of the internet.  In the end, it is humerous how some countries will bad mouth the internet and yet at the same time use it to forward their own agendas! 

        “Control is not simply manipulation, but rather modulation.  One does not simply control a device, a situation, or a group of people; rather, “control” is what enables a relation to a device, a situation, or a group.  “People are lines,” Deluze suggests.  As lines, people thread together social, political, and cultural elements (The Exploit by Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker, p. 35)."

        The first part of this quote examines how control is not manipulation, rather it is modulation and that we do not directly control an object but rather the connection we make to a particular object.  We can look at how Ghadaffi, Libya's ruler, emulates this example of modulation.   The internet was shutdown in Libya to control the flow of information and cool the political temperature in Libya.  According to AllFacebook.com, "Gaddafi warned against the use of Facebook where groups have formed calling for economic and political reforms.  Gaddfai's security forces have arrested activists who've posted online about the revolution."  This is a perfect example of how the Libyan government is working on controlling the internet in Libya. 

        Yet despite the governments efforts, information about the events in Libya are still getting transmitted to different online venues through the internet.  According to eweek.com, "there are a number of alternatives being shared on Twitter for Libyans to get online, such as a free dial-up account provided by organizations in Europe.  XS4ALL, a "hacker-friendly" Internet service provider based in the Netherlands, opened up its modem lines for free during the previous curfew, but there had been no activity from Libya on the account, XS4ALL’s Niels Huijbregts told eWEEK."
So there are outside resources that are allowing the people inside Libya to connect to the internet so that information about the events in Libya can still get out on the internet. 

        So Ghadaffi may have stifled or caused the flow of information to be routed but has he completely shut off or disrupted the flow of information?  According to some journalists it looks like cell phone access was still working several weeks ago despite the Libyan government shutting off internet access and owning the two mobile phone operators in the country.  We can also see that this has still not disrupted the "lines" of communication in the network like what Ghadaffi was hoping to accomplish.  He managed to shutdown the main nodes which control internet access and arrested some bloggers posting an anti Ghadaffi message online, yet he has failed to completely take down the network of conversations or people involved.  This is because it is the network of people not the nodes that keep information flowing.

        If Ghadaffi wanted to completely control the flow of information he would need to remove the key people involved in the networking spreading the information on the internet.  The conversation then spreads through the network were other people pickup the conversation and then pass it along.  The Libyan government trying to shut off access or stop the modulating signal of information is one level of control and the people in the network passing the conversation along is another form of modulation or control of the flow of information.  If the information is stopped at one point or a node is destroyed, then information can still pass through other functioning nodes or networks. 

        No matter how or who tries to control the flow of information, there are still other ways for information to spread as long as the key ties in the network are still functioning.  This is just like a virus spreading if it affects one place or person it can spread to others instantly even if part of the virus is contained.  For example, if we look at @ShababLibya on Twitter this is a Libyan movement inside and outside of Libya which also has a Facebook Page associated with the movement.  We can see that since predefined connections and sites have been established that the flow of information can still exist.  Other resources can be used and if predefined alternative methods of communication have been established (dial-up, cellular, radio communications, etc.) then information can still get out through these alternative channels. 

        Can the flow of information be stopped even though one area of the network has been shut off?  From what we have seen predefined channels and connections are hard to break or destroy once once they are established.  In the end, even if the flow of information is interrupted or changed, this flow can be rerouted using other channels or resources.

        Hasan Elahi was stopped and questioned by Homeland Security when flying back to the United States from a Transience Project.  The reason for his detention was "suspicious movement after 9/11." and he was labeled as a suspected terrorist.  Data on Hasan, like his cell phone records, were anonymized which made his whereabouts unknown which is what had him detained by Homeland Security.  Since Hasan has been tracking his own movements for several years now, he could provide records of his whereabouts to the authorities which prompted his release.

        A predictive algorithm, developed from MIT was used on Hasan's data which failed to predict his movements making him fully unpredictable.  So does this mean that suspicious equals unpredictable?  If a person is unpredictable in there movements then is this an accurate way to determine if someone could be a possible terrorist or threat?  In the MIT study 93 percent predictability was found on all of the test subjects and only 7 percent of the time were a person's wereabouts a mystery.  Based on this study, the predictability of a person's movement is preferred, if not then it can lead to problems as in the example of Hasan and his encounter with Homeland security.

        So is monitoring people's cell phone, debit/credit card activity, and traveling activities a more efficient way to profile people?  We are tracked everytime we use these products so our whereabouts are constantly being transmitted.  So if someone does not conform to leaving a digital trail by using a cell phone or debit/credit card does this automatically make a person a terrorist and is this a just assumption?  What about a persons right to privacy or is this necessary in the war against terrorism?

        People have the right to try and keep their life as private as possible.  From Homeland security's reasoning if people and their habits are predictable then they are not considered a terrorist.  We should look closely at people's habits but not to the point of scrutinizing people due to not leaving a digital trail.  For example, if Hasan does not use a cell phone or credit cards to keep his whereabouts unknown, then this should acceptable.  Instead of interrogating the man to find out if he is a terrorist which I think violates his basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

        Homeland Securities actions do not surprise me since monitoring strange or no habits on a person is the algorithm that most government agencies use.  The same algorithm works with credit card companies who alert cardholders of unusual spending activity which is compared against a person's normal spending history.  I think Hasan is an important example and shows that Homeland Security made a mistake by analyzing his habits or non habits in the network.  Since he showed up as an anomaly, this was a red flag which triggered Homeland Security to stop and interrogate him.  Obviously he is not a terrorist and at the same time this questions the validity of the predictive algorithm.  It could be that this was an isolated incident since the algorithm shows that only 7 percent of the time is a person's whereabouts a mystery. 

        Liberty and False Comparisons, an online article published by James Joyner reflects these times of change:  "The conservative, torture-friendlyWashington Times, declared that “a balance must be struck between reasonable security measures and the maintenance of a free society.” Abu Ghraib was a fraternity prank, but getting frisked at the airport is a sign of, to quote the Times, “Big Sister’s police state.” (Outside The Beltway, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/liberty-and-false-comparisons)  If the predictive algorithm was used before people entered an airport, then the need to screen everyone before they enter an airplane could be decreased. 

        The predictive algorithm is an important endeavor for studying people's habits and even though there is a margin of error, the algorithm is still necessary in protecting national security.  It is easier to justify searching or questioning someone who has unusual habits then it is to stop someone based on their race or religion.  This way an entity like Homeland Security can justify stopping, searching and questioning someone based on their habits and avoid backlash since they did not profile someone based on race or religion.  This form of tracking dangerous individuals is a big step forward in keeping people safe and minimizing the violation of people's rights.  There will always be flaws or margins of error which will be hard to account for and it is in the best interest of the nation state to protect its people in the most efficient way possible.