21 Jan 2026 | Africa, Digital rights, Iran, Middle East and North Africa, News, Uganda
Is it two thousand? Is it 12,000? Is it even more? These are the figures of protesters killed in Iran that have been circulating in the news since last week. We don’t know for certain what the exact number is. To hide what’s happening, authorities pulled the plug on the internet last Thursday and it is still largely off. The move was both desperate and despotic. Without the internet ordinary people can’t organise online, they can’t reveal the true extent of the horrors taking place and they can’t even be reached by loved ones outside the country.
This is not the first time Iran has imposed a digital blackout. Operating their own version of a Great Firewall, nicknamed the “halal internet”, they first trialled a blackout during the protests of 2019. Nor is Iran alone in resorting to this tactic. The Taliban did the same in Afghanistan last September, Israel cut fibreoptic cables in parts of Gaza, Pakistan shut down the internet in Balochistan, India implemented a months-long blockade in Kashmir and Ethiopia disconnected restive regions 30 times in a decade – to name just a few.
Uganda was also without internet last week. The authorities there have cut access before – during the last election in 2021. People were back at the polls last week and the internet was suspended ahead of voting. The government says it’s on the grounds of public safety, to prevent "online misinformation, disinformation [and] electoral fraud... as well as preventing [the] incitement of violence". That’s rubbish. The election is a rematch of the 2021 contest between President Yoweri Museveni, who’s been in power for four decades, and the incredibly popular former singer Bobi Wine (who we’ve interviewed several times, the latest here). Like Ali Khamenei, Museveni is an autocrat through and through. Ergo, information must be controlled. Failing that, information must be stopped.
On the positive side, the shutdowns have their weaknesses. Iran International spokesman Adam Baillie told me they’re still receiving information from Iran, even if it’s a fraction of what it was (it’s dropped from approximately 12,000 clips a day to 400 Baillie told me this week). The opposition has found a major loophole in Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by SpaceX.
In Uganda, where Starlink has been disabled, Wine encouraged supporters to download an app that provides online access via Bluetooth technology. He had this message for his followers last week: “All those in Uganda, who are able to bypass the criminal regime's internet blockade – big up yourselves! Pass around the message. Let everyone know how to do it. They cut off the internet in order to hide rigging and atrocities. Record everything and share with the world. #FreeUgandaNow”.
None of this is a substitute for full, unfiltered internet access, which in 2026 is a basic human right, and in Iran authorities are racing to confiscate personal Starlink devices and jam GPS signals, reportedly using Russian military tech. But when the goal of these regimes is total darkness, even a flicker of light, or WiFi matters.
[Update: Last week, President Museveni was declared winner of the elections. Many have accused him of holding unfair elections. Bobi Wine is now in hiding after concerns for his safety].
8 May 2013 | Digital Freedom, Syria
Syria appears to be cut off from internet access, according to reports from web monitoring groups. Google's transparency report shows that access to its services has been cut off in the country since 22:00 local time on Tuesday. Similarly, web security group Umbrella Security Labs said in a blog post that "it seems Syria has largely disappeared from the Internet." Internet connection monitor Renesys also confirmed the outage last night:
Syrian residents have confirmed that the internet is down to the BBC, but both landlines and mobile phones are still working.
Internet and mobile connectivity was shut down in November 2012.
18 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
George Washington University’s Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute recently hosted an event to discuss the constitutionality and legality of cell phone and Internet blackouts. The issue came to a head in the United States this past August when San Francisco’s public transportation system, BART, shut down the system’s underground cell phone network for several hours to prevent protestors from executing plans to disrupt train service.
The event focused on a central question: Are cell phone and Internet blackouts by government agencies unconstitutional and illegal, absent a declared national emergency? In an amicable debate on the subject, Gregory Nojeim from the Center for Democracy and Technology argued in favor of the premise, while Paul Rosenzweig of Red Branch Law and Consulting argued against it. Both sides emphasized that while they agree on other issues, this is a topic that even reasonable minds can disagree about.
Challenges in applying old law to new technology were endemic. The BART station itself was clearly a public forum, but what about the airwaves and networks that formed the “virtual forum” above the platform? What legal precedents apply? How does one ensure that any regulations regarding future cell phone shutdowns will be content-neutral?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation characterised BART’s shutdown of cellular service as an overt assault on freedom of expression, comparing the situation to recent Internet shutdowns in Egypt:
“Cell phone service has not always been available in BART stations. The advent of reliable service inside of stations is relatively recent. But once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes a prior restraint on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protester or a commuter. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Censorship is not okay in Tahrir Square or Trafalgar Square, and it’s still not okay in Powell Street Station.”
Nojiem agreed with this position, holding up his PDA and declaring “It’s your soapbox and the government is trying to kick it out from under you.” He argued that the protestors posed no imminent safety risk, citing Brandenburg vs. Ohio: which stated:
“….constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
On the contrary, Rosenzweig argued that governments needed to be given wider discretion in controlling cell phone and Internet services. He maintained that preventing government access to shutting down these services is not a “slippery slope to China’s great fire wall” and implored participants to have some faith that the government would in the public’s best interest. BART, he suggested, should have clearly defined, content neutral policies that would allow them to effectively respond to urgent situations.
This argument is supported by the precedent set by Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al. versus Community Creative Non-Violence:
“Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”
This is an important discourse to continue. The BART shut down highlights that, even in a country with strong protections for freedom of expression, there is a struggle to develop a core understanding of how we measure free speech. Mayor Bloomberg recently struggled to develop consistent rhetoric in addressing Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. “There is no easy answer,” Mr. Bloomberg told the press. “But there is a right answer, and the right answer is allow people to protest, but at the same time enforce public safety, provide public safety and quality-of-life issues, and we will continue to do that.”
