DIGITAL LIFE
The morning after a global internet collapse, the world would wake up in digital silence. Without apps, routes, or instant messaging, communication would once again rely on landlines and paper checks. This scenario seems unlikely, but it is technically possible, as a recent data center failure in Virginia, USA, demonstrated.
According to experts interviewed by the British newspaper The Guardian, the foundation of the global network is built on an ancient structure concentrated in a few critical points on the planet. This dependence on a limited number of providers, coupled with extreme weather events or software failures, could trigger a chain reaction with global repercussions.
Much of the planet's traffic and data storage is in the hands of a few companies. Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, and Google together account for over 60% of the cloud services market. This centralization reduces costs but increases vulnerability.
A tornado in Iowa could compromise part of Google's infrastructure. A heat wave in Virginia would affect AWS data centers. A cyberattack on European centers would complete the collapse, congesting data flow to the point of paralyzing key digital services.
More worrying than physical disasters, however, would be a failure in the protocols that make up the core of the network. These systems, which allow computers to recognize each other and exchange information, were created more than four decades ago and have never been fully replaced. A code flaw in a global provider could affect the stability of the network across the planet.
The Digital "Big One"...Among the most feared scenarios is the collapse of DNS services, the catalogs that associate each web address with a physical server. If a provider like Verisign, responsible for ".com" and ".net" domains, were compromised, banks, hospitals, and communications platforms could disappear from the network in a matter of minutes.
Cuts in submarine cables, on the other hand, are more common and less serious. The UN estimates that between 150 and 200 ruptures occur every year, almost all of which are quickly repaired. The real risk lies in the routing systems that control the global flow of information.
In 1998, a group of hackers warned the US Congress of a vulnerability that could "bring down the internet in 30 minutes." Today, experts consider this hypothesis unlikely, but not impossible. A combination of overload, automation error, and a cyberattack would be enough to destabilize the network on a large scale.
And after the collapse...If the internet did indeed go down, no one would know exactly how to turn it back on. There is no central button or global restart protocol. "Nobody has ever turned off the internet after it was turned on," Steven Murdoch, a professor of computer science at University College London, told the Guardian.
For years, a curious story has circulated in the UK: in the event of a total outage, the engineers responsible for the infrastructure would arrange to meet at a pub outside London to decide what to do. No one knows if the plan still exists—or if anyone still remembers the name of the pub.
In 1995, less than 1% of the world's population was online; access was slow, complicated, and expensive for most people. Currently, it's estimated that more than five billion people are online, about 64% of all human beings on the planet. The first billion was reached in 2005, the second in 2010, the third in 2014, the fourth in 2017, and the fifth in 2020, which shows how the pace of growth is accelerating.
Intentional or political interruptions...Authoritarian or very closed-minded governments also often use filters and switches to control what users can access, something that could certainly be replicated on a larger scale. Just remember how the North Korean government controls the flow of information within the nation, preventing the use of social media or access to news sites from outside the country.
During the war with Israel, the Iranian dictatorial regime imposed severe restrictions on internet access throughout the country. The government justified the measure as necessary for national security. This hindered communication and access to external information, and the blockade resembles previous measures used to suppress protests and dissent. But the regime's real interest in cutting off 80% of the internet at the time was to prevent the population from capturing real-time footage of the destruction caused by Israeli bombings...
Egypt took a similar measure during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising to make it harder for protesters to coordinate their activities. Turkey and Iran also shut down internet connections during recent protests. In China, the world's largest national internet market, the network also suffers from state control.
A "kill switch" like this is far from simple to build, especially in countries with high technological development. The better the internet infrastructure, the less likely this is, because there are too many interconnections between networks within and outside national borders to make complete control impossible.
mundophone
No comments:
Post a Comment