Denial - a place in Egypt

History's battles have been fought over many things - land, power, money, religion - but they all contain an element of what's deemed a human fundamental: freedom. The freedom to maintain control over one's own existence.

When we're denied something considered a basic human right, unrest begins brewing, and can build for years before something like a street trader's suicide tips the scales, as it did in Tunisia.

It's impossible to narrow the riots in Egypt down to a single cause, but the demand for freedom is a central factor. Political liberation is key of course, but for a brief period at the start of the conflict, freedom of a different kind entered the picture, after an act unprecedented in ICT history.

Most know the background: inspired by the successful revolt in Tunisia, thousands of Egyptians began to protest against poverty, unemployment and an autocratic government under 82-year-old president Hosni Mubarak.

Calls followed for Mubarak, who has run the nation for 30 years, to step down, accompanied by violent clashes in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. The government's response followed the usual pattern: deploy riot police, use tear gas and water cannons to disperse crowds... it even blocked Twitter and Facebook, which were being used to co-ordinate protests.

But then authorities did something that made the whole world sit up and take notice - it shut down the Internet. Social networking sites went quiet, Internet cafes stood empty, banks, businesses, schools and government departments sat cut off from the outside world. Virtual activity ground to a very real halt.

According to intelligence agency Renesys, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet. This was made easier by the fact that only a handful of providers in Egypt own the infrastructure: Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, and Etisalat Misr, all of which were cut off.

Vodafone Egypt, which is 44.7% owned by the government, explained in a statement after re-establishing mobile voice services that there were "no legal or practical options open to Vodafone, or any of the mobile operators in Egypt, but to comply with the demands of the authorities”.

The fact that a government can deliver such a fatal blow to communication is even more frightening in a world where anywhere, anytime connection is central to our daily lives. We now regard as a basic right our ability to communicate. Realising it can be snatched away so easily is a startling revelation that shakes our fundamental assumptions about the Internet: its freedom.

As frantic attempts to re-establish contact ensued, journalists, individuals and others had to resort to antiquated technology, like faxes and Morse code over the radio, to get the word out. In an era where interconnected, networked communication is taken for granted, we are left almost helpless without it. Returning to outdated modes because new channels are more easily ripped away is a rather sobering thought. That our hands can become tied by the very tools we created to free us.

Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi notes in a recent Reuters report that technology played a central role in bringing activists together and raising political awareness. Facebook for one was a major enabler in both the Tunisia revolt and Egyptian demonstrations, with similar messages now being spread in Syria and Bahrain.

Our hands can become tied by the very tools we created to free us.

Lezette Engelbrecht, online features editor, ITWeb

Sure, political uprisings have been organised for centuries without any of the newfound technologies we've become reliant on. But the fact that mass support can be so quickly and easily facilitated by social networks, with thousands signing up to a cause from home or mobile phones, makes it a powerful channel for organisation.

Given Facebook and Twitter's role in protest activity, governments in unstable political climates are more likely to begin scrutinising these networks, resulting in a generally more restrictive online environment. Authorities could limit or block services on a regular basis as a precautionary measure when trouble is brewing. Iran's government, for example, introduced an Internet police unit last month in an attempt to curb the growing popularity of Web-based social networks, on the back of increased uprisings in the Arab world.

This new form of political intimidation is worrying for all, especially if the Net becomes the battleground on which political struggles are fought - while people can keep away from the trenches and riots, they cannot escape the technological restrictions that affect their life and work.

Never before has technology - social, not military - become so embroiled in the heart of conflict.

While tech companies have been reluctant to get involved in national disputes before, the China-Google episode and WikiLeaks saga have dragged the Net firmly into the political arena. And as Web-based services become the channel for much of the protest organisation, so the companies that belong to the age of easy access will have to rethink their neutral stance.

The big three of Web and social media, Facebook, Google and Twitter, spoke out strongly against Egypt's Internet blackout. With about five million active users in the country, Facebook issued a statement saying "no one should be denied access to the Internet".

Google and Twitter even banded together to create a way for Egyptians to bypass the Internet and tweet via telephone. The speak-to-tweet service provided three international phone numbers so people could tweet by leaving a voicemail.

But while Facebook, Twitter and Google all came out in criticism of the blackout, and could provide tools to help cobble together communication, there is little they can do to force the government's hand.

Unlike previous cases where major companies could exert pressure on a country by withdrawing from it, Google and the like can't do much to bully states into submission. However, in countries where the ICT infrastructure allows it, governments can shut down access to their networks. And as seen in the case of Vodafone Egypt, when the government has a stake in big ICT companies, these firms can actually become partners in denying citizens access, or a tool for propaganda.

Egypt serves as a warning of the downside that comes with social networks' increasing power. It's still early days in the Net and politics debate, but the decisions made now are likely to shape whether freedom of access is a right or a luxury in future.

Practically since its inception, the Internet's openness has been an untouchable quality. But like those other liberties - the right to vote, to work, to own land - Internet freedom could change from something we take for granted, to something we have to fight for.