How the U.S. Became Switchboard to the World

slugo sent in this Wired story which opens, "A lucky coincidence of economics is responsible for routing much of the world's internet and telephone traffic through switching points in the United States, where, under legislation introduced this week, the U.S. National Security Agency will be free to continue tapping it. ...International phone and internet traffic flows through the United States largely because of pricing models established more than 100 years ago... The United States, where the internet was invented, was also home to the first internet backbone. Combine that architectural advantage with the pricing disparity inherited from the phone networks, and the United States quickly became the center of cyberspace as the internet gained international penetration in the 1990s."

Comments

Does UKUSA expand it?

[CRCulver]

James Bamford has written (in Body of Secrets ) about the NSA can depend on the help of other countries, namely the UK, New Zealand, and Australia, to intercept communications for the U.S. What major Internet pipes run through those three countries (well, probably not much through NZ)?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Noryungi]

RTFA: it explains that London is quickly becoming a major hub for European communications. The map is especially revealing in that respect.

The NZ and AUS participartion in UKUSA is quite interesting, since these countries can be used to tap satellite communications. Quite a lot of fiber goes in and out of Australia as well.

Communication interception requires more than access to fiber, and these two countries also provide some much needed real-estate.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Seraphim1982]

There probably isn't much running through Australia either. They have an extreamly poor connection to the outside world when compared to places like the US or the UK.

There was actually a map of undersea cables a few years ago that I managed to dig up.
http://www.news.com/2300-1033_3-6035611-1.html

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[brown-eyed slug]

There was actually a map of undersea cables a few years ago that I managed to dig up.

Why don't you put your powerful arms to better use, and leave our internet cables alone, you insensitive clod!

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Nocterro]

On the other hand, our location makes us a very important satelite ground station. I suspect that's the major reason behind our membership in that treaty, though I'm not sure about NZ.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[wakim1618]

A friend of mine is teaches at a major university in the UK and is in charge of graduate studies in her program this year. After receiving a package for a graduate student who seemed very bright and enthusiastic at the interview, she later received an email that the student will not be coming for reasons the student could not state. Meanwhile there was a large mysterious package for the student that was sent by the same person who had previously sent packages to the department. My friend opened the package and it turns out the person was a stalker. She left a message with the student and was contacted by...

some arm of the US government in charge of protecting US campuses. She was shocked when they repeated back to her all her phone calls trying to find out the source of the mysterious package. The officer who called my friend also had access to her email correspondence with the stalker who had initially presented himself as a philanthropist. The student is American but the stalker is based neither in the US or UK but the officer claimed that they also managed to tap all his phones at several residences in Canada and in the UK. Moreover, the officer told my friend of other related phone calls and emails from other members of her department.

The extent to which the wiretapping powers has been extended from fighting terrorists who would kill thousands of people to a single crazed stalker is shocking.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[mrsteveman1]

I think thats what the 2nd amendment is for......or at least, its your last hope at the moment.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I hear the second amendment brought up in every single thread of this kind. Nuts! What are you going to do, start shooting at US government officials? When ae you going to start?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[kiwipeso]

Yes NZ is important too. We contribute, even though we don't get as much respect from the Americans for our anti-nuclear law. We're about as likely to change that as to go back to mere two party democracy.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[YttriumOxide]

Metered? yes... expensive? Depends on your viewpoint. I always thought my connection there was really well priced. AUD$64.95 a month for 10Mbit down, 1.5Mbit up. (and limited to 36GB a month - 12GB "on peak" and 24GB "off peak". After which, I would be capped to near dial-up speeds (but not charged any extra))

Since I've moved to Europe, I find the prices here for a slower connection to be MUCH cheaper, but if I want something the speed I had in Australia, I'll pay almost much in Euro as I used to in AUD.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[dwarfsoft]

Funny, in most of Australia we still can't get more than 1.5Mbps. So you are in one of the metropolitan areas I assume. Relative to a lot of places in the world, that is still a lot of money to be paying. I have to pay that much to get over 10GB capped (shaped) download on 1.5Mbps.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[1u3hr]

I imagine once Hillary is elected. If she really does implement some sort of national id

Why aren't any of your wackos blowing things up in protest at having their rights violated by Bush?

It's fine for him to lock people up without due process, tap any and everyone's communications, require onerous, useless and intrusive searches at airports, stifle any expressions of dissent in public, and certainly in his presence, declare wars capriciously .... But none of your Constitutional defenders raise an eybrow.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[erroneus]

Believe it or not, the second amendment was intended precisely for that purpose. It's not a question of *if* a government will get out of control, it's *WHEN* a government will get out of control. Owning firearms is one of the last points of defense for a democratic government.

The sad reality is, however, that the second amendment had been beaten to death and there is just about every imaginable exception written into law... some legal, some not, much unchallenged. The government is already out of control and now the only people who have the guns are criminals and the government for the most part. I fear...

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[jackharrer]

Right now I'm paying £24 for 24Mb down, 1.3Mb up. Effective transfer is about 13Mb down as it's ADSL2+.
But they're changing price model and starting next month I will pay only £18.
Everything unlimited.

Australia seems expensive, IMHO.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[gfxguy]

Because that's complete and utter B.S.

I don't like Bush, but like him or not, he's not locking up any U.S. citizens without due process; the debate about enemy combatants and prisoners of war are getting ridiculous... as it is now, most being afforded more rights than they are owed.

They are NOT tapping "any and everyone's communications." Please remove the tinfoil hat, it's clouding your brain.

Also, the cry of dissent being stifled is laughable. No freedoms of speech have been violated, but people like to pretend that free speech means free venue and they can't spout their hatred anywhere and everywhere at any whim; and he didn't just "declare wars capriciously" unless many months of debate and ultimate approval by congress is "capriciously."

I swear, there's plenty of reasons to bash Bush, but this angry nonsense isn't doing anyone any favors.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[tjstork]

Why aren't any of your wackos blowing things up in protest at having their rights violated by Bush?

The perception among the right wing, and really, one that is fostered by various means by the administration to its supporters, is that all of these rights violations are being targeted exclusively towards muslims, so therefor its ok. In our mind, everything that is happening now is playing out as part of a larger conflict between christianity and islam and one that has been going for over a thousand years and now its heating up again. Bush doesn't have to publicly say that this is the case, and even if he denied, because he's one of "our guys", we tend to think he has to say nice things about islam even while the feds are listening in on every mosque they can.

So, if the government is wiretapping phone calls of a US Citizen back to Saudi Arabia or Oman, then yes, that is ok. But if the government is tapping calls of us, that would be a different story. Similarly, all of the detentions have been of islamic people. If the gov't were illegally detaining christians, that would be a different story. But they aren't, as far as anyone knows, or most assuredly the right wing would be blowing stuff up.

Obviously, Bush gets a huge benefit of the doubt because of this, and ironically, I think Hillary is smart enough to push some of those same buttons to and get herself into the holy war club. But, she's actually in a hard place - because if she expands the government, due to her leftist leanings, she's not going to be trusted, and if she contracts it, she's a traitor, because she wants to let the islamic people win. So, for her, really, the best thing would be for her people to signal (and they know how to do it), that Hillary will continue to go after islam... and you know what, Hillary HAS BEEN.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

Well that is mostly incorrect. He may have written a book, and I'm sure it is mostly correct (because there are too many people out there that can disprove any fallacy he writes). Most likely you've summarized it incorrectly.

United States Signal Intelligence Directive 9 prohibits the wire-tapping or voice intercept of the citizens of a country that is hosting US intelligence agencies and USSID 18 prohibits the wire-tapping of US Citizens anywhere in the world or by any entity that is an interest to the US (the UK/NZ/Austrailian agencies). While we depend on the help of other countries, we apply the same rules banning the collection of intelligence on US citizens regardless if we are operating in the UK, or if the UK is acting on our behalf from Germany.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[anticypher]

The article is trying to highlight a long understood concern and uses a few valid point, but the supporting map doesn't look anything like reality. The map is clearly nothing more than a graphic showing voice traffic through the U.S. and England, and excludes all other international traffic. The situation is no where near as dire as the article tries to make it sound, take anything published in Wired with the same degree of confidence as a trashy tabloid.

Traffic in Europe bound for the U.S. and Asia-Pacific does pass through Atlantic facing countries like the UK, France and the Netherlands, but Inter-European traffic tends to pass through continental cities. Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam all pass more traffic than London, and the trend is to avoid the UK loop whenever possible. Europe is a fairly well connected mesh, the UK is out on one edge and routed around whenever possible.

As for Australia, very little fibre runs to it, and nothing runs through it. Telstra and the oh-so-corrupt government (all my Aussie mates are very pro-Oz, and very anti-government, I can only parrot what I've learned from them and my own limited experiences) have blocked quite a few undersea fibre projects that would have opened up some competition. Australia is a nice market, there have been quite a few attempts to get there via the Indian Ocean or South-East Asia, all died in the planning stages when the government insisted that Telstra have all control and all profits. Despite some internal competition, Telstra == Australia and vice-versa. The few non-Telstra circuits are still controlled and approved by Telstra, the ACCC has no jurisdiction over Telsta->International business.

the AC

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Dragonslicer]

and now the only people who have the guns are criminals and the government for the most part. I have several friends that own guns, and they aren't criminals or part of the government. The government, however, owns tanks, planes, and a few nukes, which none of my friends own. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the government had more guns than the general public, but the guns were still pretty much the same on both sides. That is far from today's situation.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

now the only people who have the guns are criminals and the government for the most part

Where did you pull that factoid from? It may be that most criminals own a gun, but unless you are going to call 30% of Americans criminals, then you are way off base.

Believe it or not, the second amendment was intended precisely for that purpose. It's not a question of *if* a government will get out of control, it's *WHEN* a government will get out of control. Owning firearms is one of the last points of defense for a democratic government.

Right, so I repeat my statement: When are you going to start? Again and again I see USA'ians trot out the 2nd amendment as an excuse. "The government is out of control, but it is OK because we have the 2nd amendment!" Every time, it is just an excuse for doing nothing, the Republicans are corrupt and morally bankrupt, the Democrats are no real alternative, and the political system is fixed to disallow any other alternative. But no need to do anything about it, we have the 2nd amendment to keep the government in control! It is the ultimate in procrastination.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[SkyDude]

She left a message with the student and was contacted by... some arm of the US government in charge of protecting US campuses.

Could you please reveal what arm of the US Government protects college campuses?

The only government protection I know of is the US military, and I'm fairly certain they're not stationed on US campuses.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[IWannaBeAnAC]

It may be that most criminals own a gun,

Actually, on second thoughts that probably isn't true. I suspect most criminals in the USA are relatively harmless dope smokers, less likely to own a gun than average.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[1u3hr]

he's not locking up any U.S. citizens without due process

Okay, for one Jose Padilla. Locked up for three years before he was charged. (And whether he "deserved it" or not is not the point. It's "due proicess" we're talking about.) If you guys could get past the Second Amendment, for a moment, how about the Sixth?

They are NOT tapping "any and everyone's communications."

Did you even look at the summary of TFA?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[gb506]

Name another. You lefty moonbats continually gripe about Bush detaining US citizens w/o due process, but AFAIK, more than 6 years after 9/11, Padilla is the only example. One example does not constitute systematic abuse.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Republicans are corrupt and morally bankrupt, the Democrats are no real alternative, and the political system is fixed to disallow any other alternative.

The American government - just one party away from Communism

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[tjstork]

Okay, for one Jose Padilla

He's a muslim. Let me know when Bush locks up a christian like that.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[buck-yar]

A government can pass all the laws they want. It doesn't mean they will be followed. Good men can be made criminals when legislaters pass their laws. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Call me a criminal, but I do what is just and right. If it comes between following a law and saving my families life...

If you're not conviced, do a search on lives saved by guns. Some of the stories make me want to cry. Like the one where a burgler broke in, made the wife and husband lie next to each other on their bed. Shot the wife in the head and let the husband live on purpose. Probably the saddest story i've ever read.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[buck-yar]

That should've been written "some of the opposing stories"

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

He's a muslim. Let me know when Bush locks up a christian like that.

Oh - so beause he's a muslim it's ok to trample his rights. What's next, lock up all the redheads, or atheists, or people who don't vote republican? Sure it's ok because they are not racist white 'christian' Republicans.

Give your head a shake.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Believe it or not, the second amendment was intended precisely for that purpose. It's not a question of *if* a government will get out of control, it's *WHEN* a government will get out of control. Owning firearms is one of the last points of defense for a democratic government.

I really don't understand that logic. What are you going to do - start murdering your elected polititians because you don't like their policies? Then what - you and a bunch of vigilante neighbours try and take over the government? Not likely.

Hasn't anyone learned that throughout history, positive changes to govenments to bring more power to the people have never been by force?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Hoi Polloi]

Europe went through an incredibly destructive war with entire cities laid waste (WW2) and yet didn't feel the need to turn into police states. Two buildings get knocked over in the US by a bunch of criminals and we shit our pants and throw our freedom out the window in the name of security.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[wgaryhas]

What about the American Revolution? That was kinda violent.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[gfxguy]

As others have pointed out, you have exactly one example. But even then, he was acting as an enemy agent.

Not only did I read the summary, I read the article - technical capability to do something doesn't mean they ARE doing it, the government is technically capable of doing all sorts of things they don't because of rules and regulations.

Moreover, if you actually read the article and not just he summary, you'd see it was house DEMOCRATS who submitted a bill that "allows the nation's spies to maintain permanent eavesdropping stations inside United States switching centers. Telecom and internet experts interviewed by Wired News say the bill will give the NSA legal access to a torrent of foreign phone calls and internet traffic that travels through American soil on its way someplace else."

Again, it's the capability; there's always the legality of actually doing it, which is an entirely different issue; and when Bush's FBI is told to use the FISA courts, they'd better damn well use the FISA courts. I'm not making any excuses for Bush. But even in your most extreme imagination, they are NOT tapping "anybody and everybody."

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

While we depend on the help of other countries, we apply the same rules banning the collection of intelligence on US citizens regardless if we are operating in the UK, or if the UK is acting on our behalf from Germany.

Really? What about the recent demand that Canadian airlines hand over all passenger data to the US, even if that flight is not stopping in the US? http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/10/11/uscanada-flights.html Last I checked the US and Canada were allies, although that might change if the US tries to violate our constitutional rights. They tried somehting similar in the EU http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/30/eu-us-passenger-data.html that was shot down by the courts.

If you haven't noticed, the current US government thinks it is above the law and can do whatever it feels like.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

What about the American Revolution? That was kinda violent.

That was a fight for independance of an already established government from another government. It was not a bunch of yokels in a pickup truck with shotguns rallying against their own government.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[apparently]

All of our whiz-bang tanks, planes, and nukes sure are making us win that war in Iraq.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Afrosheen]

Ok, since it's so hard for you to imagine our wonderful government overstepping its boundaries in regards to our constitutional rights under an ultra-secretive, paranoid, neocon administration...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/

Go ahead and google 4th amendment patriot act unconstitutional like I did. This guy's story is everywhere and I'm surprised you missed it. Not only were parts of the Patriot Act and FISA rules unconstitutional, but the man in question, Brandon Mayfield, is collecting a 2 million dollar payday courtesy of Uncle Sam royally fucking this one up.

Moonbats, indeed. I'm glad this happened to an attorney or it would have never been ruled on.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

Handing over flight manifests has nothing to do with wire-tapping and signals intercept, which is what this article is about.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Dragonslicer]

All of our whiz-bang tanks, planes, and nukes sure are making us win that war in Iraq. They (well, other than the nukes) sure did help the United States win the war in Iraq. What they don't help win is a fight against insurgents using essentially guerrilla tactics. If the US government actually felt threatened by a revolution, I would wager money on them using any means necessary to keep themselves in power.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Jarjarthejedi]

"now the only people who have the guns are criminals and the government for the most part"

You my friend are sadly mistaken. Plenty of non-criminal, non-governmental citizens own firearms, I have a friend with 3 semi-automatic rifles (one of which can be made automatic, illegally, with only a twisty tie, he's decline to do that so far), not to mention pistols. As far as I can tell the US has one of the highest armed civilians to population ratios in the world, I've heard many many anti-American insults about how we're all crazy loonatics with guns.

If you really think that no good honest American citizens own guns then you've either been getting your information solely through the media (which considers anyone with a gun a criminal, even if they've never committed any crimes) or you're just plain wrong.

Who modded this insightful again?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[apparently]

They (well, other than the nukes) sure did help the United States win the war in Iraq

Wow. So not only do you believe that what we're fighting in right now isn't the war in Iraq, you believe we already won the war, and now we're just inovlved in some "post-war" activity.
I literally don't even know where to begin.
Since the war is over, you might want to let the rest of the world know. Go! Run along! The war is over!

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Handing over flight manifests has nothing to do with wire-tapping and signals intercept, which is what this article is about.

No, but it relates to gathering of intelligence on friendly countries which you said the US doesn't do.

And wire tapping and IP interception is already occurring in the US on domestic and foreign citizens, or have you not read what the Patriot act is all about?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

Way to take my comment out of context. My comment is completely surrounded by the context of the United States Signals Intelligence Directives 9 and 18. If you knew anything about USSID 18, you would understand that there are provisions for authorized wire-tapping, the primary one being all you need is a warrant issued by the Attorney General. Good luck in getting that. Wiretapping and IP interception is LAWFULLY occuring in the US on FOREIGN citizens. When a US Person (defined as a citizen or a US corporation) is involved in a particular conversation or data transfer, ALL specific references to the identity of that person are removed and replaced with "US PERSON". If you people would spend half as much time researching the oversight that already exists as you do making up half-truths about the Patriot Act, you would have much less of a reason to hate.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

oh and another thing:

it relates to gathering of intelligence on friendly countries which you said the US doesn't do.

I most certainly said no such thing, as that is not true. I said we follow the rules of oversight that are in place. We can collect on friendly countries. Doing so, however, would be a monumental waste of manpower, when we don't have enough intelligence professionals to collect on the current list of enemies. We just CAN'T collect on friendly foreign countries if they are hosting us within their borders (USSID 9). American forces in the UK are not prohibited from collecting signals intelligence on Germany, for example, but are explicitly denied from doing so against UK citizens. Now move those forces to Germany, and suddenly the UK is fair game (but Germany is off-limits). I'm not saying that's right, but them's the rules.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[SpaceLifeForm]

So you allege. You have only regurgitated the same story
that the bush administration has been spinning for years.

Since you provide no evidence, one can only assume that you
are a right-wing brainwashed idiot talking out your ass.

As the U.S. Congress has actually no idea what the NSA is up to,
why should anyone believe you?

And since your uid is seven digits, the odds are even better
that you are just an right-wing astroturfer trying to hide facts.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Your trust in a government that lied to the public to start a war for no reason,then lied to remove rights from it citizens, then told congress that the government doesn't have to be accountable for its actions is astounding. And incredibly naiive.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Well I'm sorry if I'm a little annoyed that a foreign country that I'm not visiting wants to know who I am, where I'm going, when I'm coming back, my date of birth, gender and a unique government ID number. This is a complete violation of my constitutional rights. How would you like it if North Korea insisted that the US airlines hand over this information for every US flight?

Bush, Cheney and their entire bag of warmongering cronies can take a collective good long hard suck of my ass.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

I'm not a right-wing shill. The closest right I get is slightly left of center. I'm not going to fall for your "why should we believe you" game, because if I did post my credentials, you'd dismiss it as an Appeal for Authority. I'll stand comfortably behind the fact that there isn't one US Congressman who has more years of experience dealing with Signals Intelligence than I do. Dammit, you tricked me...

I'm not making any allegations, I'm merely pointing out the existing laws as they are currently written. I like calling out the cynics when they are wrong, because it is fun to call out people who "talk out of their asses" to make their logic fit. There is no allegation, nor any bias behind my claims, as they are easy to vet via multiple sources on the Internet. Reality is a bitch.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

Where did I say I trusted the government? I merely stated they follow the laws that are pointed out in US Signal's Intelligence oversight directives. So you don't like the directives, I get that, but you can't blame somebody for breaking a law when they aren't breaking any laws. You can disagree with the law, but that doesn't make it unlawful. Get it changed if you don't like it.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Rasputin]

"...he's not locking up any U.S. citizens without due process..."

Tell that to Mike Hawash, who was held incommunicado for weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hawash

'They are NOT tapping "any and everyone's communications."'

We don't know this. The "Patriot" Act prohibits people from notifying the citizen being spied upon.

"No freedoms of speech have been violated..."

Ever been detained in a "free speech" zone? No? You must be a Bush supporter.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[stewbacca]

Your constitutional rights? Your Canadian constitutional rights? Is the US legally obliged to preserve your Canadian constitutional rights? Personally, I could care less if N. Korea wanted that info on me, but I also understand there are people who don't want to give up that information. In either case, it is completely irrelevant to this conversation about signals that pass through US switches.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Even as a joke, that's stupid.He's an American - hell, he's in America - he deserves due process.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Who's going to run those tanks? It's not as if you can count on the armed forces firing on their brothers. Besides, nukes have no tactical value and tanks are vulnerable without support from footsoldiers.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I really don't understand that logic. What are you going to do - start murdering your elected polititians because you don't like their policies?

Start shooting state troopers when they go door to door rounding up guns like they did after Katrina. It's not murder, it's self defense.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Maelwryth]

Mate, we have the "Southern Cross Cable". Strangely enough the spec they have on the internet for it is nowhere near what a Telecom engineer was telling me last month, but you just can't trust Telecom, eh? We also have a supposed spy base in Nelson but I haven't seen that one :), and a "whale" listening post run by the N.Z. navy (they get real upset when you drag an anchor around near it....nice fishing though). Other than that, it's all pretty much gumboots down here, mate.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Start shooting state troopers when they go door to door rounding up guns like they did after Katrina. It's not murder, it's self defense.

No, I'm pretty sure that would be murder..

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

Your constitutional rights? Your Canadian constitutional rights? Is the US legally obliged to preserve your Canadian constitutional rights?

Yes, they are legally obligated to preserve my rights through treaties. And what legal right does the US have while I'm on Canadian soil to come in and pass a US law that removes my protected rights? None.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Peter Nikolic]

Question . Does the world SERIOUSLY need the USA and it's internet connections Answer . NO we can do very nicely thank you on our own with our own switches and routers confine the USA to the outer fringes of the Internet and call it the USOuter net :-) ...

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[nightgeometry]

Off topic I know, but aren't you tempted to upgrade to pro, still save money, and get a faster upload speed?

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Think about it - they show up after all services have been pretty much suspended and, without any sort of justification, attempt to take away your means of self defense. They aren't going to stick around to defend you either, so you're basically being stranded in hostile territory with no means of defense. In my mind, this is the same as taking someone's horse - horsethieves are hanged.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[graviplana]

You must be a moron. They can detain people and not tell ANYONE you silly goose.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[jc42]

Hasn't anyone learned that throughout history, positive changes to govenments to bring more power to the people have never been by force?

Oh, I dunno; George Washington and his buddies seem to have been somewhat successful. ;-)

Of course, if you look at the history, it wasn't quite that simple. It never is. In reality, G.W.&Co were rather underpowered, and it really was the British forces that held most of the firepower. The Colonials knew the territory better, and had the "hearts & minds" of most of the population, so a strategy of wearing down their oppressors eventually won out. But still, without the meagre armaments that they had, the Colonials probably wouldn't have won. Their occasional use of firepower was part of what held off the stronger British forces.

All those invocations of the Second Ammendment can seem rather silly at times. As long as the majority of the US population goes along with whoever the two major parties are pushing, it's not too likely that an armed insurrection of any sort will ever do anything useful. You're better off subverting the system from within. The religious fundamentalists seem to have realized this a few decades ago, and they've been fairly successful at getting their guys in power recently. And I don't think we're going to get them out of power by means of any application of the Second Ammendment, especially since George W announced that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" and made it clear that he wouldn't let it stand in his way.

(Actually, he was wrong there, too. It's made of parchment, not paper. ;-)

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[jc42]

The American government - just one party away from Communism

Nah; it's only godless Communism if your political leaders mouth platitudes that include reverent invocations of Marx and Engels (and maybe Mao). If your political leaders' implement the same policies, but their platitudes invoke Jesus and Adam Smith, your country is a God-fearing Capitalist nation.

It's important to keep your terminology straight. But the actual policies and practices of the government don't much matter to much of anyone, as long as you get the words right.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[jc42]

They (well, other than the nukes) sure did help the United States win the war in Iraq

Wow. So not only do you believe that what we're fighting in right now isn't the war in Iraq, you believe we already won the war, and now we're just inovlved in some "post-war" activity.

Actually, I've read comments by quite a number of military people to the effect that we're not fighting a war with Iraq. Their argument is that we in fact won the "war", which only lasted a few days. The Iraq government was deposed, its army disbanded, and the US operated the government.

What we've been doing since then, they argue, is properly called an "occupation", not a "war". An occupation requires totally different tactics than a war. Successful occupations work by co-opting the population into support of the puppet government. But the US government keeps pretending there's a war, and using war tactics. Since the original enemy (Saddam Hussein's government) no longer exists, the victims of the war tactics are mostly the Iraqi civilian population. And they are acting exactly the way you'd expect if an outsider came in and started attacking a civilian population. They've formed guerrilla resistance forces to defend themselves against the attackers.

It's interesting reading such comments from military sources. And it might be interesting to read some explanation for why the Bush Administration keeps doing something so disastrous. The supposed justifications used so far just don't make sense, especially the "terrorism" one. Iraq wasn't a source of terrorism before the war (except by the Hussein gang of thugs against their own citizenry). It is now a danger to the rest of the world, as a direct result of US government actions.

Historians are already starting to analyze this "war" as a major political blunder of historic importance.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[tjstork]

Oh - so beause he's a muslim it's ok to trample his rights .... not racist white 'christian' Republicans

Jose Padilla was a racist muslim. Let's not forget that when he was arrested in O'Hare Airport, he had just spent plenty of time travelling the middle east begging to join AQ so he could blow up white people.

I think, in principal religious discrimination is wrong, but, there is such a long history of emnity between Islam and the rest of the world that the religion bears some special treatment even in the United States. Christians did not declare the war between Islam and Christianity did... Islam did when it kicked all the original christians out of the middle east, marched through Spain and invaded France. Then, they spent the next few centuries pillaging the Balkans all the way through Greece and into Austria. Do read about the siege of Vienna.

Besides, let me ask you this, who gets a fairer trial.... an Islamic person in the United States, or a Jew in Iran...You know what the penalty for converting to Judaism in Iran or Saudi Arabia is, don't you? It's DEATH.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[pnewhook]

I think, in principal religious discrimination is wrong, but, there is such a long history of emnity between Islam and the rest of the world that the religion bears some special treatment even in the United States.

You're confusing Islam which is a peaceful religion, with Islamic fundamentalists which have warped and twisted the religion into an excuse to kill. Fundamentalism is basically evil in all religions, Islam and Christianity included.

Islam did when it kicked all the original christians out of the middle east, marched through Spain and invaded France. Then, they spent the next few centuries pillaging the Balkans all the way through Greece and into Austria. Do read about the siege of Vienna.

You think they started it in the 1500s? What about the crusades where Church sponsored Christians attacked the middle east to drive out the muslims over a period of close to 500 years starting around 1000AD? And it wasn't just muslims that were the target. In the first crusades, mobs would roam the streets in Europe killing anyone non-Christian - mainly Jews.

Lets take something more recent. Hitler was a protestant christian that warped the religion to portray Jesus as a fighter against Jews. And I'm guessing you know what happened next there.

Then there's the Dark Ages, where Christian rule stifled science for fear of death. Even more recent, how about the fight between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland? That went on for decades and killed thousands.

And the current messes in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are all directly related to US foreign policy over the last 50 years. I could go on but I think you get my point.

So don't be thinking the Christians are innocent in all this - there's plenty of blame to spread all around.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[orcrist]

I don't like Bush, but like him or not, he's not locking up any U.S. citizens without due process;

Then you obviously don't dislike him enough:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/11/padilla.decision/index.html
1. U.S. Citizen
2. Arrested on U.S. soil.
3. Has had to fight to get so much as visits from his lawyer, let alone anything so quaint as a trial.

Re:Does UKUSA expand it?

[sydneyfong]

You don't win wars by killing people, you win wars by winning (or killing) hearts.

Either silence people through intimidation, or by establishing some sort of legitimacy so people will not resist you.

Thought that was obvious. You really think wars can be won with tanks? Battles, yes. Wars? No.

Lucky!

[pipatron]

As a Swedish citizen, I feel so lucky that all my communications will be monitored by a government I can not influence through voting!

Re:Lucky!

[Nossie]

thats ok, in 20 years time routing internet traffic through America will be like moving spice through the Khyber pass. We'll just route around your broken ass antiquated technology.

Re:Lucky!

[bjourne]

As a Swedish citizen, you should stop being so stuck up and realize that your government too wants to snoop your email. Which is, I presume, a government you can influence through voting. Reinfeldt sure loves to kiss Bush's ass. Vote right (left that is) next time.

Re:Lucky!

[martin]

cough - same as a US citizen then ;-)

Re:Lucky!

[polar red]

Yeah, we also need a 'democratic' 2-party system ...

Re:Lucky!

[PinkyDead]

Wreck their heads and their servers:

1) Set your signature to "Al Qaeda Terrorist Bomb Pakistan"
2) Attach bad porn 8192-bit encrypted to all your e-mails

Re:Lucky!

[Mr. Shotgun]

As a U.S. citizen, let me just say I'm right there with ya.

Re:Lucky!

[Troed]

The Swedish left isn't any better - the Swedish liberal (that's libertarian for the USians) parties are however. I'd suggest Centern.

Re:Lucky!

[will_die]

It was discussed but with the Euro to US Dollar exchange rate it was decided against.
Frankly I think we should of done it just so we could have local Fritteries.

Re:Lucky!

[da_matta]

As a Finnish citizen, I feel so lucky that all my internet communications will be monitored by a country I can not influence through voting!

Re:Lucky!

[kiwipeso]

Don't worry, your country does watch our entire alliance too. The real concern you should have is with the Chinese hacking into your country and doing damage. We don't do damage, after all we are the Good Guys®. ;-)

Re:Lucky!

[kestasjk]

As a terrorist, I feel so lucky that all my communications are encrypted and that I have nothing to fear from passive monitoring.

Re:Lucky!

[codeButcher]

As a Swedish citizen, I feel so lucky that all my communications will be monitored by a government I can not influence through voting!

Is that the government of the USA you're talking about, or that of your own country? I know a lot of countries where one's vote (when trying not to go the sheeple route) does not count for enough to make a difference to the outcome.

Re:Lucky!

[jamar0303]

And what's wrong with the the Pirate Party?

Re:Lucky!

[jamar0303]

Depending on your definition of "bad porn", it might as well be a terrorist bomb.

Re:Lucky!

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone with a such a strong opinion you are gravely misinformed.
I know you are a troll but I just can't resist a reply, especially since there is a remote chance that some other misinformed people might actually think that you know what you are talking about.

The "leftie" coalition of Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are the ones responsible for pushing the whole surveillance agenda in the EU and later legislating about it in Sweden.
Thomas Bodström, our former socialdemocrat minister of "Justice", is the architect behind it all.
"Vote right (vote left)" ? I think not!

Re:Lucky!

[Troed]

Mostly their supporters :)

Re:Lucky!

[evilviper]

As a Swedish citizen, I feel so lucky that all my communications will be monitored by a government I can not influence through voting!

That's a simple fact of life whenever you make an international call. No exceptions. The other end of your call inherently falls under their laws, which you have no influence over.

The only difference here is that all the anger is getting directed at the US, since it's the 800 lbs gorilla everyone loves to hate.

Re:Lucky!

[pnewhook]

I find it hilarious that they can speak about "true democracy" out of a country where they forcibly disband and criminalise membership of a major political party

You mean just like the US criminalized and forcibly disbanded the Communist party, and how that party is illegal to this day?

'True democracy' includes the right to vote for any party - even if that party removes those rights.

Re:Lucky!

[bjourne]

Not true at all, Thomas Bodström had a similar proposition, but definitely not on the same scale as what the current government (and all coalition parties) are trying to push through. You are the one being gravely informed, it was Socialdemokraterna and the liberal parties that voted in favor of Bodströms previous proposals. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet voted against.

Re:Lucky!

[paranode]

Whatever country it goes through, you certainly can't consider anything unencrypted to be private communication over the Internet so best practice is to encrypt anything personal anyway.

Re:Lucky!

[graviplana]

As a Soviet Citizen, lucky feels ME!

Is it time to build a new internet now?

[Nursie]

I, for one, do not welcome the casnning of my email by the USA, a country of which I am not a part and have no influence over. A country which is proving itself ever les freedom loving and ever more dubious over human rights and the rule of law (as it applies to governments, police, courts and the military).

Meh, guess I'll keep using ssh wherever possible.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[wlad]

They're effectively spying on allies and admitting it publicly as well. There have been times that something like this would have sparked a major diplomatic incident. I wonder for how long the USA keep this kind of anti-social behavior to other countries up.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[Anonymous Coward]

A country which is proving itself ever les freedom loving and ever more dubious over human rights and the rule of law (as it applies to governments, police, courts and the military).

I live in the USA, and see this comment come up more and more. Honestly, I don't think the US is any worse than it has been in the past regarding human rights or rule of the law. In cases of spying on people, it is obviously more easy to do so because of the technology that we have today, but you can probably look back at any time in the US history and find that the government of those times probably abused their power just as bad or worse. Maybe there are a few reasons why things seem worse than they have been in the past. Because we weren't around during those times, we have no perspective? Because of globalization and how information dissimenates so quickly, events are brought to light quicker and more focused? I don't know.

Please don't take this as some excuse I am trying to present as the US government (or any other) having some right to spy on their (or other countries) citizens, or abuse human rights. I think that shit is wrong and it makes me sick.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[Nursie]

I think it would probably be more of an issue if the governments of the allies in question - like the UK for instance - weren't also spying on everything they can and exchanging onformation with each other.

It's like a big law-circumventing trading association. You can't wire tap an individual or set of individuals in your country because they're citizens, you have no legal grounds and your law prevents it? Well that other country over there can because they're not his citizens.

Then you can buy the intelligence from that country (again somehow not illegal) or maybe exchange it for a little info on his citizens that you've collected...

It's a sickening bending of the rules by governments to spy on their own citizens.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[rainsford]

I am not a lawyer, but something about that doesn't sound quite right. If you're right, this would be the first example I can think of where it's legal to hire someone to do something for you that it would be illegal to do yourself.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[10101001 10101001]

Then you can buy the intelligence from that country (again somehow not illegal) ...

Nah, it's illegal. Recall that the 4th Amendment mentions search *and* seizure. Now, I'm sure there's lawyer-types who will try to twist that to mean "oh, you only need a warrant if you want to do both" (just as there are those who twist the "cruel or unusual punishment" to allow for cruel but not unusual punish or the reverse), but it's pretty plainly clear that the FBI can't search a home without a warrant (well, not legally, anyways), regardless of if they seize anything. I don't see how one could rational argue it's okay to somehow seize things if you weren't the one who did the search.

The main point, really, is that intelligence gathering is based upon the fictional "state secret exemption"--aka national security exemption--, something that only came about in the 20th century in the US. Now, one could argue that a national security exemption is necessary. But banning alcohol wasn't necessary, and the US was able to amendment the Constitution to include that. So, it only stands to reason that either there's too many people who don't really feel such an exemption is necessary (meaning an attempt to add the amendment would fail) or enough judges have been put in place with the ideology to allow for the unconstitutional "national security exemption" theory that an attempt to modify the Constitution is functionally unnecessary and would only empower those who realize the illegality of the current system.

PS - Sorry for that short rant.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[stewbacca]

As they say on slashdot...."nothing to see here, move along..."

You are not half as important as you think you are. In otherwords, the NSA and the GCHQ have no interest in your mundane life. More importantly, they have no TIME to monitor your stupid phone calls.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[pokerdad]

I think it would probably be more of an issue if the governments of the allies in question - like the UK for instance - weren't also spying on everything they can and exchanging onformation with each other.

Because USA's allies are spying on their own citizens and USA has access to this info is even more reason for the rest of us to fear the USA. Case in point Maher Arar.

(for those of you not from Canada here's Arar's story in short - Canadian government was watching one there own citizens without any real cause; not knowing he was being watched he booked a flight that included switching planes in the USA; when he landed in the USA he was arrested because US officials knew that the Canadian government was watching him, and he was sent off to a secret prison where he was tortued for 10 months)

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[evilviper]

I, for one, do not welcome the casnning of my email by the USA

Oh? So which country did you want to have spying on all you traffic instead? Just name them.

It's utterly unrealistic to believe there is any country that isn't spying on every bit of international traffic they can get their hands on. At least the US is largely open and honest about the spying (it wasn't a Chinese newspaper you heard about this from...) while other countries either lack the opportunity to spy on anyone, or are just better at keeping it quiet.

Re:Is it time to build a new internet now?

[Dragonslicer]

I wonder for how long the USA keep this kind of anti-social behavior to other countries up. Unfortunately, for as long as the United States has large piles of bombs. The type of person that behaves this way probably won't stop just because a bunch of other people ask them to, and they'll just blow up anyone that poses a significant threat to their authority.

Also unfortunately, the type of person that doesn't behave this way doesn't have the interest in running for federal office.

Re:Avoiding routing packets through the USA

[bhima]

The easiest way is just stop accepting packets from the internet.

Tap away...

[nigham]

It somehow amuses me to think that the United States is spending resources in trying to figure out what I'm saying when I make an international call that has nothing to do with the US. The tapping software itself, AI to detect catch phrases, language experts to worry about translation, AND worrying about the legal issues involved in all of this. All this because my mother wants to know if I'm having dinner properly or not. By all means, tap away.

Re:Tap away...

[Dunbal]

And all the while the US dollar keeps sinking lower and lower. Soon they won't be able to afford all those computer parts made in Taiwan.

I have no particular beef with the US

[Nursie]

In fact I just yesterday landed back in the UK after four weeks there.

My country (UK) is just as bad if not worse with surveilance, but one country having most of the traffic going through it isn't a good thing, IMHO, even if we're just talking about network resilience.

I hate to say it but I have to - if the current abuses (guantanamo bay etc) are not any worse than before then the US really needs to pipe down with this "freedom" rhetoric.

Probably I agree with you in principle - people now are no worse in intent than ever before, it's just easier to achieve what the security state wants to acheive now, and it's also easier to report on all the bad stuff going on.

steganography to the rescue

[wwmedia]

i wonder how much data can be encrypted using Steganography in that infamous Goatse image

CIA can look at a gapping hole all day then for all i care!

Re:steganography to the rescue

[skeeto]

i wonder how much data can be encrypted using Steganography

Steganography isn't really encryption, but it does go hand-in-hand with encryption. Using it without encryption is an "security through obscurity" policy. Plus encrypting steganographic messages decreases their chances of detection dramatically.

I once read about one particular method where you encrypted your message, gzipped the cipher-text, then removed the gzip header bytes (there are just a few of them). Then you hid it in the least significant bits of a picture. With the missing gzip header, detecting if the message even exists is incredibly difficult, unless you have an original image to compare to.

Also, using a well-known image like goatse, while humorous, would be even worse for hiding data because your image would be slightly different from the standard goatse image, of which there are plenty of copies.

Doubtful data

[johnw]

I'd be very doubtful of the information shown by that graph. It seems to suggest that there's more telephone traffic between London and Western Australia, and between the USA and eastern Australia than there is between the two bits of Australia. Even if you accept that unlikely fact, why is that people in Western Australia phone London and people in eastern Australia don't?

I suspect that the graph has been prepared from data which simply shows where calls passing through the USA and London have originated. Calls which don't pass through a few nominated hubs simply haven't been included, which is obviously going to lead to the distorted results shown.

Re:Doubtful data

[teh kurisu]

I suspect that it's showing international data only, data transfers within a country aren't being shown. Notice that the same is true for the east and west coast of the States.

Re:Doubtful data

[johnw]

In which case all it's showing is that the map has been drawn with the USA in the middle. You could equally well draw it with Europe in the middle and it would appear to show the same result about Europe.

The only valid conclusion you can draw from the map is that there's a lot of bandwidth across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This is not a surprise.

Re:Doubtful data

[Eivind Eklund]

The caption says it is only international calls.

Eivind.

Re:Doubtful data

[evilviper]

I'd be very doubtful of the information shown by that graph.

I wouldn't. It seems perfectly reasonable.

It seems to suggest that there's more telephone traffic between London and Western Australia, and between the USA and eastern Australia than there is between the two bits of Australia.

Eastern Australia calling Western Australia isn't "international phone-call traffic" by any stretch of the imagination, so it doesn't qualify for inclusion on that map.

why is that people in Western Australia phone London and people in eastern Australia don't?

No doubt there is a fiber optic link to the UK at the West coast of Australia, and NOT one in the east. So, any call made from the east presumably would be transfered terrestrially across the continent, then, from the western coast, get transferred to the UK.

I suspect that the graph has been prepared from data which simply shows where calls passing through the USA and London have originated.

I suspect you have no idea what the graph is actually supposed to show.

Credit Where it's Due

[allcar]

I am from the UK and I used to use JANET, but I think the Americans do have far more claim to having invented the internet than anyone else. JANET was X25 based. ARPANET used TCP/IP. The WWW (HTTP and HTML) came out of CERN, but that is not the internet.

Re:Credit Where it's Due

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf are you talking about? Coaxial cables, telecoms as a science, routing, protocols, electricity were all 'invented' by different people in different countries. Many parts of the modern internet were driven by USA military but so were many fuck-ups that fell by the way-side. The modern internet is one of the greatest modern inventions and I wish people would stop trying to claim it.

Re:Credit Where it's Due

[kinghfb]

If any one of those systems hadn't existed, we wouldn't have the Internet. It's very arrogant of the USA to claim that they had invented it.

Re:Credit Where it's Due

[t0rkm3]

Not really. If those systems hadn't existed, some other medium that would have been used or adapted. The inertia of a good idea is difficult to overcome. The telephone system showed that communications over long distance was possible... It just had to be adapted to a particular purpose.

There are lots of things that Americans were not the first to conceive... don't be infantile.

Re:Credit Where it's Due

[Fred_A]

Not really. If those systems hadn't existed, some other medium that would have been used or adapted. The inertia of a good idea is difficult to overcome. Quite, absolutely everybody and their dog was playing with packet switched networks at the time. Had it not been the current Internet it would have been some other similar system. It was an idea who's time had come.

Re:the NSA is taping all the PRON packet !!!

[clarkkent09]

Ok, so if all this is true, the NSA is monitoring this post as well. Let's raise some red flags:

Bin Laden...terrorist attack....al qaeda...top secret message...embedded...in...goatse picture...here...nsa don't look....http://goatse.ca/hello.jpg

Please apply common sense

[thesandbender]

Laying fiber across a countryside, much less an ocean requires corporate dollars. Even Gates, Ellison, etc. would notice a substantial hit to their pocket book if they funded a trans-oceanic cable. And, that cable has to be maintained. That cost money.

The point is, your internet communications are always going to in control of someone with a lot more money and susceptible and even beholden to political influence. Get used to it.

Encrypt your data if necessary (99.5% of it is no where near that important) and you're done.

What kills me is that a quarter to a half of the people who are up in arms about this publish their daily lives and personal details on blogs which Google, MSN and Yahoo immediately suck up. Yet it if the NSA wants to know whats going on... they go ape-sh*t. Here's a clue people... I don't talk about my private life on the intertubes... never have... never will.

Re:Please apply common sense

[evilviper]

What kills me is that a quarter to a half of the people who are up in arms about this publish their daily lives and personal details on blogs

People are only too happy to tell you about the things they want you to know. I sincerely doubt people are so stupid that they are posting on the internet the private things they only want one or two close friends/family to know...

Here's a clue people... I don't talk about my private life on the intertubes... never have... never will.

But you do on the telephone, Google isn't listening, the NSA is.

Re:Please apply common sense

[SageLikeFool]

I am no blogger (though I am posting here through only a thin facade of anonymity). However I do feel there is a very large difference between revealing information about yourself that you choose to reveal and having information about yourself unwillingly disseminated to unknown parties.

Just because you talk freely about some parts of your life, does that mean the whole of it should be fair game?

Re:Please apply common sense

[Dragonslicer]

I sincerely doubt people are so stupid that they are posting on the internet the private things they only want one or two close friends/family to know... You don't know many people, do you?

Re:Please apply common sense

[spearway]

Actually I think you are singularly missing common sense.

If the US government start spying on "domestic" calls and email we have and uproar in Congress. If the US listen to foreign domestic conversation i.e. between Canadian in Canada (it does) nobody says anything it is not "domestic" so nobody in Congress cares. How can this be right under common sense?

Don't you think the rest of the world notice that some people are more worthy of others and act accordingly? This is just giving argument to our opponents recruiters. This is one of the worse counter productive measure from the NSA.

Re:Please apply common sense

[jc42]

Here's a clue people... I don't talk about my private life on the intertubes... never have... never will.

But you do on the telephone, Google isn't listening, the NSA is.

And we might note that, outside your local exchange, most telephone traffic now goes via VoIP now. Unencrypted. At least in the US, the phone companies have pretty much completed the conversion to an all-digital system for everything but that wire attached to your house.

So if you hear some politicians or telco execs talking about only monitoring and/or filtering/shaping/censoring "computer data downloading", you should understand that this includes your phone calls. Phone calls are now just data, passed around from computer to computer and finally to your ear.

The NSA has their own FAB

[jimmydevice]

The NSA has a 200000Sq/ft FAB. No doubt equipped with gear that intel process geeks lust over. Except for glue, I doubt the NSA is going to run out of parts.

Re:The NSA has their own FAB

[nyekulturniy]

The NSA, by the way, is getting an increased security presence outside the post. The Anne Arundel County police continually station police cars on Route 32 to discourage people from slowing down or stopping around the NSA. Of course, they also help catch the drunks doing 90 on Route 32 on Fridays and Saturdays.

Re:The NSA has their own FAB

[Wowsers]

When Japan and China recall all the loans made to the USA, let's see who's economy will turn into a carbon copy of what happened to the USSR.

Re:The NSA has their own FAB

[AndroSyn]

When Japan and China recall all the loans made to the USA, let's see who's economy will turn into a carbon copy of what happened to the USSR.

Not only would the US economy go that way, but the economies of China, Japan, Europe and well pretty much everywhere. It would likely make the Great Depression look like nothing..

Re:Avoiding routing packets through the USA

[Njovich]

Just check for the evil bit?

Having said that, I live in the Netherlands. I don't really see much reason to trust my own government any more than the US gov with my voice/data. If you're going to make super-secret communications, just don't send them unencrypted over a vast and dangerous network.

Re:"invented"

[johnw]

"The United States, where the internet was invented" I don't know why you query this - the Internet undoubtedly was invented in the USA.

Of course you need to be careful not to muddle up the Internet and the World Wide Web as journalists so often do. The web was invented in Switzerland.

Switchboard for whom?

[bjoeg]

As european most of my european, russian and asian traffic rarely goes over US lines, maybe through US companies but still routers placed in Europe.

But Mr. NSA, if you really wanna listen in, could you please remove the spam for me?

Re:Switchboard for whom?

[arivanov]

Most of "your" traffic does not. All of your data does.

Due to the very low capacity available on the direct Eu to India route around the Arabian peninsula most traffic between EU and India traverses USA. Considering how much of your data processing is being outsourced you can guess from there on.

Which reminds me, frankly, the data EU commissioners should start requiring compliance statements for all transit communication traffic, not just processing entities abroad the way they do now.

Re:Switchboard for whom?

[Tuoqui]

I dont know I think the Russian Mafia is doing a pretty good job.

Yes I know its probably fake. Still amusing though.

Where's my pen? Ah, yes...

[Kamineko]

"Subject does not talk about his private life on the intertubes... never has... never will."

Advanced Technology in the hands of Religion

[Zombie Ryushu]

This will continue as long as large numbers of religious leaders and religious voters continue to run the country. You have to understand that about half this country believes that we are in a religious war to defeat an unholy enemy and that on both sides of this religiously motivated war will do whatever it takes to win. This applies just as much to the Islamic fanatics of the Wahabi in Saudi Arabia, as it does to the Christian fanatics that are prevalent in the US Military such as Peter Pace, and Congress, like Orrin Hatch.

Do understand something about Christianity though. Keep in mind, I am a Secular Aignostic. I don't believe in Christian doctrines.

In the Bible, God didn't come down and be selected by two thirds majority. In the Bible, The ten commandments aren't Ten generally considered good ideas, they are commandments. To this end, A cataclysmic impass has occurred.

Whether God exists is sorta irrellevent to the discussion sadly.

All these doctrines call for the ahnialation of all the others. Now how people implement the philosophies may vary, and some interpretations cherry pick and are benign enough to be tolerant. But the doctrines are not Tolerant. Tolerance would be seen as weakness in the tone these doctrines and allow them to be undermined. So the doctrines in their purest form call for the suppression of all freedoms and the extermination of competing ideas. Christian people can be very tolerant. but the actual religion itself is incapable of being tolerant. The same is true of Islam. The doctrines are written in a depressingly genocidal way.

Well, why is this important to whats going on now? Well. we now have U.S. Style Jeffersonian democracy vs. Christianity. For doctrines like Christianity in our case and Islam in theirs, Jeffersonian Demoracy and Christianity are incompatible. In the U.S. enough Americans chose Jesus over the Constitution. There were enough Americans who felt that following the dictates of their God was so important that they put people in power who believed as they did that religion was simply more important, and were willing to cast the constitution aside. The prevailing sentiment was there was "Too much Freedom, not enough God" Christian doctrine is such that things like Freedom of speech, privacy, etc cannot be tolerated because they undermine the religion. As long as the US loves God/Jesus more than Freedom, no one will have freedom, because in both the Bible and the Quran, no one has any freedom.

We get the privilige of living in a freer society only when times are peaceful, and the religious doctrines can be safely "ignored for convienence". Because part of being free means you are free Not to follow the religion's wishes. As such, Religions like Christianity and Islam, and liberal free society are fundamentally incompatible. We elected leaders who ascribe to this, so our freedoms, such as our private telephone conversations are going to be monitored to keep an eye on the population of 'good Christians'. It doesn't end there. Thats just the tip of the iceburg

Re:Advanced Technology in the hands of Religion

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Thats just the tip of the iceburg
Ice castle? didn't realize they had tips.

Re:Advanced Technology in the hands of Religion

[servognome]

This will continue as long as large numbers of religious leaders and religious voters continue to run the country.

Democracy sucks when you are in the minority.

You have to understand that about half this country believes that we are in a religious war to defeat an unholy enemy and that on both sides of this religiously motivated war will do whatever it takes to win.

You have to understand that the same level of animosity can be dictated by secular ideals - fight the tyrannical dictatorship for democracy, or defeat the evils of communism so people can be free.

So the doctrines in their purest form call for the suppression of all freedoms and the extermination of competing ideas.

I think you mean in their extremist form. Religion is like any other philosophy, unprovable and incompatible with conflicting ideas as it just has to be accepted. Ultimately how the individual accepts the philosophy and deals with those who do not agree is what is important. Libertarian extremists are just as likely to blow up a building in the US as Islamic extremists.

There were enough Americans who felt that following the dictates of their God was so important that they put people in power who believed as they did that religion was simply more important, and were willing to cast the constitution aside.

Lincoln and FDR both ignored the Constitution (according to strict contructionists) yet have been hailed as great leaders. People are more willing to follow a leader who shares their ideas than an old piece of paper.

As such, Religions like Christianity and Islam, and liberal free society are fundamentally incompatible

Yet oddly enough, the liberal free US society was established almost exclusively by Christians. It's not about religion, it's about the leaders. Some can downplay their religion and lead from a fair secular view, others allow religion to completely dictate their actions.

Re:Advanced Technology in the hands of Religion

[sentientbrendan]

>Democracy sucks when you are in the minority.

It's a good thing then that the US is *not* a democracy, where the majority rules, but a republic, where the *law* rules. Try giving the constitution a read one of these days. Maybe you might even want to find out what that whole war of independence was about. It's more than fireworks and tea!

>Lincoln and FDR both ignored the Constitution (according to strict contructionists) yet
>have been hailed as great leaders. People are more willing to follow a leader who shares
>their ideas than an old piece of paper.

First off, the constitution is more than a piece of paper. It is our highest law and our most important statement of principles, and if you can't respect our law and our principles, you have no right to call yourself an American.

Lincoln fought a civil war. FDR got the country through the great depression. How can you compare them so favorably to Bush? Lincoln, on the one hand suspended habeus corpus because he was dealing with a heavily armed rebellion of millions and didn't have time to try all of the captured rebels while the war was ongoing. Aside from that he showed a great respect for the constitution. Bush on the other hand suspended habeus corpus out of a blatant power grab and disrespect for the law. The conflict and the men are in totally different categories.

Also, you should be aware that Lincoln was not a Christian (he was a Deist), and that this was somewhat well known in his own lifetime. In the 19th century extremist versions of Christianity were not nearly as powerful of a force in the US as they are today. Prior to the 20th century there were quite a few non Christian presidents. Religiously, the founding fathers especially were a mixed bag. Really, extreme forms of Christianity only came to power in the states during the cold war as a means of distinguishing ourselves ideologically from our communist enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deists

>Yet oddly enough, the liberal free US society was established almost exclusively by
>Christians.
This is blatantly false, as I have just mentioned. Various forms of Christianity, most vary different from those practiced in America today, have been highly prevalent since colonization; however, until the 20th century many important statesmen were Deist. Christian leaders often try to give the impression that secular power is on the rise and must be combated, but this is historically false as it is extreme forms of Christianity that moved into the foreground and pushed secular ideals out of the way during recent decades.

>It's not about religion, it's about the leaders. Some can downplay their
>religion and lead from a fair secular view, others allow religion to completely dictate
>their actions.

Generally the first kind are the better sort of leader. Anyone who has studied any history knows that a politician who cannot put practical concerns ahead of religious concerns is headed for a fall. The whole history of Europe is a lesson in why secular leaders (whether they be religious in private or not) are a good thing and leaders who try to let the bible run the country inevitably lead to factional infighting. If you can't make rational arguments about policy, then there is no way to build consensus, and if there is no way to build consensus, you'll inevitably be drawn into a civil war. The remarkable power of a secular leader is the power of compromise, and the ability to accept when they have been proven wrong.

Re:Advanced Technology in the hands of Religion

[servognome]

It's a good thing then that the US is *not* a democracy, where the majority rules, but a republic, where the *law* rules.

A republic with democraticly elected institutions that allow fundamentalist leadership to take power when the majority supports it.

Try giving the constitution a read one of these days. Maybe you might even want to find out what that whole war of independence was about. It's more than fireworks and tea!

The Declaration of Independence is a better indicator of the reason why the US war of Independence was fought; the Constitution was written as a series of compromises and fixes when the first government the US tried to establish failed. If you look at the declartation, it mentions "God" and "their Creator."

First off, the constitution is more than a piece of paper. It is our highest law and our most important statement of principles, and if you can't respect our law and our principles, you have no right to call yourself an American.

It is an idealistic document. I don't argue that it is an important statement of the principles of the country; I'm just mentioning that when push comes to shove the masses will always choose safety over ideals.

Lincoln fought a civil war. FDR got the country through the great depression. How can you compare them so favorably to Bush? Lincoln, on the one hand suspended habeus corpus because he was dealing with a heavily armed rebellion of millions and didn't have time to try all of the captured rebels while the war was ongoing. Aside from that he showed a great respect for the constitution. Bush on the other hand suspended habeus corpus out of a blatant power grab and disrespect for the law. The conflict and the men are in totally different categories.

The fact is that Lincoln & FDR both violated the Constitution, and the same "power grab" arguement was used by those who disagree with them during their eras. If the Constitution truly is the highest law, it should not be violated for any reason. Again I get back to the point that people want stability and safety over all else, which allowed Bush to use the "War on Terror" in the same way Lincoln used southern seccession, and FDR used the great depression & WWII.

In the 19th century extremist versions of Christianity were not nearly as powerful of a force in the US as they are today. Prior to the 20th century there were quite a few non Christian presidents. Religiously, the founding fathers especially were a mixed bag. Really, extreme forms of Christianity only came to power in the states during the cold war as a means of distinguishing ourselves ideologically from our communist enemies.

Perhaps you should read up on the "Great Awakenings," and how such religious movements resulted in new laws, reformation of government, and establishment of new institutions. Religion has always played a major role in US politics.

This is blatantly false, as I have just mentioned. Various forms of Christianity, most vary different from those practiced in America today, have been highly prevalent since colonization; however, until the 20th century many important statesmen were Deist. Christian leaders often try to give the impression that secular power is on the rise and must be combated, but this is historically false as it is extreme forms of Christianity that moved into the foreground and pushed secular ideals out of the way during recent decades.

Many of the founders of the US were Deists as well as following a mainstream Christian religion. It demonstrates their ability to temper various views, and follow their own philosophies. Such temperance has been under attack by fundamentalists throughout US history, read up on 19th century politics.

Generally the first kind are the better sort of leader. Anyone who has studied any history knows that a politician wh

And if you were discussing marketing information?

[Colin Smith]

Pricing of products, plans for entering markets in the US etc? You're not concerned that information might make it into the hands of your competitors?

Re:"invented"

[SlashDread]

Fine. You can have TCP/IP. Can we have the WWW back?

Its this stupid "We invented it" mentality that is horribly twisted thruths, that makes US people behave like overlords all the time.

Get a grip, complex technologgy isn't invented, hasnt been invented in this case, and sure as hell doesn't deserve the qualification "invented in the US".

Invented in America

[WK2]

The United States, where the internet was invented by Al Gore.

There. Fixed it.

So be it

[excelsior_gr]

I'm not an American citizen, but I really don't care about being tapped. I have nothing to hide, and if I ever get criticized or ever prosecuted for my ideas or ideals, then so be it. There are many like them, but these ones are mine.

Re:So be it

[Marcus Green]

How much do you earn each year?

Re:So be it

[andy.ruddock]

Might as well just lie down and roll over then.

Re:So be it

[Qzukk]

I have nothing to hide

You don't? Then you probably shouldn't discuss kicking puppies, stealing candy bars and downloading music on the phone. You don't do any of that? Well, I've got a wiretap transcript that says you do, but you're not allowed to see it because of national security reasons. Who are they going to believe, you or the government?

Re:So be it

[excelsior_gr]

Such claims don't even need a wiretap.

Re:"invented"

[toQDuj]

These days, an invention is more like who came up with it first. If you don't publish it first, there's undoubtedly someone sooner or later that thinks along the same lines.

Re:Invented in the US?

[shortscruffydave]

And don't forget the French Minitel system.

That map is highly misleading

[mbone]

That map is highly misleading, at least for Internet traffic - it shows usage, not topology.

It used to be, in the beginning, that most Internet traffic went through the US, as links were leased lines mostly to / from the US. Now, it mostly follows the fiber. (Most of the global undersea fiber, BTW, is owned by two Indian companies, Reliance and VSNL.) Most Japan / India traffic, for example, or Japan / Austrialia traffic, will never touch the US. Ditto Middle East / Japan or Middle East / India, or Europe / India or Europe / Middle East. Only for Europe / East Asia or Australia / Europe is there a good chance (not a certainty) that you will be routed through the US.

Of course, all of this is based on where the fiber goes, and your milage may definitely vary - ISPs don't always do the most sensible thing. As an example, 3 days after 9/11 a major ISP lost their connection between France and Germany, as it turned out that they were routing that traffic through a New York telco hotel, which went down when the generators ran out of diesel fuel. I was told that there was no institutional memory in the ISP that this was being done, and it made no sense from a fiber topology standpoint, but there it was.

Re:That map is highly misleading

[johnw]

As an example, 3 days after 9/11 a major ISP lost their connection between France and Germany, as it turned out that they were routing that traffic through a New York telco hotel, which went down when the generators ran out of diesel fuel. I was told that there was no institutional memory in the ISP that this was being done, and it made no sense from a fiber topology standpoint, but there it was. This things often happen purely as a result of expediency.

I recall many years ago when I was working in Melbourne we needed some terminals on the 3rd floor of the building (it was a telephone exchange) connected to a computer on the 2nd floor. Alas, there was no spare electric string between the two, but a simple solution to the problem was found - just put a stat mux in each room and route the connections via Tasmania! It worked - don't knock it.

Re:That map is highly misleading

[mbone]

Geoff Huston has talked about the early days of the Internet in Australia, where inter-city traffic was sent through MAE-West in California, again for reasons of expediency. I doubt that there is much of that now...

Re:That map is highly misleading

[jc42]

This sort of silly routing happens at all levels. I'm in a western suburb of Boston, and traceroute shows traffic to machines at MIT in Cambridge going via four New York machines. That's a 400-mile, 12-hop trip to go roughly 11 miles.

What's really annoying is that the ping time now averages about 30 ms; a couple of years ago it was only 12. Think of all the wasted time waiting for replies.

Re:"invented"

[Goth Biker Babe]

Packet switched networking was invented in the UK. Milnet was invented in the US. The expansion to the academic community was being mirrored in the UK by JANET. HTTP/HTML was invented by a Brit stationed in Switzerland. The UK domain was created before the standardisation of country domains which is why we have UK and not the Ukraine who had to have UKR. Technically we're also GB since the top level domains were based upon the same scheme as the country recognition for cars. The internet doesn't really have an inventor. It is a combination of various ideas from various people in various countries and has evolved rather than being developed.

Re:Avoiding routing packets through the USA

[cerberusss]

Actually, the Dutch government is one of the easier wiretappers in Europe. Thanks to a few years of economic depression and costs crackdown in the police department, police were forced to use more wiretapping. And now it's very commonplace.

Incidentally, if you're living in NL then don't forget to come to Utrecht this Monday.

From my experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as luck.

Re:Invented in the US?

[dapprman]

Not quite.

my understanding is JANET came about as an experiment to replicate ARPAnet.

As to Cern - that is where html was created (by TBL and his team) to allow data to be easilly shared in a visual manner.

Oh come on!

[maillemaker]

I know it's fun to hop on the "let's hate the USA" parade, but come on.

Does anyone /really/ think that every other country in the world doesn't monitor the communications systems that route through /their/ country?

Re:Invented in the US?

[ValiSystem]

Well you can't say that minitel was an interconnected network. Minitel was just a terminal which dialed up centralized servers, servers that generally didn't communicate between each other.

In the United States...

[Bravoc]

the Internet watches YOU... er, no... wait a minute

Re:"invented"

[evilviper]

Fine. You can have TCP/IP. Can we have the WWW back?

The parent absolutely, positively didn't say anything about somebody owning any technology. Why are you getting so defensive about where some bit of technology was created?

Its this stupid "We invented it" mentality that is horribly twisted thruths, that makes US people behave like overlords all the time.

That's beyond idiotic. I'm sure there's absolutely nobody in the US that feels any more or less justified about tapping international traffic just because some technology was or wasn't invented here.

complex technologgy isn't invented,

By your definition, nothing ever qualifies as invented, except, perhaps the very first tool ever used by humans.

Because of Antimonopoly

[Doc Ruby]

Those original pricing models were set by the government, to compensate for allowing AT&T to operate a monopoly in an essential industry. They were updated to be even more encouraging to attract foreign routing when the AT&T monopoly was broken up. Which breakup was also responsible for the fast, extensive and open growth of the Internet.

If AT&T had run its monopoly without government intervention to protect people and markets, the domestic infrastructure wouldn't have been so attractive.

Which makes the current recoup by AT&T of nearly all its monopoly such an obvious threat. And its secret collusion with its only competitor, Verizon, to wiretap us such an obviously perverted government role in assembling a cartel. And making selective prosecution of Qwest, because Qwest refused to collude with the cartel, one of the worst crimes (not involving torture or killing, at least as far as we know) that Bush has committed against us.

We got those privileges because we kept our telecom monopolies under control, and our government in the service of protecting the people. Now that Bush has reversed that system, egging on monopolies to use them against the people, our entire system is a nightmare.

Hear that, AT&T?

Re:"invented"

[alan_dershowitz]

And if inventing HTTP had a thing to do with where the first major Internet backbone was built, your post would be on topic.

Better watch it

[HangingChad]

Yes... and The US of A also invented "Democrazy".

Better watch it, or we'll start dropping democracy on your country. Get some! Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat Get some! Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat....

We'll bomb your country into the stone age, invade so we can bring you freedom, then listen in on your phone calls because you sneaky bastards might be harboring terrorists, weapons of mass destruction or Canadians.

Re:Better watch it

[SlashDread]

You know, if half the US population did not indeed respond this way, it would be funny. Now it isnt.

Ratatatat! By Jove, I like Ratatatouille better thank you very much.

Re:"invented"

[LWATCDR]

"Its this stupid "We invented it" mentality that is horribly twisted truths, that makes US people behave like overlords all the time."
You see that is what makes people in the US get their back up.
Overlords? Are you from Europe? If so please look back a little over 60 years to see how a real overlord behaves.
The US is a very large, wealthy, and powerful nation. When the US sneezes the world catches a cold that is just the way of the world. If anything bad happens in the world and the US does nothing then the world screams where is the US. If anything bad happens in the world and the US does something then the US didn't do enough.

A great example is Europe in the 1980s. The Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear missiles pointed at the NATO nations. The US moved missiles of the same type into Europe to counter the USSR. Oh how the people protested the US missiles but ignored the Soviet missiles pointed at them. The US was going to blow up the world. Then the USSR seeing the missiles point back at them decided to that maybe they would hold talks with the US. The US simply said get rid of your missiles and we will get rid of ours. That is what happened. So everybody that was protesting the US missiles where wrong. Putting the missiles in Europe did make Europe safer. These are historical facts but no one wants to remember them. It was Rambo Ronnie Regan that actually got the USSR to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons.
And then there is the UK's debt to the US. The UK still owes Billions of dollars to the US. The UK was in a very bad way after WWII so the US dropped the interest rate on the money they owed the US to next to nothing. The UK still owes the US the money but is in hurry to pay it back. The UK is making more money off investments that they have in the US than they pay in interest so they will just keep that money thank you very much.

So don't talk about the US acting like overlords.

Re:"invented"

[psmears]

The UK domain was created before the standardisation of country domains which is why we have UK and not the Ukraine who had to have UKR. In fact the TLDs are based on ISO3166 two-letter country codes - the UK is 'uk' and Ukraine is 'ua'. There is no '.ukr' TLD.

Technically we're also GB since the top level domains were based upon the same scheme as the country recognition for cars. No, the car labels are separate - they are based on a UN standard, and they don't quite match up to ISO3166/TLDs (for example, the Spanish TLD is ".es", but Spanish cars display "E").

Damn.. ever heard of echelon?

[way2trivial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

the UK spied on the US citizens, (no laws broken) for the US, and vice-versa....

Gore!!!

[Jonboy X]

The United States, where the internet was invented ...by Al Gore, who was subsequently discovered Global Warming and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Science.

Re:Invented in the US?

[Treobrickuser]

As a Korean American, I am getting a bit annoyed with the anti American sentiments spewing out of these posts over a simple fact. First, not all Americans support Bush or the white house. Actually majority of us voted for Al Gore Bush just cheated and Al Gore gave up like a pussy. Second, facts are facts computers were "invented" "created" or whatever in AMERICA as with internet. The "inventors or creaters" were probably 99.99999% descendents of Europeans(happy?)but American citizens. But then again, it is kinda fun to bash Americans...but come on enough is enough!

Re:"invented"

[Goth Biker Babe]

Yes but I think uk predated ISO3166. The standard is different because it took account of necessary changes.

Re:"invented"

[SIIHP]

"Its this stupid "We invented it" mentality that is horribly twisted thruths, that makes US people behave like overlords all the time."

I think it's more your "I have low self esteem" mentality that makes you think Americans behave like overlords.

We really don't care about you. Not one bit.

Re:"invented"

[psmears]

Yes but I think uk predated ISO3166. Are you sure? As far as I can make out, ISO3166 two-letter codes date from 1974, whereas Janet and the DNS both date from the early eighties. Not 100% conclusive, I admit—can you find a souce that dates "xxx.uk" (or "uk.xxx" ;-) to the early seventies?

Hierarchy is inheritant in IP alts are possible

[watermodem]

Hierarchy is inheritant in IP and DNS but alternate schemes are possible.
Hierarchy implies that there are key points to tap.

Meshes and other topologies are quite workable BUT if more than one path exists from "A" to "B" taping becomes more problematic and nation states tend to get upset.

Consider a water system. With grid layouts the water can take many paths from "A" to "B". The IP basis of the Internet as currently designed doesn't lend itself to such alternatives. In most cases only ONE PATH is permitted.

So, key on alternatives for DNS for a second and play some what-ifs.

Example - multi-hierarchy with no DNS

Say you need an unique address but don't want to get your name from some server or have a registry (something that implies some sort of hierarchical structure).

What is needed: Some number that can locate your device.
That number should contain a key for your provider (so you can hit the proper network) or some sort of wireless channel
and something for location within the provider space AND
do all this without a DNS type service and be unique

One interesting way to generate this on chip would go something like this:
GPS, to get a world surface coordinate
altimeter to get an altitude (you might be in an apt. complex or the device be part of a stereo stack)
a random number (in-case more than one device is within the GPS/alt/carrier resolution)
a carrier number to represent the carrier (sbc etc..)
Then some alg. to put all these numbers together into a nice IP like ID.

When the device it turned on it might or might not register with its carrier.
If the device is mobile and the carrier is wireless the information would help the carrier in maintaining paging tables for the device... as the device number changed with movement.

Either way you end up with a geographic divide and conquer to access the device and short cuts are possible between nets.
In addition it opens the way up for geographical meshes and solids instead of binary tree hierarchies.

Tapping would be much much tougher.
Multipath would be a speed multiplier too.

Religion, society and intolerance

[porpnorber]

All these doctrines call for the ahnialation of all the others. Now how people implement the philosophies may vary, and some interpretations cherry pick and are benign enough to be tolerant. But the doctrines are not Tolerant.

I'm sorry, but this is purest FUD.

Speaking for Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth was asked what the primary teaching of his religion was. And he said, first, love God; second, love your neighbour. Everyone who has spent any time in a church has heard this and knows this. Anyone preaching hate and destruction is self-consciously lying if they claim to be a Christian. And this view is not a matter of, as you say, cherry-picking; it is purely a question of putting Jesus' explanation of his teaching ahead of some of the material from the background reading sections of the bible, or the self-educated views of Fred Q. Warmonger at the Full Gospel Church of Death down the street.

You speak of the Ten Commandments, one of the core components of the religion of Jesus' upbringing. Here we go: (1) you may yourself have no other gods; (2) you may make no idols; (3) no swearing; (4) respect the sabbath; (5) honour your parents; (6) do not murder; (7) do not steal; (8) do not slander; (9) do not covet property; (10) do not covet persons. Now, I can see a way to read (1) and (2) as opposing nationalism; I can see a way of reading (6) and (7) as opposing war; I can see a way of reading (9) and (10) as opposing imperialism. But where do they 'call for annihilation,' as you claim?

Finally, to touch on Islam (but here I admit my knowledge is very thin), Jews and Christians are explicitly acknowledged as 'people of the book,' and provided with certain guarantees. Yes, some of the more xenophobic passages of the Qur'an call for the subjugation of Jews and Christians, but annihilation? Certainly not. God alone is to be the judge of his various followers.

From a historical perspective, too, you are being disingenuous at best. Some of the best past examples of 'liberal free society' have existed in Christian and Moslem matrices. Indeed, the cultural values of freedom and tolerance that you hold most dear were probably birthed in these very milieux.

The fact of the matter is that evil men may fly any flag. Atheist regimes have done as much harm as religious ones, and are equally likely to be xenophobic. Often this happens in the same style: the manifestos, the founding documents of the movement, and the beliefs of the originators call for freedom and respect for all; the demagogues who later arise turn their backs on these principles and speak only for selfishness, blood and fire.

Let's take your own example, of Jeffersonianism. Looking at the USA today, should the blame for the wrongs of the past century, or indeed of the present decade, be laid at Jefferson's door - for all that the US is the world's premier Jeffersonian state? Is Mr. Bush a better spokesman for Jefferson than Jefferson himself was?

I put it to you: no.

Re:Religion, society and intolerance

[porpnorber]

Everyone loves their neighbor as long as they love your God. Thats where the problem starts.

First, you notice that Jews, Christians and Moslems worship the same God, so whatever problem you are referring to, it's a different one from the discussion above. Second, there is nothing in the injunction to love your neighbour that makes it in any way conditional on that neighbour's beliefs. In fact, speaking once again for Christianity, you will note that Jesus was notorious for having the 'wrong' friends, made it clear that 'neighbour' encompasses the 'wrong' people, and made a point of being willing to violate the letter of religious law in order to help people out. Where the problem starts, it would seem, is people having their own nasty and selfish ideas and projecting them onto religions that, for their own advantage, they claim to adhere to.

Re:"invented"

[mattxb]

And then there is the UK's debt to the US. The UK still owes Billions of dollars to the US. The UK was in a very bad way after WWII so the US dropped the interest rate on the money they owed the US to next to nothing. The UK still owes the US the money but is in hurry to pay it back. The UK is making more money off investments that they have in the US than they pay in interest so they will just keep that money thank you very much.

The WWII loans are now repaid in full http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm. This page discusses the rest of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

You've really got an axe to grind!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

This is about power, pure and simple. Lots of people want power across most belief systems, including atheists and agnostics, as well as Christians, Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc. History shows this. It also shows that not everyone who calls themselves any of these things really is- especially in the power games.

Re:"invented"

[mattxb]

We really don't care about you. Not one bit.

So why are you posting?

Re:"invented"

[SIIHP]

"I think it's more your "I have low self esteem" mentality..."

Because I very much care about exploding stupid little assumptions people use to prop up their chauvinism.

See that quoted part? Yeah, that's the part you ignored in your rush to post a snide little jab.

No no no

[paranode]

He just took the initiative in getting the peace prize for it. See how that's entirely different?

Re:"invented"

[LWATCDR]

So how about the WWI debt? And the back interest would be nice? From the page you linked too.
"And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn."

Re:"invented"

[mattxb]

Because I very much care about exploding stupid little assumptions people use to prop up their chauvinism.

So you do care. You just said you didn't.

I'm just making the suggestion that, if someone makes the accusation that Americans are overly arrogant, it might not be such a good idea to respond with a comment that just makes you look arrogant.

Re:"invented"

[mattxb]

So how about the WWI debt?

They're sitting on it: (from Hansard, the transcript of UK parliamentary debates / ministerial questions, etc):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=first%20world%20war%20debt&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=%22first%20world%20war%20debt%20%22&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=20228w04.html_wqn4&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020228/text/20228w04.htm#20228w04.html_wqn4

War Debts

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]

(2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK; [38425]

(3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt; [38427]

(4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment; [38424]

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1440W

(5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding; [38426]

(6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans. [38440]

Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows.

First World War debt

At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around ÿ850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (ÿ2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billionat 1934 exchange rates this was around ÿ866 million).

Second World War debt

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around ÿ1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around ÿ930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around ÿ145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing intern

Routing Spice through the Khyber Pass

[billstewart]

There's *lots* of Spice getting routed through the Khyber Pass these days, or whatever other direction is most convenient for getting it out of Afghanistan. The Afghan government occasionally tries to keep the US happy by burning a few fields of it or trying to bully the farmers into growing hashish instead, but the last time there was any real control over it was when the Taliban were still the US's allies in the Noble War On Drugs, before the US bombed most of their country and destroyed the local economy.

For the last N years, production was down in Burma's Golden Triangle, but it's apparently gone back up substantially this year, so there's a bit of competition, but most of the world's heroin production is still in Afghanistan.

Re:And if you were discussing marketing informatio

[jc42]

Pricing of products, plans for entering markets in the US etc? You're not concerned that information might make it into the hands of your competitors?

This is a point that is also lost on the management of most US corporations, so far. Remember that before the 2000 election, George W promised to be "America's CEO". Putting aside the historical implications of such a phrase and taking him at his word, this meant that his idea was to run the US government like a private corporation. One of the facts of life about any corporation is that it's in business for profit, and it will attempt to make a profit from anything that it can, as long as it doesn't result in the officers in prison. This clearly includes selling any information (such as your purchase history) that it may be able to capture, since information about customers is a valuable commercial quantity.

Any manager should understand that, when the US government gets its hands on a recording of any phone conversation, the intent is be to "monetize" this. If your conversation can be sold to one of your competitors, George W's policy is that it should be sold. That's the right and proper thing for a profitable corporation to do.

It may be only a matter of time before management slowly wakes up to the implications of this. Intercepting phone calls is not just a national security issue; it is a corporate profitability issue. If you don't want your conversations sold to interested competitors, you should be seriously looking at using only encrypting phone equipment. And unencrypted conversation is fair game as a profitable "product" to the current US administration.

It's not obvious that whichever Democrat wins the 2008 election will have a policy that's any different. And by then, such capture and sales will be institutionalized, automated, and out of view to the president, so the next president will be able to casually delegate the whole topic.

I wonder which companies make phones that do end-to-end encryption? They could be good candidates for stock purchases ...

Re:"invented"

[LWATCDR]

Aka you guys are sitting on it.
If the US is acting like "Overlords" I would think we would collect our debts.

Voting?

[SonicSpike]

Are you voting for Ron Paul?

Sensationalistic bs

[trifish]

What kind of nonsense is this? I live in the EU and if I ping ANY site in Europe, the ping reports a 30 ms delay, not 150 ms (as would be the case if the packets went via the US).

Ah I see you have reading comprehension problems

[SIIHP]

"You just said you didn't"

Yeah, but I said I don't care about YOU, not what YOU DID.

The distinction is difficult for idiots to grasp, which explains why you're having such a tough time.

"I'm just making the suggestion..."

I'm making the suggestion that you learn to read before you go out of your way to draw attention to what you think is an inconsistency, but what is in fact totally consistent and only draws attention to your lack of intellectual capability.

Re:Ah I see you have reading comprehension problem

[mattxb]

It is not totally consistent. The statement "I don't care about You" is totally inconsistant with the demonstrable fact that you care enough about (him) to post a reply such that he hears your opinion. If you truly *didn't* care about him, and were just posting a reply to air your own views *without* the intention of educating him as to what they were, then you wouldn't have used the words "your" and "you" in your original post.

Re:Ah I see you have reading comprehension problem

[SIIHP]

"It is not totally consistent"

Of course it is, and your argument why it isn't demonstrates quite clearly why you're too stupid to have your opinion be considered.

"The statement "I don't care about You" is totally inconsistant with the demonstrable fact that you care enough about (him) to post a reply such that he hears your opinion"

HEY MORON. IF HIS ACTION WAS POSSIBLE FROM A NONAMERICAN, AND I REACTED THE SAME, THEN IT WOULD BE THE ACTION NOT THE INDIVIDUAL I CARED ABOUT.

It's what he did. I realize you're an imbecile, but get someone smarter than you to explain it. I'll wait.

Repeating things that you've been shown are wrong doesn't make you right, and coming up with convoluted ways to say "nuh uh" just makes you look even more ridiculous.

Re:Ah I see you have reading comprehension problem

[mattxb]

HEY MORON.

Hi.

IF HIS ACTION WAS POSSIBLE FROM A NONAMERICAN, AND I REACTED THE SAME, THEN IT WOULD BE THE ACTION NOT THE INDIVIDUAL I CARED ABOUT.

You appear to be confusing two separate points. I am not arguing that you *do not* care about the action. I am questioning the claim that you have no care for the individual who caused it. This should be obvious. Maybe the monitor is shaking so much from your pounding of the keyboard that it is difficult for you to read the words accurately?

your argument why it isn't demonstrates quite clearly why you're too stupid to have your opinion be considered.

Are we going round in circles?

Re:Ah I see you have reading comprehension problem

[SIIHP]

"I am questioning the claim that you have no care for the individual who caused it."

And I've explained why your "questioning" that is moronic.

As I said, if you need someone smarter, go get them, maybe they'll be able to prevent you from posting something idiotic again.

But I doubt it.

"Are we going round in circles?"

Not really, you're an imbecile. That has been my point for a while now, and you've been supporting it with every post.

Re:Ah I see you have reading comprehension problem

[sznupi]

Going back to parent post...haven't you, by any chance, demostrated quite a bit of arrogance?...