US Funding Stealth Internets to Circumvent Repressive Regimes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Funding Stealth Internets to Circumvent Repressive Regimes

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday June 12, 2011 @04:55AM from the under-the-radar dept.

snydeq writes "The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy 'shadow' Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks. According to a report from CBS News: '...by the end of the year the State Department will have spent $70 million on efforts to provide alternate pathways for dissidents to access the Internet and telecommunications services. One group received $2 million to develop an "Internet in a suitcase" that could be easily carried and set up in a foreign country.'"

289 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Is it just me... by Max+Romantschuk · 2011-06-12 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

...or doesn't this seem a little hypocritical in light of how the whole Wikileaks thing has been handled?

--
.: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
1. Re:Is it just me... by gilbert644 · 2011-06-12 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Every government limits freedom, its inherent to its role.
2. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  ...or doesn't this seem a little ************ in light of how the whole ********* thing has been handled?
  FTFY!
  SILENCE CITIZEN!
3. Re:Is it just me... by ArhcAngel · 2011-06-12 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  At first blush yes. But what they don't tell you is they have a back door into this system so it won't work in the US.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
4. Re:Is it just me... by MakinBacon · 2011-06-12 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  ...or doesn't this seem a little hypocritical in light of how the whole Wikileaks thing has been handled?
  When you think about it, they haven't really handled Wikileaks at all. All they've done is take legal action against Bradley Manning for leaking sensitive information (which any organization, Government or private would do). Pretty much everything else that's happened (with Amazon, Mastercard etc) has been accomplished through bitching and moaning, not censorship and coercion.
5. Re:Is it just me... by amiga3D · 2011-06-12 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Indeed. Government is a necessary evil. That government is best which governs least. The kind of thing you don't hear much anymore as it's gone out of style.
6. Re:Is it just me... by Ethanol-fueled · 2011-06-12 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  We must get a better foothold in the Middle East so that we can wrest control of the oil supply and transform repressive regimes from the inside-out.
  
  The Islamic savages will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
7. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much everything else that's happened (with Amazon, Mastercard etc) has been accomplished through bitching and moaning, not censorship and coercion.
  The bitching and moaning pretty much amounted up to coersion... (i.e.: stop this shit or else...)
8. Re:Is it just me... by rsilvergun · 2011-06-12 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It hasn't gone out of style, it's just plain wrong. The world is a different place then when Thoreau wrote that (and it wasn't too close to the mark then). Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps? Do you honestly want those few mega-corps (and their oligarch CEOs, kings of the new millennium) running things. Power is going to concentrate whether you like it or not. I'll take my chances with Obama over the Koch brothers any day.
  
  --
  Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
9. Re:Is it just me... by Dachannien · 2011-06-12 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's not hypocritical. You're just comparing apples to oranges. The Wikileaks thing is about leaking private (secret) documents to the public. This project, on the other hand, is about providing public access to the public Internet.
10. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  what do you have to hide?
11. Re:Is it just me... by hitmark · 2011-06-12 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think the inherent issue here is approaching government as a "us vs them" issue, rather then considering that government, at least in a representative democracy (take the "it is a republic" somewhere else), is by the people for the people. As such, it is there to uphold the rules that the majority of the nation agrees upon (you anarchists and libertarians can keep quiet for now). The last couple of decades however it appears that corporations and other special interest groups have managed to co-opt this system. As such we are seeing laws being written that will make the majority of the people criminals. Did we not learn a thing from the failed attempt at prohibition?
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
12. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hell, I'd settle for the 19th. We can work on 20th and 21st Centuries after the comprehend basic civil rights.
13. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's certainly not just you; Slashdot is teeming with like-minded twits.
  However, the US is not a repressive regime, nor does its response to Wikileaks resemble the action of a repressive regime. Thus the development discussed in this post will seem "a little hypocritical" only to the above-mentioned like-minded twits.
  -Legal Troll
14. Re:Is it just me... by rodarson2k · 2011-06-12 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Would the oppressive regimes not claim that their "police actions" are state secrets?
15. Re:Is it just me... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Having the freedom to communicate does not mean you are without responsibility for what you communicate. Wikileaks is a great example. US Gov't officials are not happy about the various leaks of confidential information being discussed openly in the press. But not a single Congressman has stepped forward to dismantle the US press. Manning, however, is likely to suffer for his actions if, in fact, he is the leak.
16. Re:Is it just me... by SuperCharlie · 2011-06-12 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Id mod ya up if I hadnt already posted in here..
17. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  it would be comparing apples to oranges if it's US government who got to decide what is public and what is private for its people as well as for the whole world.
18. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  kill yourself
19. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, we weren't set up to be a majority rule country. Read the Federalist Papers, I think #10 is where Madison argues against the evils of what he calls "tyranny of the majority".
20. Re:Is it just me... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-06-12 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Did we not learn a thing from the failed attempt at prohibition?
  Yes, we learned how to do it without requiring a constitutional amendment.
  Sorry, drug war's a pet peeve and you provided a perfect riffing-point.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
21. Re:Is it just me... by suomynonAyletamitlU · 2011-06-12 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps?
  Rather, mega-corps are essentially strong central governments whose borders extend with product sales. The only main difference is that they outsource their judicial system and enforcement to national governments, and taxation to retailers.
  Or at the very least, that's the world they seem to be trying to create...
22. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  That government is best which governs least.
  By extrapolation - no government is the optimal?
  Or where is the sweet-spot between anarchy and demo^Wtyranny?
23. Re:Is it just me... by PopeRatzo · 2011-06-12 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  doesn't this seem a little hypocritical in light of how the whole Wikileaks thing has been handled?
  Maybe not. Remember, it was the DoD that originally gave us the Internet instead of handing it directly to the corporations. It could be that there is a faction of government that actually wants to see people be free. These "shadow nets" might well turn out to become the new Internet when the current one turns to a big corporate consumption channel.
  After all, I think there's a lot more long-term danger from corporate hegemony than from any "repressive regime". As we've seen with the financial meltdown in the US and EU, the economic elite in the form of the biggest transnational financial corporations are more powerful than even the biggest governments.
  Maybe we'll look back on this announcement regarding "shadow nets" as being the early stages of the tool that will create the weapons that will arm the 21st century's Resistance.
  I realize that's wildly optimistic, but considering the rate at which corporate interests are superseding human interests, and destroying what have been the building blocks of human society, one has to find encouragement wherever one can.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re:Is it just me... by IamTheRealMike · 2011-06-12 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  The whole point of providing "internet in a suitcase" or whatever is so people in repressive countries can talk about things that government doesn't want them talking about. Otherwise why bother - every country has some kind of internet-like communications network and if all you want to do is discuss local sports results, the local governments will happily let you do so. Even China has "public access to the public internet", the difference is it's the public internet minus the parts the government doesn't want you to see.
  In the USA things work differently, there's no censorship of the internet. However the government does try and suppress publication of information it doesn't like in other ways. For example, by getting payment processors to refuse payment to legal organizations they don't like. It's just a different way of achieving the same thing - circumventing the judicial system.
25. Re:Is it just me... by exentropy · 2011-06-12 07:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  it [the government] is there to uphold the rules that the majority of the nation agrees upon.
  I'm probably gonna get a -1 flamebait for this, but I'll counter this point anyways. There is no need to have a government, if its sole function is to uphold the rules of the majority. If the Fed didn't exist, people would still agree that, say, stealing is bad; we don't need a government to affirm this conviction. But I do agree with you: we do have a federal government that imposes (better word) the will of the majority on everyone. E.G. if most people don't like drugs, hey, "we should ban them!" "Don't like gays? Hey, make their marriages illegal!" I think that's a better way to look at it.
26. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  I'll take my chances with Obama over the Koch brothers any day.
  While I think we can all say that mega-corporations are mostly evil, the idea around free enterprise is that there is some semblance of a choice not to do business with those interests (Koch interests for example). With Government, you only get monopoly and when tyrannical in nature, the only choice of the people is political upheaval.
  
  When you have big Government in collusion with Big-Business, you get the worst of both worlds, that being the illusion of choice with forced participation.
  
  You can't vote the bastards out because the other party is just as corrupt and you can't stop patronizing those industries because the government bails them out anyway.
  
  This is oligarchical crony-capitalism, and to blame the "bad corporations" or the "evil republicans" is to only look at one side of the coin.
27. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps?
  What have you been smoking? Mega-corps only exist because of governments. If not for corporate law, workers would be liable for the corporation's actions, the corporation would not be able to own anything or be treated as a legal person.
28. Re:Is it just me... by amiga3D · 2011-06-12 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  The fact is that the MegaCorps have taken over and are running the government. I remember when President Obama got elected and I thought that, despite the fact that I didn't like a lot of his politics that at least some things would change (such as wiretapping laws) but in fact every single thing I disliked about the previous administration continued virtually unchanged. He's not even a good liberal. He's owned just like the last one was owned. The puppet changed but not the puppet master.
29. Re:Is it just me... by jbonomi · 2011-06-12 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think anything about wikileaks has ever been censored in the US. If I'm wrong, I want to know though...
30. Re:Is it just me... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-06-12 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps?
  Since the megocorps are a product of government, I'd suspect that they'd be less of a problem if the government were able to give them less power.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
31. Re:Is it just me... by Runaway1956 · 2011-06-12 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Uhhh - maybe you hadn't noticed, but this IS a republic, rather than a democracy. Have you not noticed that the federal government simply ASSumes that they are justified in waging war against portions of the populace, here at home? Sure, dopeheads are idiots - but you don't imprison idiots on a whim. You certainly don't kill an idiot for running away when you arrive to bust them for smoking a doobie. And, you sure as HELL don't set up corporate prisons to milk those idiots by way of taxpayers.
  Democracy? Keep dreaming. When our government stops killing and/or imprisoning people for using natural plants in natural (or unnatural) ways, THEN I'll entertain the idea that we actually have a democracy.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
32. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  And we'll never know if he is because they'd rather torture him than give him a trial.
33. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  uhh.. your 'mega-corps' use the 'mega-government' to enforce their whims. you need to get out of that whole right left dichotomy because it is the trap that binds you. you need to resist both.
34. Re:Is it just me... by Velex · 2011-06-12 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  This dopeheads are idiots meme needs to go away.
  I'll bet you do something that someone else would think is stupid, too. Grow up.
  Did you know some people use dope because it allows them to live fuller lives? Maybe some day you'll find that marihuana is the best substance available to treat some symptoms you might have. Will you be an idiot then? Or is it smarter to take something less effective with more side effects that costs more just because it's approved by big brother?
  But yes, I'm right with you on the democracy thing. Most people seem to share your views, i.e. that it should be legal but it's still "bad" somehow to use it. I guess whatever floats your morally superior boat. The will of the people will probably never prevail on this issue, though. Gotta vote for the politician who's tough on crime since you gotta be afraid to leave your front door in today's ever increasingly increasing society.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
35. Re:Is it just me... by poliscipirate · 2011-06-12 09:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm of the mind that what we're seeing is a regrowth of the powerful families system that has dominated government throughout most of human history, but in this iteration it's "corporate aristocratic" families instead. To me, it's roughly analogous to ancient Rome - the masses have at least the illusion of say and can get some things changed if they complain loudly enough, but for the most part things are run by, or on the behalf of, the powerful, wealthy, and privileged organizations of the day. The dissolution of the traditional large and extended noble family system created something of a power vacuum for a newer social unit to exert its interests through government... instead of the Julia, the Flavia, and the Cassius families, we have the Monsanto, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil families.
36. Re:Is it just me... by catchblue22 · 2011-06-12 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a quote from Rousseau that is germane to this discussion:
  
  Nothing is more dangerous in public affairs than the influence of private interests, and the abuse of the law by the government is a lesser evil than that corruption of the legislator which inevitably results from the pursuit of private interests. When this happens, the state is corrupted in its very substance and no reform is possible
  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "The Social Contract" (1762), book 3, chapter 4
  
  --
  This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
37. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, dopeheads are idiots
  
  Paul Erdos was a heavy Benzedrine user. Was he an idiot?
38. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the millions of victims of state-sponsored murder would disagree.
39. Re:Is it just me... by lennier · 2011-06-12 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  There is no need to have a government, if its sole function is to uphold the rules of the majority. If the Fed didn't exist, people would still agree that, say, stealing is bad; we don't need a government to affirm this conviction.
  
  Of course you need a government to uphold the rules of the majority. Even the most deeply held social rules won't enforce themselves just because most people agree that, in principle, and as long as they don't personally need to do anything, they're sort of a good idea, for other people but not them.
  Do you want a society where the majority agrees that stealing is wrong, nod their heads gravely, and then stand by and do nothing while all their possessions are stolen by three guys in a Combi van who have a radically innovative ethical stance on the issue of property?
  Or are you thinking that if the majority of homeowners believe stealing is wrong, but a minority think it's perfectly okay, then each individual citizen can solve the issue themselves by resorting to vigilante violence in the streets? Because that might "work", for values of work approaching civil war.
  It's possible that governments are unnecessary, but "upholding the rules" is exactly the reason why they exist. Usually political questions turn on which rules a government ought to uphold and why - not on whether rules might be able to magically uphold themselves when less than 100% of people agree with them.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
40. Re:Is it just me... by catchblue22 · 2011-06-12 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think that the millions of victims of state-sponsored murder would disagree.
  He was speaking about a democratic state that acts for the Public Interest. He was not talking about, nor endorsing the tyrannies you seem to be referring to. Quite the opposite in fact. Here is some more from The Social Contract:
  
  However, when the social tie begins to slacken and the state to weaken, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and sectional societies begin to exert an influence over the greater society, the common interest becomes corrupted and meets opposition; voting is no longer unanimous; the general will is no longer the will of all; contradictions and disputes arise; and even the best opinion is not allowed to prevail unchallenged.
  In the end, when the state, on the brink of ruin, can maintain itself only in an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the meanest interest impudently flaunts the sacred name of the public good, then the general will is silenced: everyone, animated by secret motives, ceases to speak as a citizen any more than as if the state had never existed; and the people enacts in the guise of laws iniquitous decrees which have private interests as their only end.
  I think it is quite easy to see much of the above in contemporary American society.
  
  --
  This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
41. Re:Is it just me... by cavreader · 2011-06-12 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The criticism was directed at Wiki-leaks not the entire Internet. And besides a lot of bluster the government has not taking action against Wiki-leaks besides making loud and boisterous threats and denunciation's but no followup actions to back up their dismay. The only one being prosecuted is the one who released the information in the first place. So I don't see any hypocritical behavior in starting this project.
42. Re:Is it just me... by bug1 · 2011-06-12 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Every government limits freedom, its inherent to its role.
  Every government limits the freedom of others. While trying to maximize its own.
43. Re:Is it just me... by blind+monkey+3 · 2011-06-12 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  Manning, however, is likely to suffer for his actions if, in fact, he is the leak.
  Is likely to??? Are you saying he is not already suffering whether guilty or not? The conditions he was held in from July to April were cruel and spiteful to say the least - this is before being convicted (a formality I suspect, regardless of whether he is guilty or not).
  
  I have heard the doom and gloom stories regarding the release of this information but from what I can see, the aftermath seems to be a spring cleaning of oppressive regimes, it appears to be a bit cheaper than it has cost / is still costing to remove Saddam.
  
  If Manning is responsible, perhaps he should get a medal - unless the U.S. government wants these thugs to stay in power.....
  
  --
  BM3
44. Re:Is it just me... by hitmark · 2011-06-12 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Makes me think of the back history of Dune, tracing the movement of the seat of the empire from Rome to London and DC before heading into space with the first warp drives.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
45. Re:Is it just me... by VortexCortex · 2011-06-12 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh - maybe you hadn't noticed, but this IS a republic, rather than a democracy. Have you not noticed that the federal government simply ASSumes that they are justified in waging war against portions of the populace, here at home? Sure, dopeheads are idiots - but you don't imprison idiots on a whim. You certainly don't kill an idiot for running away when you arrive to bust them for smoking a doobie. And, you sure as HELL don't set up corporate prisons to milk those idiots by way of taxpayers.
  Democracy? Keep dreaming. When our government stops killing and/or imprisoning people for using natural plants in natural (or unnatural) ways, THEN I'll entertain the idea that we actually have a democracy.
  Meanwhile, the provably addictive and habit forming drug Caffeine is in every food dispensary, and no one bats an eye if even young children have a coke and a smile...
  (War on "drugs" my ass.)
46. Re:Is it just me... by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  How do you think corporations are chartered and regulated, if not by governments? The powers corporations have taken for granted are in fact granted... by the governments. Corporations are beholden by law to their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders first and foremost. They are protected from any punishments other than fines by governments. You can't jail or dissolve a corporation, only fine it or jail its officers. Therefore, the governments, including the US government (and some would say especially) have made it mandatory from a simple reading of corporate law to pollute the air, water, and ground if cleanups and fines when caught are cheaper than not polluting. It is mandatory to violate workers' rights if it is more profitable than enforcing workers' rights. It is necessary to lay people off then hire lower-skilled workers if it makes a buck.
  If you want better corporations, quit giving them extra powers through extra powers of central governments. Start letting the states, who charter them, more power to regulate them. The US government has given the coprorations powers the states that chartered them never intended, and it's time the states and the people were heard.
  I'm not against making a buck, or ten billion bucks. I'm for doing so responsibly and being held to the same standards of law as a small business.
47. Re:Is it just me... by budgenator · 2011-06-12 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you want a society where the majority agrees that stealing is wrong, nod their heads gravely, and then stand by and do nothing while all their possessions are stolen by three guys in a Combi van who have a radically innovative ethical stance on the issue of property?
  When the majority feels something is wrong, they can usually figure out a way to enforce their will. lynch mobs, Sheriff's posses, militias, or even mercenaries; have fallen out of style this last century, but they could easily be revived. It's the minority that needs protection most.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
48. Re:Is it just me... by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  You mean state-sponsered murder by states in which the state and industry are already fully merged? Yeah, I think "private interests" includes a dictator murdering people so he keeps his mansions just as much as Nike mistreating people and the governments looking the other way so long as Nike kicks back some of the profits.
49. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook is doing a better job at government take downs than bombs are now. Didn't you know that the CIA owns wikileaks?
50. Re:Is it just me... by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Repression isn't binary. The US has been, at moments, somewhat repressive. It's much less repressive by comparison than many other countries, though.
51. Re:Is it just me... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Is likely to??? Are you saying he is not already suffering whether guilty or not? The conditions he was held in from July to April were cruel and spiteful to say the least - this is before being convicted (a formality I suspect, regardless of whether he is guilty or not).
  Fair point. I must admit, I was thinking long term and overlooked the fact that he is already experiencing just the beginning of what life will be like for him if convicted.
  
  I have heard the doom and gloom stories regarding the release of this information but from what I can see, the aftermath seems to be a spring cleaning of oppressive regimes, it appears to be a bit cheaper than it has cost / is still costing to remove Saddam.
  If Manning is responsible, perhaps he should get a medal - unless the U.S. government wants these thugs to stay in power.....
  This is old ground. I find it rather disingenuous to treat Wikileaks as the sole fount from which freedom in the Arab states sprung. I would even go so far as to suggest that this was going to happen with or without Wikileaks. Otherwise it opens up some rather interesting questions as to exactly when US-sourced information is credible, when it isn't, and how easy it would be for the supposed diabolical US Government to manipulate the world.
  And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Manning exposed no smoking guns. He provided no evidence of horrific crime and provided little insight to anything that wasn't already reported or known. Manning deserves no medal for putting his own freedom on the line for, in the end, not blowing any whistles. But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore.
52. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hate to break it to you but the folks running your "Strong Central Governemnt" are the same folks running those Mega-Corps.
53. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recall German industry demanding the Holocaust any more than many other Germans. Sure, they went along, but were they particularly pushing it?
54. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  And if there wasn't a General Will in the first place?
55. Re:Is it just me... by aekafan · 2011-06-12 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, what is the answer when the strong central government is in thrall to the Mega-Corps, and beyond our ability to recover it? We are at that point now. It is nice to think your vote can change the government, but its only an illusion
56. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  Take a gander at George Orwell's 1984. It doesn't seem all that unusual in that context. They do the same thing as "the enemy" but it's an "outrage" when THEY do it, but perfectly fine when WE do it. War propaganda at it's worst. Now, when the Obama administration gets the sudden conviction to protect the rights of AMERICANS, I might believe he's sincere.
57. Re:Is it just me... by Savantissimo · 2011-06-12 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know why that got modded troll, it's a concise and accurate summary of what's going on.
  
  --
  "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
58. Re:Is it just me... by catchblue22 · 2011-06-12 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you post in one line slogans? It would seem more useful to make actual arguments.
  
  --
  This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
59. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds great. Let us know how that's working out for you, with more troops fighting more phony wars than during the Bush regime, and now your country is teetering on bankruptcy while the renminbi and BRIC look on in fascination.
  
  With some pretty smart people saying it's the prosecution of countless bogus wars and criminal spying on Americans that's to blame, you point the finger and say "well, it could be worse" as if that indemnifies Obama bin laden et al.
  
  I'd still say the gov't would be better if it took its grimy fingers out of the pie and stopped handing over *your* hard-earned cash to undeserving bankers and Enron execs and whoever else happens to be related to the current regime leaders.
  
  So, good luck with that Obama thing anyways. I'll be watching with interest from the real "land of the free". Eh.
60. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  Much of Rousseau's politics presupposes the existence of a General Will. OK, what if there is no General Will? Or what if it is the concept of General Will is so vague that a Hitler or Stalin could use it for their own purposes? Did Rousseau (or can you) make it specific? And actually how would I argue against Rousseau's claims? What would count as evidence for or against the existence of a General Will?
61. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  The mega-corps exist specifically because they're aided and abetted by large, strong centralized governments! Special exemptions from laws, anti-competitive regulations, trade barriers, preferred contracting, market manipulation, pressure on foreign governments, military intervention, and when all else fails just pure theft from the public treasury into the corporations and their banks. With a straightforward, understandable, no-special exemptions set of laws, corporations like Goldman-Sachs couldn't exist. Which is why G.S. and other corporations like them work very, very hard to make sure our government is a massive labyrinthine mess.
62. Re:Is it just me... by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not much they can do. It's got mirrors worldwide, the information is already released, and none of those high-up in the management are dumb enough to visit the US for a long time.
  
  There is the suspicious business with the attempted extradition of Assange on a charge of sexual misconduct, though - I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories, but given the timeing (Warrant issued less than a month after the cable release), and the fact that it was issued based upon accusations that had already been investigated by Swedish police and dismissed as unsubstantiated prior to the cable leaks, it does seem plausible that the US government may have called in a favor and asked the Swedish government to just find something, anything at all, they could arrest him for. Can't prove anything, but it's a definate possibility that there was political involvement.
63. Re:Is it just me... by blind+monkey+3 · 2011-06-12 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  This is old ground. I find it rather disingenuous to treat Wikileaks as the sole fount from which freedom in the Arab states sprung. I would even go so far as to suggest that this was going to happen with or without Wikileaks. Otherwise it opens up some rather interesting questions as to exactly when US-sourced information is credible, when it isn't, and how easy it would be for the supposed diabolical US Government to manipulate the world.
  
  If it sounded like I was saying Wikileaks was solely responsible, my apologies but to argue that they did not at the very least is being biased. I am also not saying the US is diabolical so please do not put words into my mouth, the US government has done some things to be very ashamed of but they have also done a lot of great things too, credit where credit is due, criticism where it is warranted, what they have done to someone that has not been convicted (yet) is wrong - do you believe Manning has been treated properly?
  
  And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Manning exposed no smoking guns. He provided no evidence of horrific crime and provided little insight to anything that wasn't already reported or known. Manning deserves no medal for putting his own freedom on the line for, in the end, not blowing any whistles. But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore.
  Whether it was Manning or not, whether the information was known already, the affect (according to Amnesty and other organisations btw) has been to a the very least start the ball rolling. It was news of the corruption in Tunisia that has opened the floodgates.
  Your argument that it would have happened anyway cannot be put to the test, Are you trying to say it was coincidental that the Wikileaks information came out just before the uprising started?
  A statement like "But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore." exposes a closed mind that has already tried and convicted him. Surely he deserves a fair trial (which I doubt is possible given the statements from even the President and comments such as the one you have made) and humane treatment.
  
  --
  BM3
64. Re:Is it just me... by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  If it sounded like I was saying Wikileaks was solely responsible, my apologies but to argue that they did not at the very least is being biased. I am also not saying the US is diabolical so please do not put words into my mouth, the US government has done some things to be very ashamed of but they have also done a lot of great things too, credit where credit is due, criticism where it is warranted, what they have done to someone that has not been convicted (yet) is wrong - do you believe Manning has been treated properly?
  I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Having gone through this song and dance every time Wikileaks is mentioned or anything can remotely be used to mention Wikileaks, it all starts to sound like the same tune with the same singers. That isn't fair to you.
  I completely agree that criticism should be placed where warranted and, in fact, nothing is above criticism. I'm inclined to believe that there is plenty of criticism for both Wikileaks and US officials.
  Has Manning been treated properly? I honestly find that hard to say. I know I wouldn't want to be him right now. But I also know that military environments are completely alien to civilian life. What is completely sane within a military context can seem insane in civilian life. Add on the fact that he is suspect of a massive security breach and likely to be on suicide watch and I have a hard time determining if the reports of his situation are unduly biased.
  
  Whether it was Manning or not, whether the information was known already, the affect (according to Amnesty and other organisations btw) has been to a the very least start the ball rolling. It was news of the corruption in Tunisia that has opened the floodgates. Your argument that it would have happened anyway cannot be put to the test, Are you trying to say it was coincidental that the Wikileaks information came out just before the uprising started?
  I'm saying even if Wikileaks offered the spark to get the fires going, we shouldn't ignore the fact that the situation was intensely volatile beforehand. People keep pushing Wikileaks as delivering massive revelations but when I dig, I find that many of the revelations just aren't there. What Wikileaks did do is capture imagination. Which alone might be enough to ignite a spark of revolution.
  
  A statement like "But he did achieve fame. And on that note, he has managed to be on par with the latest cast of The Jersey Shore." exposes a closed mind that has already tried and convicted him. Surely he deserves a fair trial (which I doubt is possible given the statements from even the President and comments such as the one you have made) and humane treatment.
  I agree that putting Manning on the cast of The Jersey Shore would be inhumane and I only mention it in jest. My mentioning Jersey Shore is an expression for disdain over Manning's supporters and a rejection that he should be seen as a hero. I'm not entirely sure that invoking so-called reality TV is an announcement of guilt.
  Manning does deserve a fair trial and I hope that he does get one. If he is innocent of the charge, I hope the poor guy gets off, gets out, and fades in to obscurity to continue his life as a free man. If not - I hope he is convicted accordingly (I would be against capital punishment as I don't agree that we are in an actual state of war).
65. Re:Is it just me... by sincewhen · 2011-06-12 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  I have no mod points, but thanks for your very interesting thoughts.
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
66. Re:Is it just me... by sincewhen · 2011-06-12 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  unless the U.S. government wants these thugs to stay in power
  I note with interest how the USA has reacted differently to the "citizen uprisings" in different countries, with different levels of support for "democracy".
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
67. Re:Is it just me... by complete+loony · 2011-06-12 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  The $2 million "internet in a suitcase" grant from TFA is going towards OTI's Commotion Wireless project. Pulling together a secure solutions using open source software and involving developers from GNU Radio, OpenBTS, TOR, Serval, and others. So no, we won't be including any back doors in our software.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
68. Re:Is it just me... by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who made this specifically about the Nazis? You don't think Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, or Josef Stalin were in charge of industry? You don't think Gaddahfi is now?
69. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  But this doesn't mean it would be reasonable to call the US a "repressive regime" such that the action here is properly described as hypocritical. My point stands.
  -LT
70. Re:Is it just me... by tehcyder · 2011-06-13 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  That government is best which governs least.
  Try telling that to the Somalians.
  Oh, sorry, I forgot, that's some sort of fucking shangri la for libertarians on here now isn't it?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
71. Re:Is it just me... by tehcyder · 2011-06-13 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, we weren't set up to be a majority rule country. Read the Federalist Papers, I think #10 is where Madison argues against the evils of what he calls "tyranny of the majority".
  And the tyranny of a minority is fascism.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
72. Re:Is it just me... by Machtyn · 2011-06-13 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget about Soros properties - you know, the guy who has a large influence over liberal and public media (you know, government funded) and made a (US)$1 Billion by crashing the British Pound Sterling.
  
  (Interesting bit of information from that page: Britain attempted to keep their unit valuable, but failed to do so because of "low interest rates and high inflation". The US is at the point of low interest rates, and have been for a very long time. The high inflation part hasn't yet come, but the undertow is there to try and create it.)
73. Re:Is it just me... by Toonol · 2011-06-13 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Hence, rights.
  
  Rule by ANYTHING is a tyranny. That's why the most important part of the constitution is its powerful and sweeping declarations about what the government CANNOT ever rule over. With rights respected, it doesn't matter what the specific form of government is. It's the fact that the government is deliberately designed to be powerless that matters.
74. Re:Is it just me... by Toonol · 2011-06-13 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard to avoid the impression that most potheads are idiots. Sure, there's the question of correlation... does pot make them idiots, or do idiots smoke more pot? But every person I've known that has smoked pot in large quantities, over long periods of time, has had noticeable mental degradation.
  
  No, I don't think it's a given, or true in all cases. It's a strong tendency, however. And I'm for legalization, by the way; pot is no worse than alcohol. In fact the above paragraph would apply to alcohol just as well as to pot.
75. Re:Is it just me... by tehcyder · 2011-06-13 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, dopeheads are idiots Paul Erdos was a heavy Benzedrine user. Was he an idiot?
  Benzedrine isn't marijuana, genius.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
76. Re:Is it just me... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2011-06-13 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Caffeine is a very weak drug.
  I agree the War on Drugs is stupid and hypocritical though.
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
77. Re:Is it just me... by wallsg · 2011-06-13 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even more hypocritical: this is the same administration that wants an Internet Kill Switch.
78. Re:Is it just me... by ganjadude · 2011-06-13 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  also do you expect the US to have access to this? of course not (that is unless they are building in spy capabilities from the get go which is the most liekly case)
  
  /tin foil hat
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
79. Re:Is it just me... by i_b_don · 2011-06-13 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  "That government is best which governs least."
  Seriously? This type of bullshit tripe just goes without comment here? The government does certain roles very well, much better than any other social mechanism we have. Building roads, educating children, providing social safety nets, protecting our citizens from outside influences (military), and protecting citizens from internal negative influences (crime). And there are certain things government doesn't do as well. Free market economies have done much better and producing things compared to communism for example.
  However trying to push government out of the roles it does very well is just stupid especially for the sake of a stupid mantra. The government should be regulating our economy to some degree. Free markets don't work on their own and referees are needed to keep competition working as it should. (i.e. it should be a competition to see who can produce the best products, not who can best bribe our government.) The goal should always be to keep an eye on the REAL motivation, the betterment of our society as a whole, weather that's to prevent the rape and pillage of our natural resources, the pollution of our lands, the abuse of a dominant position in the market, or any unfair/detrimental business practice. It also includes making policies that keep the population safe from crime, fire, illness, or foreign invaders.
  The argument shouldn't be weather the government should be there or not, it should be over what is best for our society. If you seriously want to live in a country where the fire department sits by and watches your house burn down because you fell behind in your payments, or in a land where only the rich deserve police protection, then fuck you. I want to live in a better society where we make decisions at the government level for the betterment of the whole, not the rich few who can afford to talk with our elected officials.
  Ok... I'm creating a bunch of straw men arguments from a simple line. But its one of the stupid mantras that have been spouting from the republicans for as long as I've been paying attention to politics and especially with the current wackos that are in power. "Like it's gone out of style" indeed.
  The government has a very beneficial role in our society and we should be discussing the cost/benefits instead of demonizing it for not particular reason.
  d
  
  --
  all language nazi's will burne in heil!
80. Re:Is it just me... by cusco · 2011-06-13 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  The population is too large and disorganized for those solutions to work in most areas of the US today. Where I have seen it work is the the slums of Latin America, where neighborhoods frequently have strong community organizations. A good group of vigilantes can cut crime by 90 percent in some areas.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
81. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, you are missing the reality of this situation entirely. "Mega-corps" as you suggest, wouldn't have the power they do WITHOUT a strong central government - especially like the U.S's that is run by greedy and corrupt politicians willing to do anyone a "favor" as long as you promise to vote for them or contribute campaign $$$.
  These companies aren't granting monopoly powers and privileges to themselves...the US patent/copyright systems and corrupt politicians, among other things, are. Please, give me the example I know you want to give me and tell me how bad you think the Wall Street finance criminals have hurt us so that I can direct you to the reason they have that ability in the first place. (Hint: "Mega Corps" and "Mega Banks" are the direct consequence of having a strong central government that has it's tentacles in every aspect of our lives, in the name of "knowing whats best for us".
82. Re:Is it just me... by colinrichardday · 2011-06-13 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  How much were they in charge of industry? And even if their motives are as you say, do they retain power only by force, or do they use such concepts as "General Will" to condition their subjects? And is my desire to not be subject to tyranny as much of a private interest as a dictator's desire to enslave me? There may be a generic desire among a population to not be tyrannized, but is this a General Will?
83. Re:Is it just me... by blind+monkey+3 · 2011-06-13 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like we do agree on most areas. Like you, I was being facetious saying he should be awarded a medal - taking everything and handing it over to a third party that you only know through things you read sounds reckless regardless of the good that may have come from it.
  It does appear that the media is being careful as to what is released but given our media, that is more than likely good fortune rather than good management.
  It is also disconcerting that it is possible for someone to do what he did, I hope they have addressed the security of data.
  
  --
  BM3
84. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  As opposed to 'tyranny of the minority' ? Well, you got it now America, how does it feel ? Hahaha...
Er what by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:00 · Score: 0

Isn't an Internet in a suitcase technically a router with clients? Am I missing something here?
1. Re:Er what by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  I assume it also includes a sat uplink. The tricky part must be making it discrete. Ideally it should look just like a briefcase to a casual inspection, even if opened. Electronics built under a false bottom, antenna in the side.
2. Re:Er what by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  *discreet
3. Re:Er what by rubycodez · 2011-06-12 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  no, it will be made with transistors, diodes, SCRs, inductors, capacitors and resistors. The integrated chip-chauvinist powers that be will never recognize it as a digital computational device!
Implement the bundle protocol on all mobile phones by Colin+Smith · 2011-06-12 05:01 · Score: 1

Or something similar to it.
Use say cheap phone -> phone messaging as an excuse.

--
Deleted
No it's not just you.. by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-06-12 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

What would happen if there were, just for arguments sake, dissident Americans........
Pause..

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
1. Re:No it's not just you.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They're not supplying freedom, they're supplying a means of communication that makes monitoring/shaping/manipulating events abroad easier and safer.
2. Re:No it's not just you.. by obarthelemy · 2011-06-12 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  we'd call those terrorists, and patriot-act them.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
3. Re:No it's not just you.. by couchslug · 2011-06-12 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  "What would happen if there were, just for arguments sake, dissident Americans........"
  They can ride their flying unicorns to safety.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
4. Re:No it's not just you.. by cold+fjord · 2011-06-12 11:54 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  What would happen if there were, just for arguments sake, dissident Americans........ Pause..
  For the sake of argument? You don't think there are people engaged in dissent? Really? Well, there are dissenters of many flavors, from the fringe to more main stream.
  And guess what? They have the same option as everybody else - they go into the voting booth and vote for the party of their choice, just like the rest of America. If they don't like the local laws, they can try to change them or move. (Massachusetts has state run health care, California is engaging in an interesting physics experiment - can financial implosions lead to the formation of a black hole, Texas is generating a disproportionate share of jobs, for a few possible destinations. Every state has its unique charms.)
  In the meantime, they publish magazine articles, books and web sites, radio, as well as make use of other media.
  If they engage in terrorism that kills people, they get hunted down like dogs, until they get friends.
  Really, is this news to you? You probably should have paused earlier.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
5. Re:No it's not just you.. by spartacus_prime · 2011-06-12 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  I was with you until the subtle Ayers-Obama link at the end.
  
  --
  If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
6. Re:No it's not just you.. by tehcyder · 2011-06-13 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think being a right wing retard counts as being a dissident.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:No it's not just you.. by flyingsquid · 2011-06-13 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a thought exercise. Pick a country at random. Stand on a corner in that random country, and start saying "The government of [insert country here] is illegitimate! The bureaucrats are corrupt! [insert head of country name here] is a tyrant! We should get rid of the people in power and replace them! We should negotiate for peace in [insert name of area where the country is fighting an insurgency/war/uprising/political separatist movement]" Gather some other people, start distributing flyers, start recruiting members to a group, create a website, post online via FaceBook and Youtube, so on, and soforth. How far ya gonna get?
  If you're in a western democracy- the United States, Great Britain, Denmark, Japan, Australia etc., you're probably not going to have too much trouble as long as you don't start mentioning violence. It's possible that if you're being a nuisance you'll be asked to leave, and maybe if you're in the States you'll get stuck in one of those Free Speech Zones if you start becoming a little too effective. But you'll be more or less free to do what you want, and when you sleep in your bed, you're not going to worry about anyone pounding on the door in the middle of the night.
  And that's the difference between these countries and a lot of other places. Would you try this stunt in Beijing? How long before you ended up in prison? Would you feel comfortable doing this in Moscow and speaking out against Putin and the thugs from the former KGB? And if you really want to live dangerously, try doing this in Iran, where they'll lock you up and torture you. Try doing this in Syria or Lybia. You'll be visited by the state security apparatus, you'll enter custody, and that may be the last anyone sees of you. That's what happens to dissidents in these countries.
  The U.S. and other western democracies are far from perfect but to say that they're the moral equivalent of the repressive governments these programs are designed to fight is ridiculous. That doesn't mean we should be complacent and it doesn't mean we should tolerate abuses of power by our governments when they happen, and they do happen. But on the other hand, maybe we should be rightfully proud when the government once in a great while, actually does something right. And in this case, we have the U.S. government hiring hackers and nerds to fight repressive regimes with the free flow of information via the internet... I can't really think of anything more amazing than that. That's exactly the kind of thing I want my government to be doing.
8. Re:No it's not just you.. by obarthelemy · 2011-06-13 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is, the government already has, actually has had for 10+ years, a few very large tech projects and assets, for example Echelon, which is used for economical spying as well as political spying. Trying to help with freedom of speech is nice. Doing it 10+ years after putting together the biggest spying network ever, not so much. I'm not sure the -late and small- second counterbalances the first.
  As far as the soapbox example: your're right. But it's mainly irrelevant. What's relevant is politicians representing companies/magnates interests more than citizens. I'd count whoever died in the Iraq war, whoever was ruined by the latest financial bust, as a victim of the government serving their paymasters by either creating from scratch, or from willful negligence, a massive money transfer from citizen to friendly companies. Using that yardstick, i'm not sure we're faring that well.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
9. Re:No it's not just you.. by sjames · 2011-06-14 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Can we deploy here? Our ISPs are helping shadowy spy operations monitor our communications and tghey're shutting down legitimate websites without even a hearing...
how about we in the USA? by rubycodez · 2011-06-12 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

is someone making a package for us to circumvent our ever-repressive government in the Demokratik Polize State of Amerika ?
1. Re:how about we in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I came here to post this very question.
  How can our President support an Internet kill-switch at home, and employ this at the same time, and do both with US taxpayer money?
  Down with the US gov't in it's entirety, IMO.
2. Re:how about we in the USA? by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the US, we have plenty of access to the tools to do this exact same thing (or at least achieve similar general concepts). And, in fact, these sorts of projects have been ongoing for decades now. There are those who raise eyebrows at these sorts of things and mumble and grumble about how dark and scary they may be. But they can and have done little to prevent it.
3. Re:how about we in the USA? by Midnight+Thunder · 2011-06-12 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The sad thing is recent behaviour of both democrats and republicans show that it doesn't make a difference which party rules. They just screw their population in slightly different ways, unless you have the cash to pay to screw.
  The recent problem has been the heavy handed shutting down of sites without due process. Given the number of problem sites I can understand why they want to do this, but at the same time shouldn't there be some sort of transparency. Also, it would be nice if the US crack down of sites only affected sites in the USA and didn't impact what other countries see.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
4. Re:how about we in the USA? by rubycodez · 2011-06-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  those tools can only work through government controlled, regulated and monitored pipes. In the final analysis, futile.
5. Re:how about we in the USA? by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the tool. Not all tools involve government controlled, regulated and monitored pipes.
6. Re:how about we in the USA? by elucido · 2011-06-12 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  You are online to say what you are saying so the answer is yes.
7. Re:how about we in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is the root of the problem of politics in America. We label people and politicians as democrat or republican and then say "all republicans this" or "all democrats that". No, it's just anthony weiner showing his weiner. No, it's just paul ryan being general ignorant and joining forces with michelle bachman to fight a generational war. We need to get these individuals out of office, we need to remove the individual idiots and stop panting everyone with the same brush.
Umm.. didn't they just say.. by SuperCharlie · 2011-06-12 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

This kinda thing is an act of war?
1. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Xacid · 2011-06-12 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's time to seek citizenship elsewhere... *sigh*. This is just getting ridiculous.
  Well, rather, this has been sustained and increasing ridiculousness for a while but semantics aside...
2. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  This kinda thing is an act of war?
  No, that only applies to the terrorists. This help is for the freedom fighters who aren't terrorists yet. We have to arm them to justify the war against them in a few years/decades.
  Note to self: buy some shares in "cybersecurity" companies.
3. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Do as i say, not as i do.
4. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by MightyMartian · 2011-06-12 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia cybersecurity buys shares in you!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
5. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Please show where NATO described establishing an isolated network as an act of war.
  The hyperbole around this "act of war" meme is amazingly dense. NATO simply pointed out that espoionage in the digital age was just as much a potential act of war as espionage in the analog age. Granted - my concern is the difficulty of accurately identifying the actors of any given attack and therefore an accurate portrayal of an "act of war". But that is a far cry from screaming "act of war" whenever Government and computers are mentioned in the same sentence.
6. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  This kinda thing is an act of war?
  Seriously, the Slashdot hivemind is just going to do whatever it takes to lay hate on absolutely and ultimately anything the US ever does, won't they? If it were a US firm that discovered a universal cure for cancer and released it patent-free with no strings attached to the entire world, all we'd hear about on Slashdot is how they used Windows to do it, or about the one guy in the firm who didn't want it to be open to everyone. If the US established a colony on Mars and advanced science and technology by leaps and bounds and offered those developments to everyone, we'd just hear endless bitching about how people "need" to buy all the new higher-tech products and how their own experience has fallen behind, thanks to the US. If someone on Slashdot were kidnapped by separatists forces, flown out to a third-world tinpot dictatorship hellhole, nearly killed on tape by beheading, and saved by US military special forces, that person would do nothing but launch into an armchair general tirade about how "sloppy", "substandard", and "inefficient" the rescue was, how it was so clearly inferior because it was by the US, and the commenters on Slashdot would sympathize with the anarchist kidnappers and desperately search for whatever facts they can, as much of factual reaches as they can get, just to say how much the third-world tinpot dictatorship hellhole is so much "intellectually better and more open" than the US because one guy on a stealth internet connection installed by the US was able to download a new movie for free without getting arrested.
  You really are never happy, are you? Not that I'm complaining, mind; you idiots are the most amusingly and ironically closed-minded collective I've seen on the internet. Hell, I've seen "TITS OR GTFO" trolls more open-minded and less one-track-minded than you people.
7. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  But where can we go that isn't as bad or worse?
8. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Xacid · 2011-06-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why, Sealand of course!
9. Re:Umm.. didn't they just say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Not Canada. The place is too cold, full of hippies, you know what I'm talkin' aboot eh?
US government claims responsibility.. by biodata · 2011-06-12 05:05 · Score: 1

for anon attacks on foreign governments. It was only a matter of time.

--
Korma: Good
InternetS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:05 · Score: 0

OMFG they said "internets" that means they are stupid!!!!
1. Re:InternetS by Alex+Belits · 2011-06-12 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  A system of interconnected networks is called an internet, and there can be multiple independent internets.
  The Internet is the largest internet currently available all over the globe (one you are using when reading this). That network is unique, and therefore there can't be multiple Internets (capital 'I').
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
What's good for the goose by Omnifarious · 2011-06-12 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've read that parts of Anonymous also work on projects in this same vein. And that same facet of Anonymous is who carries out the DDoS attacks and other various distressing things. I wonder if the irony of sharing goals with Anonymous is completely lost on the US government. I expect probably so. Freedom abroad, a slow slide towards facism at home, that'll be the way of it.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
1. Re:What's good for the goose by bryan1945 · 2011-06-12 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I was wondering if either the government or someone (like Anonymous) has or is thinking about deploying a 'shadow internet' within US (maybe Mexico & Canada, too?) borders. The gov already has separate hardlines, so who's to say that those 'Verizon' workers putting in new fiber are actually working for Verizon instead of putting in new hardlines for the gov? Or using reserved frequencies for wireless communications? As for non-gov groups, there are also other channels to use. Wonder if the gov would bother tapping old-style modem to modem comms? VPNs, encryption, anonymizing nodes, extra-US nodes...
  
  --
  Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
2. Re:What's good for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  regarding your sig: why the fuck would you shorten/obfuscate an address that is in an tag? You're just being disrespectful to people who might want to visit your link but don't like being redirected who-knows-where.
3. Re:What's good for the goose by Omnifarious · 2011-06-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wonder if the gov would bother tapping old-style modem to modem comms? VPNs, encryption, anonymizing nodes, extra-US nodes...
  I wonder how cheaply a microwave relay station could be built? I've sometimes thought a network of those across the nation in private hands using PSK-based encryption to talk to each other would be nice insurance against having the mainstream network infrastructure cut.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
4. Re:What's good for the goose by biodata · 2011-06-12 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it's their way of discrediting Anonymous. "Hey guys, anonymous was us all the time". Nothing like smearing anon as a US government plot to cut down its popularity around the world.
  
  --
  Korma: Good
5. Re:What's good for the goose by MightyMartian · 2011-06-12 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  And here I was wondering if anyone in Anonymous could wipe their asses without assistance.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:What's good for the goose by JonySuede · 2011-06-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  read mine
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
7. Re:What's good for the goose by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  There is Freenet - it's not a separate internet, but a network of caching nodes running on the internet that makes communications untraceable. Such a thing could be shut down easily enough by just shutting down the internet entirely - but really, that's still a win, as it would incite further unrest in itsself. I don't know how many Anons use it, but I know it was used to publish Scientology documents, so probably at least one.
8. Re:What's good for the goose by Omnifarious · 2011-06-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  regarding your sig: why the fuck would you shorten/obfuscate an address that is in an tag? You're just being disrespectful to people who might want to visit your link but don't like being redirected who-knows-where.
  Because Slashdot allows at most 120 characters for a signature, and that includes information in tags that is not directly visible, like the href attribute. I think URL shorteners are a necessary evil, and I avoid them most of the time, but for this I don't really have much of a choice.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
9. Re:What's good for the goose by cbiltcliffe · 2011-06-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because the full length link doesn't fit within the sig length limit?
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
10. Re:What's good for the goose by russotto · 2011-06-12 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if the irony of sharing goals with Anonymous is completely lost on the US government.
  Strange bedfellows are nothing new in politics or statecraft (or espionage for that matter).
  
  I expect probably so. Freedom abroad, a slow slide towards facism at home, that'll be the way of it.
  Slow?
11. Re:What's good for the goose by caluml · 2011-06-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering if either the government or someone (like Anonymous) has or is thinking about deploying a 'shadow internet'
  That's one of the goals of Anonet - but their public site seems to be down.
  
  --
  Get your own free personal location tracker
12. Re:What's good for the goose by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-06-12 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it's their way of discrediting Anonymous. "Hey guys, anonymous was us all the time". Nothing like smearing anon as a US government plot to cut down its popularity around the world.
  If a government agency declares itself to be Anonymous then, by definition, it is.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
13. Re:What's good for the goose by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-12 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can build long-range wifi links on an average joe's budget, just some off-the-shelf home wifi hardware and regular TV satellite dishes.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
14. Re:What's good for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  My intuition tells me that "Anonymous" IS the government. I bet you these guys are probably secretly drawing paychecks. They draft up all of the "cybersecurity" laws and then "all the sudden" some group starts hacking like crazy? It's almost like a Hollywood script.
15. Re:What's good for the goose by ginbot462 · 2011-06-12 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Related; currently, DoD contractors are working on troposphere type comms equipment (again). Its just an adjunct to SATCOM. But, one benefit is the difficulty of man in the middle attacks (so, getting the trans/recv align perfectly matters to for bandwidth).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter
  
  --
  Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
16. Re:What's good for the goose by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Rather difficult to hide though. Great option if your intent is to bypass the need for troublesome commercial entities and their highly-regulated, filtered networks and obscene prices. Not so great if your intent is to sneak information past an oppressive government, who will send men to bash your door down and arrest you for subversion if they spot a satellite dish.
17. Re:What's good for the goose by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder if the irony of sharing goals with Anonymous is completely lost on the US government.
  Technology and tactics are not goals.
18. Re:What's good for the goose by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-14 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  How do you tell a TV dish from a wifi dish ;)
  Yeah one generally points up a bit while the other points at the horizon. But even then, with a radome they wouldn't be that hard to hide, especially in a cluttered urban environment.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
19. Re:What's good for the goose by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-14 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Easy solution. Just ban the TV dishes too. Only works in the most repressive regimes, but still a valid option. After all, the only reason anyone might want one is to watch unpatriotic and subversive overseas programming, rather than the culturally appropriate production broadcast by the state media.
Great News! by ohnocitizen · 2011-06-12 05:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Now we'll have a way to circumvent ICE copyright censorship, attempts by government officials to target critical bloggers, and of course everyone's favorite restrictions on videos/recordings of police actions. Let's boot this baby up and see what it can do....

localhost$shadowtubez start
==Welcome to ShadowTubez==
Fight the Power, with the help of the USA!
(Connecting to shadowtubez.us.gov to establish freedom fighter credentials...)

Doh!
PROTECT IP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, will we Americans be able to use this shadow internet and mobile phone networks to access what PROTECT IP tries to block?
1. Re:PROTECT IP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  So, will we Americans be able to use this shadow internet and mobile phone networks to access what PROTECT IP tries to block?
  Exactly, I want to find specs / components of this internet suitcase in order to get a home grown one up and running in the event that happens.
Starting messages in the subject line is lame by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2011-06-12 05:15 · Score: 2

Umm.. didn't they just say..
This kinda thing is an act of war?
No. This is no more of an attack than facebook, twitter or even TOR are "attacks."

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
1. Re:Starting messages in the subject line is lame by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Umm.. didn't they just say..
  This kinda thing is an act of war?
  No. This is no more of an attack than facebook, twitter or even TOR are "attacks."
  So it's worse than war?
America the Land of Liberty! by Haedrian · 2011-06-12 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

America the Land of Liberty*. Freeing the people from oppression**
*Note: Liberty is only available other countries.
**Does not count for people living in America
1. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by hitmark · 2011-06-12 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  You are free to speak your mind, just not using anything copyrighted, patented or trademarked by our corporate elite.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
2. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by rubycodez · 2011-06-12 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  You must like getting your junk freedom-fondled at the airport.
3. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  My mind is copyrighted, patented and trademarked by our corporate elite, you insensitive clod!
4. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  No I don't, but that isn't anything close oppression or or some essential liberty being deprived.
  I just destroyed you again. Please stop embarassing yourself, you sound like a fucking moron. I don't want to have to bitchslap you again and teach you another lesson.
  I win, yet again. 2-0.
5. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by atriusofbricia · 2011-06-12 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  America the Land of Liberty*. Freeing the people from oppression**
  *Note: Liberty is only available other countries.
  **Does not count for people living in America
  I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap? Won't happen?
  I know, I'll get thrown in jail for traveling to another state without permission.. oh.. not happening either?
  Prevented by the government from visiting or moving to another country? Damn, nope.. not that either..
  Disallowed from owning guns, property, practicing my religion or protesting peacefully?
  I'll find random politically objectionable websites filtered on a national scale? Well damn, not that either.
  So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of? I'm not saying it's perfect, but where is better and more free?
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
6. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Does it count as my yearly prostate exam?
7. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  ***Any acts that may be considered tyrannical are okay if done on an order by the government in America or in an allied country.
  I think we may need the alternative internet here in America.
8. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  See! You're repressing the GP! Look everyone! Look at the repression inherent in the system!
9. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by MoonBuggy · 2011-06-12 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree that the GP post was unreasonable, and that many countries are of course much worse, but the US does still have legitimate problems which need to be faced. The government is making consistent efforts to increase their powers both to act in secret and without warrant or oversight - we've seen where this leads both on a small scale (violent and corrupt police officers intimidating citizens with cameras) and on a large one (warrantless wiretapping); that's a road I'd really rather not see the US follow any further than it has. Police raids on private residences are also becoming increasingly militarised, a trend which has been shown to drastically increase the "us and them" mentality on both sides, and again is a catalyst for violent abuses of power. Often the justice system shows a marked difference in treatment of the rich and powerful compared to that of the poor. While political speech may not be enough to have your website seized, an accusation of copyright infringement may do it, again without conviction, oversight, or recourse. Wikileaks has revealed that some people in Guantanamo were there for little to no reason - while the white American citizen might not have anything to fear on that side of things, the Pakistani guy in the wrong place at the wrong time might not be so lucky; again, the real problem is the lack of transparency making abuses almost impossible to catch, let alone rectify.
  As for the 'where is better and more free?' question, I'd say most of Scandanavia, The Netherlands, and probably Canada and New Zealand too. No, the US isn't too bad, for the majority of citizens who are lucky enough not to have a run-in with the authorities, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't strive to be better.
10. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  How about Sweden?
11. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  You're obviously white.
12. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of?
  Taxation without representation for people who vote third-party (or would vote third-party, but vote D/R as the lesser of two evils). Your electoral system is the least representative in the OECD.
13. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  If Obama is concerned about freedom, he should start working in CHICAGO. Illinois is being transformed into a freak show, where filming a cop even in a public space is a CLASS 1 FELONY, same class as RAPE.
  A woman victim of sexual abuse by a policeman has been promptly incarcerated when she tried to record internal affairs officers trying to scare her out of filing the report. The Huffington Post link is below.
  Why going to another country? Mr Obama you have a freaking Police State in your own backyard!
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/chicago-district-attorney-recording-bad-cops_n_872921.html
14. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by gambino21 · 2011-06-12 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap?
  If you are white and/or well connected, probably not. If you are Muslim on the other hand, and travel to certain countries, then yes, there is a fair chance that you will either be thrown in Gitmo, or maybe just assassinated. Ever heard of Anwar al-Awlaki?
15. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by melted · 2011-06-12 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  You could be sent to gitmo if you try to try what the dissidents in some other countries do - organize with the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government. Or if you go to Washington DC with a giant mob and start looting and shooting at police. Etc, etc. You get my point. As a private person, you can say whatever the heck you please in nearly all of those "oppressed" countries. It's the action that gets you in trouble everywhere, including here.
16. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by nbauman · 2011-06-12 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of?
  
  Well, there's Javed Iqbal who wound up sentenced to 6 1/2 years for offering a cable channel the government didn't like -- al-Manar. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25tv.html There are dozens of cases of muslims who were convicted and jailed as the result of entrapment or sometimes even innocent activities like holding paintball games.
  The FBI treatment of the Black Panthers is probably the best recent textbook example of oppression of a political movement because of their beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
17. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  I live in New Zealand. We are fairly free to do what we want, but our current government is going to lengths to give the Police the right to install video cameras in our homes, and record for up to two days without a warrant. The Police have also recently been pushing for the right to stop and fingerprint anybody in public, on the chance that they may have been involved in a crime at some time.
  The previous government, the evil socialists that they were, came up with the idea. The thing was that they were disestablishing a corporate crime unit, who had those powers, and the Police were going to take over that role. The present government decided this corporate crime unit were to remain, but thought it would be a good idea to give the Police these powers anyway.
  Also, don't forget that the present government will implement laws if the US ask nicely enough.
18. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  No, you won't get thrown in jail. You'll get a shadowy group of "under the table" creeps to spy on you and/or set you up for a crime you didn't commit/set your house on fire/hire a drug addict to blow your head off/radiate you covertly so it looks like you died of a quick 1 month case of cancer, etc. . .
  You aren't prevented from visiting another country, but parts of the patriot act automatically come into effect as soon as you do, to track and trace everything you do.
  You can own guns, as long as the government can track you and send out bullitens to law enforcement that you are a "domestic terror threat".
  You can practice your religion, but you'll be tracked and databased.
  You can protest peacefully, but DHS will label you a terrorist, and the Army War College will train young recruits that "peaceful protesting is a form of low level terrorism".
  You don't find anything filtered, just tracked and targeted.
  You fail to see the real picture here. They won't try to shut you up, they'll just databse you as "an enemy" and figure out an indirect way to take you out without appearing like they're persecuting you.
19. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by atriusofbricia · 2011-06-12 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'll bite.. Will I get thrown in jail for saying Obama is a dick? No? Oh, so I suppose I'll get sent to GITMO for saying that the government is crap?
  If you are white and/or well connected, probably not. If you are Muslim on the other hand, and travel to certain countries, then yes, there is a fair chance that you will either be thrown in Gitmo, or maybe just assassinated. Ever heard of Anwar al-Awlaki?
  Really? this is going to be your example of a mild manned Muslim who just happened to get tossed into gitmo randomly? Want to try again?
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
20. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by atriusofbricia · 2011-06-12 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  So what exactly is this oppression you're speaking of?
  Well, there's Javed Iqbal who wound up sentenced to 6 1/2 years for offering a cable channel the government didn't like -- al-Manar. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/nyregion/25tv.html There are dozens of cases of muslims who were convicted and jailed as the result of entrapment or sometimes even innocent activities like holding paintball games.
  The FBI treatment of the Black Panthers is probably the best recent textbook example of oppression of a political movement because of their beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
  I would tend to agree that getting sentenced to 6.5 years for offering an unapproved cable channel would be a bit much by several hundred miles. However, that alone doesn't make for a case of "oppression". You and another person both picked cases of Muslims being "oppressed". Yet, I don't seem to recall when the mosques were burned down. Nor do I recall when the mass deportations occurred. When was that exactly?
  Point being, yes there are cases here and there but there is little to no evidence of systemic oppression as many people on slashdot and elsewhere seem to believe. Like it or not you can speak of Nazism openly here. Try that in France or Germany. You can openly say "maybe the terrorists are right!". Will it make you popular, probably not. Will it get you arrested if it isn't followed by "and lets do X!". Probably not.
  So again I say, where is this tremendous oppression everyone seems to say exists here. I've been to some of those "other countries", have you? Have those who are crying out "oppression"?
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
21. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by atriusofbricia · 2011-06-12 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  You could be sent to gitmo if you try to try what the dissidents in some other countries do - organize with the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government. Or if you go to Washington DC with a giant mob and start looting and shooting at police. Etc, etc. You get my point. As a private person, you can say whatever the heck you please in nearly all of those "oppressed" countries. It's the action that gets you in trouble everywhere, including here.
  Thrown in gitmo? Doubtful. There are several, probably hundreds, of different groups around the country dedicated to one level or another to over throwing this and that. The population of gitmo doesn't seem to be overflowing with such people, no?
  Yeah, you'd probably get thrown in jail and tried if you started committing crimes. There is nothing surprising and "oppressive" about that in and of itself. As to saying whatever you want in those "oppressed" places. Fly over to Iran and find the first cop and tell him the Ayatollah is a . Or hop over to Thailand and say the King is a . Presuming we ever here from you again, let us know how that went.
  My point being you could do exactly that here and whether it made you popular or not, it wouldn't get you arrested and charged with anything. Even if the cop in question was dumb enough to arrest you the charges wouldn't stick and the ACLU would be all over it.
  People here who speak of how oppressive, which is again not to say it is perfect by any means, the US is clearly have no idea what real oppression is.
  
  --
  I was raised on the command line, bitch
  "Nemo me impune lacesset"
22. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Been to Cuba recently?
  Just asking...
  anoncoward
23. Re:America the Land of Liberty! by nbauman · 2011-06-13 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  The Black Panthers weren't muslims. They weren't particularly religious.
  I think there were a couple of cases of mosques burned down. You seem to be arguing that, if their mosques weren't burned down, and they weren't deported, they weren't oppressed. I think people can be oppressed without having their mosques burned down or being deported.
  If you want cases of non-Muslims being prosecuted for expressing their First Amendment rights, look at the Communists during the McCarthy days, and in particular look up the Supreme Court case of Dennis vs. United States.
  Of course, we oppressed the black slaves for the first 100 years of our country, and we continued to oppress the freed slaves for 100 years after the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. I think slavery qualifies as oppression, and so does killing somebody because he wants to vote.
  We have the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. We have about 2% of the population in jail, and 10-20% of the black population, even though white people commit crimes just as frequently. That's oppression.
And NATO sad "persecute"... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:21 · Score: 0

It's an act of war, unless the US does it. Or is NATO feels threatened by its own citizens. Not sure I'd trust it completely, given their hypocrisy -- what's to stop the US from tracking those that use these tools and selling them out? Trust the cypherpunks at Telecomix.org just do some research, train yourself, train your community, and trust yourself instead.
Pot, meet kettle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:24 · Score: 0

Yes, this is definitely a big steaming crock of hypocrisy.
why don't they use this? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:32 · Score: 0

why don't they use this?
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/060811-plano-company-creates-4g-lte-network-for-battlefields
Pfft. by benjamindees · 2011-06-12 05:34 · Score: 2

I have five internets in my briefcase right here. Why, just the other day my secretary sent me an internet. Typical government waste. Next thing you know they'll want to build a bridge to nowhere.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Re:THIS IS FLAMEBAIT MOD THE FUCK DOWN NOW!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:35 · Score: 0

u mad?
what about cp by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:36 · Score: 0

can we has delicious cheesepizza in there?
maybe? prettyplz?
The revolution will be broadcast... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

As the article says "The revolution will be broadcast...", but it leaves out "straight to the US govt who will then decide if they want to a)let you carry on in your attempt to self govern (provided the US can profit from it) or b)arrange for a leak of information that will crush you"
propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is pure propaganda. The very last thing the US wants is for genuine freedom of information. What it does want is failsafe communication with its own sympathisers, clients and agents. People make comments along the lines of "what about if they start censoring us?" Did you not notice? Will you consider your news media uncensored simply because nobody puts a 2 minute ad on national TV or a full page ad in the NYT explaining that it's already happened? Wake up. Did you not notice that you are never allowed to hear or read your enemies' words directly or in full? You are only allowed to digest small pieces, decontextualised and presented by public relations people masquerading as journalists. You can identify the real journalists if you have a good memory: they are the people who used to ask hard questions, who were also unafraid to cross frontlines and ask hard questions of the enemy, who are no longer welcome, whose access is rescinded and whose names and reputations are slandered and traduced and who are finally ignored. In their place you have the shame and disgrace of "embedded" journalists, people who are a do not deserve to be called journalists and who have made a compact to deceive you. The English language media is now a rather glossy and expensive upgrade of Pravda. Why on earth would the government legislate censorship when it can be outsourced, bought and paid for? This is how free speech and an uncensored media works in a country with free speech enshrined in the constitution and tested and protected in law. How well do you think it will work in projects funded and controlled by the CIA? Does anyone truly believe these projects exists to counter repression? They exist to promote one kind of repression over another.
1. Re:propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  So, to be clear, you *are* allowed to hear *and* read your enemies' words directly, generally speaking. Just not on the news.
  Shocker, you have to go and make an effort to find information if you want it to be colored solely by your own prejudices, not those of others. A novel concept for sure.
2. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, in fact you are not allowed. This is not just about broadcast media. The internet is not a forum of free expression. That is an illusion.
  You can test this for yourself by trying to access English language transcripts of one of (so far) the most influential figures of this century:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden
  Now find full English language transcripts of those from 2006 onwards. It's not possible. Prior to that you'll find that mainstream, respectable and even publicly funded news organisations would offer full English transcripts, usually in a timely manner. Occasionally their journalists obtained and published interviews or received written replies to submitted questiosn and then published them. Since sometime in 2005 this ceased to be the case and any websites which do publish those transcripts vanish very quickly indeed. You'll find perhaps two or three available out of a possible 24 or so. The rest are off limits. You may not see them. Your government has decided that you are not permitted to read such dangerous words and so they have gone to huge expense and trouble to suppress their publication wherever and whenever it occurs. This is ongoing.
  If you can refute this by finding those translations and transcripts then please illustrate this refutation with links and citations. But you won't be able to do so because if your only language is English and you are not part of an intelligence agency then you no longer trusted or permitted to make up your own mind.
3. Re:propaganda by ubergamer1337 · 2011-06-12 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ok so why don't you just learn Arabic? You can take classes at lots of State U's. UNH has two years of it, and 50 kids a year enroll in the elementary Arabic class.
4. Re:propaganda by ubergamer1337 · 2011-06-12 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  http://english.aljazeera.net/Services/Search/?q=osama%20translation Turns out they have transcripts of almost all of his most current speeches and writings.
5. Re:propaganda by thrich81 · 2011-06-12 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To some extent I can see where you are coming from. I was on some international travel in 2003-2004 and it was striking how different the Iraq coverage was by CNN International vs. the domestic CNN feed. However, don't blame the government for that -- the vast majority of people want to hear news which reinforces their already held opinions of things (and it has always been that way). The big news organizations are there to make money (not so true 50 years ago, but there really was no 'golden age' of unbiased news reporting) and for that they sell their audiences what they want to hear, in any country or society nowadays. Don't blame the government for that -- look around and blame your fellow citizens and "news consumers". There is plenty of news and evidence available which puts into question the official reports and societal held opinions, if people are willing to just pay attention. And the fricking "US is the Great Satan" meme is just as bogus as any of them so give that a rest. You don't need better governments, you need better citizens, and most of them aren't willing to be so.
6. Re:propaganda by Rinnon · 2011-06-12 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  What it does want is failsafe communication with its own sympathisers, clients and agents. People make comments along the lines of "what about if they start censoring us?" Did you not notice? Will you consider your news media uncensored simply because nobody puts a 2 minute ad on national TV or a full page ad in the NYT explaining that it's already happened? Wake up. Did you not notice that you are never [b]allowed[/b] to hear or read your enemies' words directly or in full? You are only [b]allowed[/b] to digest small pieces, decontextualised and presented by public relations people masquerading as journalists.
  Really? You're unable to Google information on Al Quaeda? You're unable to view Afghan or Pakistani news sources direct by going to their websites? I get that it's cool to act like America is censoring you, and that you're so hard done by living in this "repressive" "freedom hating" state. But if you wanted more than just the sound bite they give you on CNN, you have the Internet, and you can look it up. The only thing stopping you is your inability to read another language. Comparing your primary news source not giving you enough information to hear both sides of a story with a country that actively shuts down the entire Internet to prevent dissidents from effectively communicating is fucking childish.
7. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's not even close to being true.
  At first glance it seems you to find managed 14 good results in total out of a possible 34 to 40 between the mid 90s and 2011. Of those 14 results it turns out that only 5 are actually transcripts and the rest are merely references or even erroneous results. Al Jazeera is certainly worth reading but it is funded by and exists to promote the interests of the state of Qatar, a client of the USA and Saudi Arabia.
  If you're happy to be asleep I'm sorry I disturbed you but if you think you can refute what I originally said then please offer direct links, not just an unchecked and pointless link to the output of a search engine
8. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Do you seriously suggest that citizens of a supposedly free country must learn Arabic instead of insisting that their democracy actually functions? Are people actually preferring to be ignorant? If that's the case then you deserve to have lost the freedoms that have been subverted in the last decade and you are no better than slaves.
  In fact Arabic wouldn't be enough. You'd also need, at minimum, Spanish and perhaps also Hebrew, Pashto, Urdu and Cantonese. Once you have a reasonable grasp of 4 or 5 foreign languages you start to be equipped to circumvent the propaganda machine. I don't know about anyone else but I found that my intellectual capacity allows for me to be reasonably proficient in my native language, to be ok but far from fluent in one or two related languages and to be in effect almost incapable of learning to speak or understand languages which differ radically (different alphabet, tonal languages etc). I think the better option is for people who loudly proclaim themselves to be free to actually become so. The point is that once the citizenry is incapable of making itself informed then the democratic process is utterly broken. This is the case now.
9. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you speak Urdu or Pashto those Pakistani and Afghan news sources will offer nothing intelligible. I wasn't just referring to the US media, I was referring to the *English language* media. When the US takes down a website or domain it becomes inaccessible not just to US citizens but to the rest of the world as well. doh.
  Again: if you can refute what I stated in my original post then please offer the direct links. It isn't complicated. If you can show that I am wrong then prove it. Put it beyond doubt. Bring it out of the domain of opinion and into the domain of verifiable, repeatable fact.
  Saying so doesn't make it so.
10. Re:propaganda by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  I get CCTV over the air in Houston, Texas. Are you saying that Chinese state television's English-language channel is being edited by the US government?
11. Re:propaganda by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-12 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  I always watch CNN International if I have a choice. CNN US is an unapologetic infotainment channel, almost as stupid as Fox News, just without the crushing right-wing bias.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
12. Re:propaganda by nbauman · 2011-06-12 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Al-Manar is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar
  You can't get Al-Manar on CCTV in the US. A cable operator in Staten Island, NY tried to offer it, he was arrested, and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison.
13. Re:propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  Of course you're free to google that. Upon doing that you realize that "the base" is just a CIA front group for training radicals and militants to attack us in order to further political agendas. Just like the FBI goes out to find as many crazies as they can domestically, gives them weapons and tries to get them to wreak havoc.
  The problem is that once you have become aware of this information which has not been "censored", you are suddenly labeled all sorts of nasty things. In the future, perhaps, anyone doing any sort of research on a government claim will be cut off quite quickly. The DHS datacenter will flag you, warrantlessly locate you and triangulate your GPS location, sending the data to the Pentagon UAV command (probably not even touching human hands), and an impersonal drone (guided automatically by AI, without anyone at the helm) will send a hellfire missile into your house. Given that we've decided that being suspected of a crime is a capital offense, including with American citizens, and we have thrown away the fourth amendment, the first amendment almost turns into a predatory weapon. Say what you will without being censored, and then you die once you say anything the government does not pre-approve of. Death by first amendment, courtesy of your Uncle Sam.
  Before I be accused of being "off the deep end": This is kind of dramatic on purpose, but you have to admit that the very fact that this COULD BE DONE is frightening. They literally have the technology to implement just such a thing, and there would be so few (or no) people involved as to remove the chances of dissent within the ranks. I believe our drone warfare abroad is beta testing for when they turn it domestic.
  In a freedom loving society, informed citizens should be the very model of virtue. Just look at how any well informed citizen gets treated in our country and that will indicate just the mindset we are dealing with.
14. Re:propaganda by downhole · 2011-06-12 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  You're bitching that we're being oppressed because nobody feels like translating foreign news sources into English for free for you?!? If you're implying that there's some sort of conspiracy to suppress the wise and insightful words of Hezbollah and Osama Bin Ladin, I suggest YOU put up some evidence instead of trying to get everyone else to do your work for you. Because I think it's just barely possible that most people have figured out long ago that these people haven't had anything interesting to say in years/decades, and nobody cares anymore.
  And what exactly are these news sources saying that is so important to hear? Why don't you just tell us what this important information is, instead of trying to get us to jump through a bunch of hoops to hear it from someone else?
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
15. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, and I didn't claim that the US govt directly publicly edits the US media newsrooms (though of course it does fully control the embeds). It's about interests and unspoken (publicly) compliance, not overt coercive or legislative enforcement.
  The US media claims to be free and fearless, with the fourth estate supposed to be an essential pillar of democracy. The Chinese media's world service owes you no such thing and has no such responsibility. If Bin Laden makes a direct address to the American people do the Chinese media have a responsibility to present and analyse this for a US audience? Which country's media might be expected to deal with it in the most honest way?
  And remember the Chinese are also fighting an Al Qaeda linked insurgency in western China. There are common interests at work.
  Yet again: if anyone can refute the point I made in my earlier post then please do so. If I'm wrong then all you have to do is post the direct links. It isn't complicated. You free people living in your free country where liberty and free speech are as important as the air you breathe: you are not allowed to read those words. You cannot be trusted. Wherever they are published the publication is suppressed and you don't even notice. You have become so effectively conditioned by your "patriotic" news media doing exactly the opposite of their duty that you don't even see the problem. Wake up.
  So if this is not the case don't just say so, or be sarcastic or sceptical. Demonstrate it to be so with simple direct links to the information. Not to decontextualised samples or soundbites or hearsay or criticism, just the simple plain text.
16. Re:propaganda by julian67 · 2011-06-12 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually the job of the news media to translate foreign news media into English so that their English speaking readers/viewers/listeners can keep themselves informed and participate effectively in a democracy. This shouldn't come as news to anyone.
  I am unable to prove a negative.
  Free people should be able to decide what they find significant and important and whether they care or not for themselves. The duty of journalists in a democracy is to report significant events, to ask searching questions, to expose wrongdoing, to hold their government to account, and to present as full a picture as possible. This is vital to any democracy and when it ceases to be the case then democracy fails. This is the case now.
  If you actually prefer that other people decide what you ought to hear and who you are allowed to hear then I suggest you have ceased to be free.
  I'm not asking anyone to jump through hoops. I've cited an example where it is easily demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that the English language news media has completely failed to resist the will of government and of other powerful interests. One of the most significant figures of the last twenty years, whose actions have helped drag every major western nation into endless, expensive war has not only been physically killed but even more his words are suppressed. This should concern anyone who believes they are living in a free country. It's a very curious kind of free country where the free press has decided to trust the government instead of holding it to account. I'm not satisfied with knowing only about the people I'm told are acceptable. If I am free and living in a free country then I ought to be able to know about my enemy.
  I can't tell you exactly what information is contained in those English language transcripts because they are inaccessible. That's the point. I don't know Arabic so I can't read them or understand the spoken word. I do know that all the major news outlets used to transcribe and publish them as a matter of course. That is their job and it was unremarkable and normal. People used to question whether the translations were good or bad but not whether journalists should perform their job as journalists. But these days the English language media have declined to perform their duty and when others step in their publications disappear. The websites vanish, their ability to broadcast is lost, sometimes via commercial pressure, sometimes by licensing or legislative means and sometimes by means of bombing their offices.
  I have this idea that if someone has incited and sustained a global insurgency, has reconciled numerous factions and brought them to his cause, has made hugely painful attacks on the cities of the USA and Europe and their allies, then this person is of significance. I suspect that your opinion "these people haven't had anything interesting to say in years/decades, and nobody cares anymore." may be somehat wide of the mark, as it seems a great many people have been paying close attention, care a great deal and then act accordingly.
  Yet again, if anyone can offer a simple, verifiable refutation than I'll be pleased to see it. All you have to do is post the direct links.
17. Re:propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  see http://www.counterpunch.com/
  There are some others about, still trying to maintain these "dissident" connections
  Unfortunately too few and far between.
  Send them a dollar - do us ALL a favour to establish just a modicum of "balance"
18. Re:propaganda by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  I don't mean CCTV as an acronym for closed-circuit television or as a cable operator. I mean CCTV as in the state-controlled Chinese news agency. "CCTV" is the badge they dispkay on their broadcasts. I've been watching Al-Jazerra, CCTV, CNN International, CBC, BBC, NHK, Deutsche-Welle, French24, UK Channel 4, All Africa, and GeoTV for years. Nobody's arrested me yet.
19. Re:propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Assange, is that you?
20. Re:propaganda by ubergamer1337 · 2011-06-13 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Now you're changing your requirements to fit my evidence. You asked me to find any full English transcripts for 2006 onwards. I was able to find full English transcripts from Osama's broadcasts in 2011 in about 20 seconds, thereby disproving your assertion that "it's not possible". Since you then threw in the "mid 90's", I would suggest:
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457
  
  It's a very nice guide to Osama's writing from the mid 90's up to 2004, I used it in a class on modern Islam.
  
  If you're worried about the accuracy, we're back to "learn it yourself" or consider finding someone you trust who already knows the language to verify the translation. This is back to trust, which you frankly seem to be trying to avoid. You could even use a site like mechanical turk - get several different disconnected strangers to translate it, and if they agree then you can probably trust the results (or there's a very large conspiracy, at which point there's no good advice I can give you.)
  
  As to your issue with learning Arabic: "Do you seriously suggest that citizens of a supposedly free country must learn Arabic instead of insisting that their democracy actually functions?"
  
  what? A functioning democracy isn't usually described as having free translation services for citizens too lazy to do the work themselves. Ignoring that, if you're really concerned about the lack of quality translation, you don't need to learn all those languages. Just find some people who share your distrust in everyone else and split up the work. I took first year arabic as part of my Middle Eastern studies minor - its a complete bitch, but it's not impossible. When I was in Morocco there were many shop owners who could speak passable French, Arabic, English, Spanish and Dutch. If you really wanted to learn these languages so you could study the world outside the english enclave you could, but I think you prefer to shout about how the man is oppressing you by not providing timely translations instead.
  
  Finally, I think you have the sleeping part backwards. I went out of my way to learn about the Middle East, assimilate in Morocco and learn some Arabic. You just whine about the government not doing this for you. You're just in a nightmare of your own making.
21. Re:propaganda by nbauman · 2011-06-14 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  China is a country that is "friendly" to the U.S., despite their human rights abuses, because China is so profitable for many Americans to deal with. So sure, you can get TV broadcasts from countries friendly to the U.S. Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech for people your government agrees with. It's for people you *disagree* with.
  What you can't get easily is broadcasts from countries unfriendly to the U.S., like Al-Manar. Set up a cable tv system that offers Al-Manar, and you'll get arrested fast enough. You'll probably get something like 6 1/2 years like Javed Iqbal did.
  I realize that the U.S. has a great deal of freedom of expression, compared to other countries in the world, but if you were a black person in the South in the 1960s, or an accused Communist in the McCarthy era, or a homosexual prior to Stonewall, or a muslim or arab today, you'd have a lot of oppression.
  I think it's better to acknowledge that oppression and work to stop; it, than to deny it exists and let it continue.
22. Re:propaganda by mr_mischief · 2011-06-14 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not denying anything. I know there's some oppression in the US. It's the nature of power. It wants to oppress. Thankfully, though, we're still doing a better job in the US than many other places limiting oppression these days.
Keyword 'funding' by rsilvergun · 2011-06-12 05:39 · Score: 1

it's free money for somebody's buddy. Seriously, 'internet in a suitcase'? It's probably one of these

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment Subject by eL-gring0 · 2011-06-12 05:41 · Score: 1

Is this really any different than trying to deliver an insurgency some form of weapons or armaments? I don't think this lets the US keep its hands any cleaner when interfering.
I'm more curious to see which is more effective - arming the equivalent of some mujahideen or rebels or even just citizens, versus getting them on Facebook. I think we've seen the blowback arming groups can result in. Could spreading rogue Internet connections be a mistake the somehow US regrets in the future? I mean other than roaming data charges.
This, Jen, is the internet... by derblack · 2011-06-12 05:45 · Score: 1

Internet in a suitcase? I had to immediately think of The IT-Crowd: "and this Jen...", shows her a little box , ".... is the Internet!"

--
cat /dev/null > sig
1. Re:This, Jen, is the internet... by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I may have to actually build one of those. An Internet.
  
  It's for a training course. The curriculum needs internet access, but the organisation won't permit the class to hook up to the site LAN, and as those on the course are minors we can't let them connect to the public internet without going through an elaborate government-approved anti-porn filter... which they only allow on the LAN. Thus I suggested I make them an Internet - a netbook-in-a-box that provides a simulated little internet. Just a DHCP server, network interface configured to look like a router, DNS and a webserver to browse to.
2. Re:This, Jen, is the internet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Does the kids win one internet for completing the course?
Shut down the US Internet but circumvent another.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:51 · Score: 0

That's great... the US will stop its own Internet http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/24/power-shut-internet-court-oversight/ but it will make Internet in a suitcase (LOL) for those big desert countries.
Let's keep spending US taxpayer dollars to protect the rights of people out there in other countries, while our own Supreme Court says police can ignore the 4th amendment. http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2011/05/supreme-court-ruling-lets-police-break-down-doors-to-save-evidence.html ...while we pay for them to take our rights and hand them to others.
What's next, China owning the US? http://www.prisonplanet.com/meet-the-new-boss-china-owns-the-united-states.html
Lou
US by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:53 · Score: 0

Sweet, can we get one for the US?
"Stand up to the megacorps" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 05:56 · Score: 0

What country does that? Russia, maybe, because it outright steals all of their assets and jails owners, but I can't think of other examples.
Throughout history, money buys power. The political process is the auction mechanism for gov power.
If you want to control corporations, and I do, you have to minimize gov power so the corps must concentrate on their economic position relative to competition. I can deal with corps by not buying from them, unless they have purchased some 'power of the gun' that eliminates my options.
Putting the government back inside the Constitution is the only meaningful reform. Everything else is impossible, because we citizens don't have the concentrated focus to challenge the oligarchy's ownership of government, or a 'give me more power, I will fix the problem' reform that plays into their hands.
Even putting the gov back inside the Constitution (a technology of government, not a Holy Book), is probably impossible for the first of those reasons. The oligarchy is using all of the tools and knowledge accumulated through more than 100 years of increasingly-scientific practice of propaganda/advertising, and so it requires very critical thinkers to keep focused on the important issues.
The important issue for most countries in the world is that their oligarchy has enough power to close their political systems, convert to seriously authoritarian government, complete with gulags, torture, extra-judicial killings, ... The USofA is very far along this path.
1. Re:"Stand up to the megacorps" by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-06-12 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Russia, maybe, because it outright steals all of their assets and jails owners,
  
  If you take something from me, I get to take it back - even 20 years later. That's what's happening in Russia.
  
  you have to minimize gov power so the corps must concentrate on their economic position relative to competition.
  So the corps can fight it out to be the new government.
  
  I can deal with corps by not buying from them,
  Yes, if you have a large amount of fertile land and various survival skills, and are prepared to forego the luxuries of modern life, that's no problem.
2. Re:"Stand up to the megacorps" by Lundse · 2011-06-12 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I can deal with corps by not buying from them...
  You really can't though. Really. You not buying those Nike sneaks does not stop the slave factories, and whatever cell phone you bought, some black kid probably had to crawl through a dark whole to get the Rarebit-ium. 'Not actively supporting' is not the same as 'dealing with'...
  
  --
  IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
3. Re:"Stand up to the megacorps" by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2011-06-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of honest legal arrangement could make a guy without a fortune to become the owner of big state owned enterprises like oil? Outside Mexico, Russians suffered the worst looting of public property in recent memory. Thankfully, at least their statesmen made something about their previous stupidity and they don't have a fucking crime war destroying the country.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
4. Re:"Stand up to the megacorps" by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-12 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to control corporations, and I do, you have to minimize gov power so the corps must concentrate on their economic position relative to competition.
  HAAAAhahaha irony overload!
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Per Vernor Vinge by F34nor · 2011-06-12 05:59 · Score: 2

In Rainbows End the Army rains down networking nodes on a site that they want to control. I have been talking about doing this as a 501c. Make off the shelf Meraki style nodes with a mix and match of bands. E.g. 900mHz backbone and 802.11b/g with every 10th or so with a satellite uplink. Make them cheap enough to carpet bomb out of a b52. Give them a solar panel or a easy connect to a car battery or a 110/220. When ever someone tries to "turn off the internet" just drop a new one. The peer to peer cell phone also has a hand in this a Motorola f4 style phone or even a Belkin Skype phone could be dropped at the same time. TerraNet was already covered on /. http://snapvoip.blogspot.com/2007/09/peer-to-peer-mobile-phones-by-terranet.html
DNS and the world of wonders.. by SuperCharlie · 2011-06-12 06:00 · Score: 1

I often wonder what would happen if a group of nerds..like ourselves.. decided to start our own root DNS.. I would suspect that it would be shut down by the FCC in short order under some new or trumped up mangled misinterpretation of some law.
1. Re:DNS and the world of wonders.. by SuricouRaven · 2011-06-12 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Unlikely. What would actually happen is simpler: No-one would use it.
2. Re:DNS and the world of wonders.. by rubycodez · 2011-06-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  you still have to operate over government controlled, regulated, and monitored pipes, to end nodes that are subject to search and seizure. don't waste your time.
3. Re:DNS and the world of wonders.. by SuperCharlie · 2011-06-12 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Very good point. Tip o the hat to ya.
4. Re:DNS and the world of wonders.. by msaavedra · 2011-06-12 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  I often wonder what would happen if a group of nerds..like ourselves.. decided to start our own root DNS.. I would suspect that it would be shut down by the FCC in short order under some new or trumped up mangled misinterpretation of some law.
  Alternative root servers have existed for years. The largest is probaby OpenNIC.
  
  --
  "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
  --Henry David Thoreau
5. Re:DNS and the world of wonders.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
Here ya go by SuperCharlie · 2011-06-12 06:03 · Score: 1

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/01/Pentagon-Cyberattacks-deemed-acts-of-war/UPI-17821306915200/

Try and keep up with the class
1. Re:Here ya go by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Very good. That's a link to a story about the Pentagon's statements. Nowhere in that entire article does it support the concept that a stand-alone network is an act of war. Feel free to provide a quote if you disagree.
2. Re:Here ya go by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  You can easily find stand-alone networks' activities being discussed "acts of war", just start google the keywords "enemy belligerant" and "cyber war". You should expect to start hearing these terms together for decades to come. The NATO report focused disproportionately on the actions of Wikileaks.org and the Anonymous group, both are citizen activist groups, but NATO is a military organization. Obama, the DoD, members of congress -- they want certain civilian crimes to be redefined as "acts of war" that carry with them a different legal designation "enemy belligerant", this was what they tried with the original version of the Military Commissions Act in 2006. They're shifting from the paradigm of policing, to a paradigm of persecution, using the military and intelligence services. This is part of a big big shift within governments of the west, and its related to Patriot Act being renewed and expanded in the US.
  Some starting points:
  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/a-detention-bill-you-ought-to-read-more-carefully/37116/
  http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
3. Re:Here ya go by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  HAHA NO
  I call shenanigans...
  notice how there have been very few spies caught ?
  do you think they have a) gotten very good or b) vanished completely?
  both are wrong. many of ours get caught, and we catch many of theirs BUT,
  this is done quietly, because they just simply trade captives, each side getting their agents back.
  this has become so commonplace now that its more like a student exchange program than act of war
4. Re:Here ya go by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is a real stretch of terms. Wikileaks and Anonymous are doing considerably more than setting up stand-alone, uncontrolled networks. If the Government ever manages to prosecute members from those two groups, it won't include accusations of knowing how to set up WAPs in adhoc mode.
5. Re:Here ya go by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Ironic, being a smart alec with a link to an article that at no point shows where NATO described establishing an isolated network as an act of war. Infact it specifically refers to _hostile acts_ more than once...
Why is it the US' business to do this? by substance2003 · 2011-06-12 06:08 · Score: 1

I haven't read the article but my issue with what is being said here is that the American tax payer is being forced to foot the bill for this.
It may only be millions in a government spending level of Billions/Trillions but still, is it really something they should be getting involved in to begin with?
What do others here think of this? Are you alright with this?
Get real everyone by Doug77 · 2011-06-12 06:14 · Score: 1

I can't believe all the negative comments on this. It seams to me that people are so jaded with themselves for not taking responsibility for their own media consumtion that they blame the government for censorship. What the hell is everyone talking about? None of the "down with government" posts are censored here. None of my paranoid friends have mysteriously disappeared. We live in a great country and you should wake up and realize that. maybe wikileaks did have a positive effect. Maybe the government, though reluctant at first is warming up to the fact that free and open communication is the only way to grow this world into a better place. I find this article inspiring and hoe others do too.
1. Re:Get real everyone by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2011-06-12 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, this is mostly made for propaganda that the american public buys easily because they don't know even a little bit of the reality in foreign countries. The american government has issue with Gadaffi killing civilians, but they appear that they don't have any trouble with the rebels killing black people just because they are black. The ethnic cleansing that libyan rebels are doing could have been stopped easily if the western powers had said to the libyan rebels that they will stop to support their offensive if the killings of black people don't come to an end. The same logic applies to all the friends and foes of USA around the world. The almost irrational hate against USA that goes in large swats of the world didn't appear out of thin air or soviet propaganda.
  You have seen the mass demonstrations against despotic rulers in Middle East, the demonstrations against Chávez in Venezuela, but I would bet my life that most of you americans have never saw a picture or a video of the demonstrations that we mexicans did against the stolen elections in 2006, the largest one was of at least 2.5 million people in Mexico City, but since we were fighting against the imposition of an american puppet we had been painted like a minority of enemies of democracy.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
2. Re:Get real everyone by Artemis3 · 2011-06-13 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  A tool funded by the US will have a backdoor in place, so it's useless. If you want to make sure a tool is safe, you have to break the law there and not get caught before attempting to deploy it elsewhere.
  Open projects such as freenet, gnunet might have a better chance, as they make a "no one's land" suitable for secure communication.
  No matter how much are you against certain ppl, Say, Gadaffi, the amount of mockery getting spread to justify wanton bombing is getting ludicrous. Seriously, viagra?
  NATO is killing more civilians (even rebels) right now than whatever the regime was being accused of...
  Just a little remainder no power is to be trusted, only the community can provide a reliable tool, once you establish that its safe.
  
  --
  Artix
  Your Linux, your init.
Guns. by n1ywb · 2011-06-12 06:15 · Score: 1

Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps?
I think people with guns can stand up to most megacorps quite nicely.

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
1. Re:Guns. by ppanon · 2011-06-12 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  True, but most people think that civil wars like you had in Central America in the 70's and 80's are a pretty extreme option and that others are preferable. But if you like living in the bush and being hunted for 20 years, good luck with that. Especially if you live in the central USA plains.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
2. Re:Guns. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Do you honestly think there is anything else besides a strong central government that can stand up to mega-corps?
  I think people with guns can stand up to most megacorps quite nicely.
  Right, and what are you going to do, carry a shotgun in to Exxon headquarters and demand change in the way things are done? Guns will get you killed, that's what guns will do.
3. Re:Guns. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Megacorps can afford better guns than private citizens. Actually, they won't even need them. They can just buy all the schools and media and in a few generations 95% of all people will have been brought up to be patriotic to the megacorps.
4. Re:Guns. by colinrichardday · 2011-06-12 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  What about Blackwater/XE? I'm pretty sure that they will fire back.
5. Re:Guns. by lennier · 2011-06-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think people with guns can stand up to huge industrial combines who manufacture and sell the guns and ammo in the first place quite nicely.
  Fixed that for you, and by "fixed" I mean "broke".
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
6. Re:Guns. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  I think people with guns can stand up to most megacorps quite nicely.
  Even when the megacorps have these?
In other words ... by PPH · 2011-06-12 06:17 · Score: 1

... Net Neutrality is some sort of munitions. If we (State Dept/Pentagon) decide to attack an undesirable regime, we'll drop it on them. But try to have it at home and you might as well be asking for a machine gun.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
What's Good for the Goose ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:23 · Score: 0

Should China deploy an alternative network in the United States to allow software/music/movie pirates to undermine repressive copyright laws, or is that somehow "different"?
Internet in a BOX Shall be Over Ruled by a by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:31 · Score: 0

In the Box can't beat my 10 uplink setup :-),
Freedom at last! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:42 · Score: 0

Awesome, can I use this in the US?
US wants a permanent hand in world online future by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:49 · Score: 0

What's new?
"Eyes and ears everywhere" is the motto of the top agencies around the world.
This is to that end, by definition.
In Star Wars, the Chancellor Palpatine first creates an imperative need for an Army.
Then he creates the Army of Clones answerable to him alone.
Then deploys the Army for the "Safety of the Free Peoples"(TM)
And then turns around at the last minute and declares a coup.
Is there anything different in the financial and strategic methods of USA over the past 6 decades (Or more, if you recount that the Bush family supplied arms to both sides in World War I as well)?
Everything the Empire ever does is exactly what Darth Sidious / Palpatine did in Star Wars.
That is the very game of running an empire through use of power and control.
The first few uses of this set of networks will be greatly gratifying.
Once you are hooked, it will be distorted to reveal its true aims.
Like your American Way Of Life, which is hardly so when compared to the real America pre-1920s, and pre-Federal Reserve.
Remember, everything works both ways.
A very tricky principle.
Oh, now THIS is funny! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 06:51 · Score: 0

Here we are "giving others freedom" or trying to (and I'm not sure they'd WANT our "brand of freedom" (the illusion of it rather)), and yet we have our own repressive system here in the USA called "The PATRIOT ACT". For Pete's sake, this is utterly ludicrous hypocrisy. WTF is wrong with our planet today?!?
How? by chill · 2011-06-12 06:53 · Score: 1

Creating an alternate up-link and backbone infrastructure isn't that difficult. You can use point-to-point microwave or laser communications to keep the backbone hidden, and a satellite up-link to connect to the wider world.
How do you deal with clients? You can't go around handing out access points in places like Syria or North Korea.
Even if you did, or more likely just relied on people using their existing cell phones and setting up "ghost" APs, you still are just going to get people killed.
In seriously oppressive regimes, they've just been TURNING OFF cellular communications. After that, it is child's play to do some Huff-Duff (HF-DF or High Frequency Direction Finding) in the appropriate bands to track down people with active cell phones.
Hell, North Korea is doing that NOW to track down people with Chinese cell phones who are circumventing the North Korean cell network to get outside info.
Radio signal tracking is old hat and fairly trivial.
Ultra-WideBand (UWB) would be the best, because it would just blend into the background noise, but we're back to the problem of distributing clients.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Shouldn't be spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 07:14 · Score: 0

A whole $70 million. What's that, like one cell phone tower? Not that we need to be spending more money to try and overthrow governments on the other side of the world anyway.
No, you stupid fucker. by artor3 · 2011-06-12 07:23 · Score: 1

They said that if a state launches a massive cyberattack targeting key infrastructure, that can be considered an act of war. Then you stupid anarchist kiddies started screaming "All hacking is an act of WAR! The US is EVIL!".
Scale matters. Intent matters. Targets matter. Shooting someone is not an act of war. Sending an army to a foreign country to shoot millions of people is.
1. Re:No, you stupid fucker. by martin-boundary · 2011-06-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be an ass. An act of war is whatever is used as an excuse to begin actual hostilities. Especially in this day and age, where formal declarations of war, properly debated and ratified by governing representatives, are no longer done.
  The old ideas Clausewitz wrote about are no longer being adhered to, so it's counterproductive to insist they always apply.
2. Re:No, you stupid fucker. by artor3 · 2011-06-12 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what you're rambling about.
  The OP is one of the anarchist morons who falsely accuse the government of declaring that any hacking is an act of war. I'm calling a spade a spade. Simple as that.
3. Re:No, you stupid fucker. by martin-boundary · 2011-06-13 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. Hacking can be an act of war, but not every hack is.
Shades of the Mujahideen by BearRanger · 2011-06-12 07:24 · Score: 1

There's no way this can come back to bite America in the ass. No way at all. Just like arming and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan all those years ago led to those weapons and techniques being used against Americans in recent years, these "stealth internets" can possibly be used against American interests in the future. You can't assume that the people you give these to will be idiots. They'll find a way to use these to set up secure communications channels to use for their own purposes, not just for the purposes America might wish them to be used.
1. Re:Shades of the Mujahideen by mr_mischief · 2011-06-12 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Don't sweat it. Nigeria already has Internet access. Just teach Grandma that she's not really inheriting "$500,000,000 dollars US currenzy if you only gives me your banking deetails".
UWB networking by Thagg · 2011-06-12 07:26 · Score: 1

It's not hard to make spread spectrum/UWB networks that are very difficult to detect if you don't have the keys; much less track down. Sending out 2.4GHz routers is just the American version of a suicide vest -- if you try to use it, you are literally broadcasting your location and your intentions. But a true stealth network (maybe not that high a bandwidth, but we're not talking about downloading Transformers 3 in stereo) could be relatively risk-free; especially if the network cards were tamper-resistant.

--
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
once it was called "inventing the wheel" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 09:06 · Score: 0

There are two satellite phone companies as far as I know,
Irridium
http://www.iridium.com/default.aspx
and Global Star
http://www.globalstar.com/en/?rls=1
Nowadays, everyone with a middle-size yacht
had to have at least one of them.
Umm... not quite. by denzacar · 2011-06-12 09:19 · Score: 1

Unless you are building chips for your hardware by yourself in your underground lab, using tools you also built by yourself - yes they do.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:Umm... not quite. by _Sprocket_ · 2011-06-12 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  None the less - here and now. Today. We can build stand-alone networks. We can encapsulate our traffic in strong encryption. We can do many things on our own without Government grant. And while there are various bureaucratic hooks that might, possibly be employed in some dystopian future... that isn't today. If anything, the systems that are being put together by Government contractors are likely to be little better than anything we can put together ourselves today (budgets and frequencies aside).
2. Re:Umm... not quite. by tftp · 2011-06-12 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you are building chips for your hardware by yourself in your underground lab
  It is actually very easy today; you don't need to make silicon devices. All you need to buy a cheap FPGA and program your processor into it, and some peripherals. Such a project was discussed on /. a month or so ago. It will be slow, but resistance fighters are not going to play Far Cry on it (they will have plenty of that IRL, modulo the monsters.)
  By using such a device a member of the Resistance can be pretty sure that nobody in the government had a chance to mess with the bits (as long as you obtain the configuration bitstream from a reliable party.)
3. Re:Umm... not quite. by denzacar · 2011-06-18 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry for the delay... was AFK for a while.
  Problem with your solution lies in the word "buy". "Resistance fighters" don't do much of that either, not just play Far Cry.
  And that's besides general unavailability of such devices in an "untraceable fashion".
  It's not exactly like you can just waltz into any supermarket, pick them up from the shelf and pay for them in cash.
  One way or another you are VERY likely to be using the aforementioned "government controlled, regulated and monitored pipes", setting off various flags along the way.
  And with the limited number of suppliers of such "unregulated hardware" it would be very easy to simply monitor the supplier instead of chasing around for all possible buyers out there.
  There's no need to regulate the hardware if you can "regulate" the user.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
and tortures Manning? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 09:30 · Score: 0

Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.
Freenet, mch? by wtfsven · 2011-06-12 09:33 · Score: 1

Apparently the US Govt is unaware of Freenet. Which I suppose is a good thing.
Bluetooth peer-to-peer networks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 11:03 · Score: 0

Bluetooth peer-to-peer networks can be used to spread news, there are ideas floating around on the net:
http://code.google.com/p/greentooth/wiki/Design
http://www.facebook.com/Bluetoothsabz ( http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=http://www.facebook.com/Bluetoothsabz&ei=R0X1TYiEJsyugQe8jrziCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgreen%2Bbluetooth%2Bfacebook%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26hs%3DRuZ%26rls%3Den%26channel%3Dsuggest%26biw%3D1182%26bih%3D803%26prmd%3Divns )
Great by Pete+Venkman · 2011-06-12 11:14 · Score: 1

So when do we get these stealth internets for here in the US of A?
Don't be daft - it's obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 12:57 · Score: 0

What better way to monitor rebels/insurgents/subversives et al than to provide a darknet for them, which can then be monitored.
Commotion code sprint on L St by complete+loony · 2011-06-12 13:18 · Score: 1

I visited those offices on L St mentioned in TFA last week. Where I was attending the Commotion code sprint.
Over the two days we managed to integrate OpenBTS and Serval phones and successfully placed a call from a GSM phone, through an OpenBTS tower, over an automatically configured mesh network running the OLSR routing protocol, to an android phone running Serval's software. Unfortunately we didn't capture this on film before we had to pack up and go our separate ways.
It should be fairly interesting to see where this project is headed.

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Yea! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 15:21 · Score: 0

Publicize it so they can kill it!
So long as it's somewhere else... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 15:29 · Score: 0

Screw the US.
There's ever present effort to Ban free speech - in particular when it comes to Israel - and the 9/11 false flag - yet if free speech can take down the enemies of the US then it's a good thing... right?
What a hypocritical bunch of Fuckwits the US government consists of. Are they REALLY that naive to think that the US is the land of the free, a democracy, and free speech? instead of being a country firmly in the pockets of the US Federal reserve and its zionist owners?
Are they that ignorant of History they don't know who their true masters are?
When will the US attack Israel for 9/11? - Never so long as Israel can blackmail the US government for outsourcing the 9/11 job to Mossad.
Sad, sad state of affairs.
Certainly interesting, and by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 16:31 · Score: 0

...surely in an Orwellian sort of way. "Freedom" commonly means "US puppet;" the actual freedom I envision for these states has them reaching out for the change they want, regardless of which outside state it benefits. Now, granted, by realities of their self-interest it will benefit them to lease American technology, but it won't be in the way that a lot of horseshit is currently put in place -- for the venal interest of a corrupt few, where a charitable view is then taken of the benefits when a worker in Niger makes 14 dollars a week instead of 12.
Oh yeah, and I'm not sure if it's been plugged yet (god forbid an AC read the other comments or more than the summary before spouting off...) but the goalpost should be the crypto-anarchist solution.
Re:Is it just me...No, it is unconstitutional by b4dc0d3r · 2011-06-12 16:42 · Score: 1

Remember when Britain would ask citizens of the colonies to house British soldiers, and soldiers could search houses at any time to ensure the colonists were not up to something the Crown would disapprove of?
Then we fought them off, using guerrilla warfare compared to their organized military style, and gained our own independence?
And we set up rules about how we would be governed, and what the governmnet specifically could not do, based on our experience with the British government doing things we didn't like?
Well, fuck all that because now the Us of A can do whatever it likes, whenever it likes, to whomever it likes. Just ask Jose Padilla. Nearly al of the bill of rights are neutered or plain old cancelled. The only one clearly standing is separation of church and state, unless you are a Republican, so that's about 50% gone.
The US government now exists to perpetuate itself, not to govern the people for, by, and of the people. Transparency is gone, accountability is gone, and along with them your guaranteed rights. There is no America, only the same policies that brought down every regime too large for its own good. And we're next.
While this sounds good on paper... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 18:09 · Score: 0

I fear 50% (or more) of the users are going to be drug dealers and not freedom fighters.
Then we find out the US monitors everything in these things (to counter said problem), nobody wants it, and the whole thing becomes a giant waste of money...
Act of war? :) by X.25 · 2011-06-12 18:51 · Score: 1

Surely, China could see this as an act of war, since it can be considered as an attack on its Internet infrastructure ;)
The regimes just read this article. by elucido · 2011-06-12 18:52 · Score: 1

So now all the stuff they are discussing building, will be countered.
This is why this type of work shouldn't be in the media and why people working on these types of projects should not talk to the media.
What good does it do to put in the new york times all the technical details?
Not necessarily true by elucido · 2011-06-12 18:57 · Score: 1

it's not that it wouldn't work in the USA, it's more that most people in the USA wouldn't know what to do with it.
A lot of technology is relatively secure on paper, but without training in how to use that technology it's pointless. In general also the internet isn't being shut down across the USA. If that were happening then you'd see just how effectively the technology is.
In this case most of the technology they are relying on requires US satellite or cellphone towers. The enemy can decrypt the cellphone messages, jam the signal, etc but this is expensive and not energy efficient for the majority of regimes. In the USA they'd just jam or shut off the cellphone networks and radio signals making all electronic communication useless, but they wont do this unless Martial Law is declared.
Anonymous is immature about it. by elucido · 2011-06-12 19:04 · Score: 1

Anonymous might have some of the right goals, some of the same goals, but their way of going about it, by breaking domestic laws, is just fucking stupid.
If they wanted to focus on writing software to promote freedom from oppression I would be able to support them, but when they do some hacks they cross the line.
Such as outing Hal Turner. What good did that accomplish?
DDOSing websites? What good does that accomplish?
And a vast majority of the time the individuals who do these stupid hacks on stupid targets, don't take into account that they could accomplish more against terrible regimes by working with corporations and governments than by going to war with them all.
If someone wants to be involved in human rights based software development it would probably be wise of them not to associate with anonymous. Start something else, or join something less associated with blackhat criminal activity.
1. Re:Anonymous is immature about it. by Omnifarious · 2011-06-13 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous might have some of the right goals, some of the same goals, but their way of going about it, by breaking domestic laws, is just fucking stupid.
  I do not look at Anonymous as 'the good guys'. I look at them as a natural reaction to a system that is seemingly out of control and increasingly unwilling to govern itself according to the rule of law. Frequently the results are ugly, messy and morally ambiguous. Sometimes I cheer and cringe at the same time.
  My point was that these same government agencies that promote these goals are a part of a government that suppresses the very freedoms they seek to promote abroad. A government that frequently is the oblique target of attack by a group that frequently has the same goals the government claims to have.
  I think groups working with these government agencies face a lack of credibility similar to the lack of credibility they would acquire if they openly worked with Anonymous.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
2. Re:Anonymous is immature about it. by elucido · 2011-06-13 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous might have some of the right goals, some of the same goals, but their way of going about it, by breaking domestic laws, is just fucking stupid.
  I do not look at Anonymous as 'the good guys'. I look at them as a natural reaction to a system that is seemingly out of control and increasingly unwilling to govern itself according to the rule of law. Frequently the results are ugly, messy and morally ambiguous. Sometimes I cheer and cringe at the same time.
  My point was that these same government agencies that promote these goals are a part of a government that suppresses the very freedoms they seek to promote abroad. A government that frequently is the oblique target of attack by a group that frequently has the same goals the government claims to have.
  I think groups working with these government agencies face a lack of credibility similar to the lack of credibility they would acquire if they openly worked with Anonymous.
  Outing people, which is what Anon does a significant portion of the time, and putting private business in the media, is not the most effective way to increase libety. In fact it would result in a crackdown and decrease in liberty. And it will result in too many innocent peoples lives being destroyed for dumb reasons.
  If Anon wants a cyber war against the US gov that is on them, but they should leave civilians alone.
3. Re:Anonymous is immature about it. by Omnifarious · 2011-06-13 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing you're saying contradicts anything I'm saying. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? What's your point here? I agree that the outings are not working to increase liberty, though the specific one you mentioned earlier is very funny. I never claimed that increasing liberty was the only goal of Anonymous.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Kill switch by dutchwhizzman · 2011-06-12 19:17 · Score: 1

So does it have one? If not, it could be dangerous if it falls into the hands of a dissident the USA doesn't agree with. Really, it's a miracle that USA voters let their government get away with so much counter-productive waste of tax payers money. Either promote the Internet to be always on, or put a kill switch on. Don't do both.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Test it on the US regime first by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-12 23:37 · Score: 0

so we can see how good it really is.
Except by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-06-12 23:41 · Score: 1

We're about five years away from the bad guys having more (real) money than the Federal government.
Bring back FIDONET by chiph · 2011-06-13 00:13 · Score: 1

Only with better encryption and anonymization.
- The oppressive governments aren't likely to shut down voice PTT, as they depend on it too.
- Laptops either come with a modem built-in (older ones) or a USB modem (pretty cheap)
Yes, bandwidth will suck and you're back in the store & forward days. But the mesh layout means no single point of failure.
What about the regime at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 04:23 · Score: 0

Just asking.
Poor Barack "Yes, I could, but then, you know, the circumstances..." Obama.
"Change"? Yes, as in "nickels and dimes".
on a lighter note by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-13 04:26 · Score: 0

finally we have.. drum roll.. the internet in a box:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
as seen in 'The IT crowd'.
p.s. I'd love the source code for this. I's suspect their version has some kind of time limit so it fails after x months.
Government Interests by Synerg1y · 2011-06-13 05:45 · Score: 1

When US secrets are published, those who publish them are considered terrorists. When Russian secrets are published, the CIA busts open a bottle of champagne, and provides whatever needs necessary to the publisher to get the word out. Thereby, according to the government it's better to be a foreign "freedom fighter" (terrorist to that country, hero to us) than a patriot (terrorist to us). What I wonder is, say your a freedom fighter and you publish USA secrets, maybe they assume you are a terrorist organization?
got URLs? by nusratt · 2011-06-14 03:42 · Score: 1

Seriously, i think julian67 has a valid point.
i've tried several times to find the jihadist sites alluded-to in mainstream-media reports of events such as the release of a new AQ video, or a message claiming responsibility for a particular act of terrorism.
It ain't easy.
Most of the news reports refer to "SITE Intelligence Group" (siteintelgroup.com) as their source.
I've found a lot that *type* of extremist sites, but never any of those which actually distributed / published the material in the respective news report.
Learn to SPELL & WRITE properly, illiterate do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-17 09:29 · Score: 0

The CORRECT spelling & phrase is not what you wrote:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2234578&cid=36429134

"Gotos have there place" - by JonySuede (1908576) on Monday June 13, @05:10PM (#36429134)
It's THEIR, indicating possessive, not THERE, you blatantly obvious illiterate dolt!
(LOL, If that's how you write english? I'd HATE to see your code you write (that is, IF you even do)).
APK
P.S.=> Payback's a BITCH, yea? See here, and I am waiting on your trolling behind to show up there:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2248218&cid=36479278
Just so I can publicly make you look more stupid than you already have clearly evidenced yourself to be!
... apk