Slashdot Mirror


ZunZuneo: USAID Funded 'Cuban Twitter' To Undermine Communist Regime

barlevg (2111272) writes "In a country where the government severely limits access to the world wide web, ZunZeneo, an anonymous SMS-based social network, drew more than 40,000 Cuban users at its peak, the Associated Press reports. On it, people shared news and opinions about music and culture. But what none of its subscribers knew was that the project was secretly funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), though a series of shell corporations and foreign bank accounts, and that its stated goal was 'renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society' in the Communist stronghold, hopefully leading to a 'Cuban Spring.'"

41 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Oh goodness me, non-military means! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How terrible the US government is, using the concepts of a free exchange of ideas to overthrow another regime!

    Well, ok, to be fair in the US, most of those free ideas are scams, but it's still slightly better than bombs and poisoned cigars.

    1. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by PerlPunk · · Score: 2

      Mod up parent, please.

    2. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How terrible the US government is, using the concepts of a free exchange of ideas to overthrow another regime!

      I'm sure the Occupy movement would call them out on this hypocrisy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They hate us for our freedom. Underhanded manipulation of their local political system for our own agenda has nothing to do with it.

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How terrible the US government is, using the concepts of a free exchange of ideas to overthrow another regime!

      I'm sure the Occupy movement would call them out on this hypocrisy.

      Why? Occupy got it's message out.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    5. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With FBI and NSA keeping tabs on them under the pretext of "domestic terrorism"?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      "Free exchange of ideas"

      I have never heard propaganda defined quite like that before.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by towermac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to argue, but it's not just our agenda. Freedom is the agenda of mankind.

    8. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Not CIA? That's what I expected.

      Cuba is sort of the poster child for how the US is incompetent at elaborate spy-type skulduggery. I understand Castro has an entire museum dedicated to showcasing failed plots. Including the famous "poisoned baseball".

    9. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I guess on the morality scale, this is an improvement over open assassination attempts and blowing up airliners to discourage tourism. I guess that's "moral progress" by slimy U.S. standards.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not CIA? That's what I expected.

      Ha, who do you think USAID is a front for?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    11. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      You want to give people the tools to overthrow their own regime? Fine.

      You want to give them the tools, then clandestinely take control of those tools once they're popular to foment a favourable rebellion that suits your own interests? No.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Freedom to subvert using tax monies gained with no regulatory oversight within a foreign policy framework dictated by corporate interests?

      Sign me up!

    13. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.

      I'm pretty sure you can "get your message out" in Cuba too, it's the consequences of doing so that are the problem.

      All of which said, I agree with the AC, this is a non-scandal. It's up there with "OMG! NSA tapped phones of German leaders!" Well, yeah. That's what it's supposed to do. I'm glad the Germans are our friends right now, but...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2
      FBI illegally abuses its power in the worst way to entrap 5 very stupid people and you can suddenly cook up a story to disqualify a movement of hundreds and thousands (or any movement that is politically inconvenient, that is). Intellectually dishonest, much - entrapment is^H^H was illegal for some very good reasons - but hey, that is how you t/roll.

      How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook:

      The guy who convinced the plotters to blow up a big bridge, led them to the arms merchant, and drove the team to the bomb site was an FBI informant. The merchant was an FBI agent. The bomb, of course, was a dud. And the arrest was part of a pattern of entrapment by federal law enforcement since September 11, 2001, not of terrorist suspects, but of young men federal agents have had to talk into embracing violence in the first place... In all these law enforcement schemes the alleged terrorists masterminds end up seeming, when the full story comes out, unable to terrorize their way out of a paper bag without law enforcement tutelage."

      You forgot some labels: "Who else are we supposed to be afraid of? Certainly animal-rights and environmental radicals."

      But don't worry your pretty little heads over the epidemic of far-right insurrectionism that followed the election of Barack Obama: all told, according to a forthcoming data analysis by Neiwert, there have been 55 cases of right-wing extremists being arrested for plotting or committing alleged terrorists acts compared to 26 by Islamic militants during the same period. The right-wing plots include the bombing of a 2011 Martin Luther King Day parade in Spokane and the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009. Neither of their perpetrators, it goes without saying, had been arrested before they attempted their vile acts; neither required law enforcement entrapment to conceive and carry them out. It's just too bad for their victims they did not fit the story federal law enforcement seeks to tell.

    15. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

      So, atrocities are OK as long as they are US-sponsored, right?

    16. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

      Actually, you're right. Human rights violations happen every day in a secret prison in Cuba. Prisoners are kept there indefinitely with no due process and are regularly tortured. What an atrocity!

      You've probably heard about the place. It's called Guantanamo.

    17. Re:Oh goodness me, non-military means! by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Are you seriously comparing getting onto a no-fly list with incarceration?

      No, I'm comparing incarceration with incarceration, and being put on the no-fly list with post demonstration harassment. You'll find it easier to get by in ordinary life if, when reading sentences, you don't skip words.

      Original sentence again, try reading all the words this time: Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. USAID by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    USAID is suppose to be an aide organization. The moment they have to start laundering money they have gone off the reservation and entered CIA territory.

    There is a place for clandestine operation to work against regimes we don't like, that is why we have a foreign intelligence agency, CIA. Our government is completely out of control and way to large this is just more proof!

    Not only that it completely undermines the mission of USAID to have it associated with these type of shenanigans; its supposed to be about soft power, its supposed to be about building trust. Here we have one more department with in the government demonstrating laws don't matter, not ours and certainly not any other sovereigns. Shameful...

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:USAID by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is the same thing here on Brazil. USAID here helps every one who wants to overthrow any government that does not comply doggedly what the U.S. told to do.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:USAID by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      As an American I am okay with that. I would not expect USAID to provide material support to groups the rest of the State Department wants to see go away.

      Its one thing for USAID to give money in an overt and legal way to group some foreign regime might not like much, but tolerates within its boarders.

      Its quite another for our aide organization to violating the laws for foreign countries, which at least in this case with Cuba they must have been because otherwise why the shell companies and secrecy.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:USAID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil (not to mention pretty much the rest of South America) are all places USAID funds CIA projects that aim to overthrow democratically elected governments. Are you saying the people of those countries have no right to be pissed at the U.S. for trying to destroy their political institutions in order to replace them with corporate yes-men?

    4. Re:USAID by X.25 · · Score: 2

      USAID is suppose to be an aide organization. The moment they have to start laundering money they have gone off the reservation and entered CIA territory.

      If you think USAID has ever been an "aid" organization, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

    5. Re:USAID by mean+pun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is the same thing here on Brazil. USAID here helps every one who wants to overthrow any government that does not comply doggedly what the U.S. told to do.

      As an American, I can assure you that simply do not understand what you are talking about. While I have no idea whether any US agency cares any about government change in Brazil, I can tell you that Lula was no problem at all. The man was rational and competent and if he and the US had different ideas from time to time, at least there was some logic to what he was doing. Dilma Rousseff is a completely different story. Early on she came on with the same anti-US ranting and ravings that are quite popular in South America these days. Geez, I don't think I've ever seen anything more embarrassing from a national leader than her photo with Fidel where she looked like an aging rock groupie wanting to suck him off at the first chance she got.

      Oh dear, oh dear. Yes, I have to agree here; that is horrible. Terrible. Possibly even Terrorism. Ranting and raving against the US! Having her photo taken with Fidel!! Because no US politician would ever rant or rave against neighbouring counties. Or have their photo taken with dubious world leaders.

      If the US is trying to support opposition to her presidency, well, that is a fight that she started.

      Certainly. If a politician says some mean things about the US, that TOTALLY justifies US meddling in that politician's country. There is lots of jurisprudence here, because it is exactly the time-honoured schoolyard argument that teachers like so much: "But teach, THEY started it!". (And in the same time-honoured schoolyard tradition, the original offence is of course microscopic compared to the retaliation.)

    6. Re:USAID by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Last time a red crashed the Brazilian currency I got a couple of cases of good Brazilian Rum for $.99/750ml. I'm all for leftests running Brazil into the ground.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. that's really stupid of them by Error27 · · Score: 2

    The government already has the CIA for this stuff. It was amazingly dumb of USAID to start doing the CIA's job. The head of USAID should resign followed by a full investigation.

    But that won't happen because the government has stopped caring about appearances any more.

    1. Re:that's really stupid of them by Error27 · · Score: 2

      It's not clear that USAID was at the front on this opperation. They were funding it secretly through shell companies. When it comes to clandestine operations the CIA has better qualifications. It's just stupid, and more stupid.

    2. Re:that's really stupid of them by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      It's not clear that USAID was at the front on this opperation. They were funding it secretly through shell companies. When it comes to clandestine operations the CIA has better qualifications. It's just stupid, and more stupid.

      You assume that USAID is more than just a front for the CIA.

  4. Are they the only one? by stewsters · · Score: 2

    And this is why Twitter does not need to be profitable to be in business. The investors are shell companies working for other governments, hoping they will cause a US spring.

  5. USA's attention to Cuba seems silly by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's funny how butthurt they are about Cuba and how much effort they put into overthrowing Castro. It's like they don't have any bigger problems.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:USA's attention to Cuba seems silly by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Batista was a U.S. puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant voting block in FL) lost a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want it back, and they want it back BAD. The U.S. will murder, commit terrorism, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.

      The most shameful incident (IMHO) came in 1976, when a CIA agent blew up a civilian Cuban airliner, killing 78 innocent people. And said CIA agent is still living free (and protected) in the U.S. to this day. The U.S., my country, openly committing terrorism for petty economic ends. Fucking pathetic.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:USA's attention to Cuba seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. It's almost like the U.S. took over Cuba and squashed their fledgling independence movement, before setting up the mafia to run the island as a resort for well connected businessmen and politicians from the States, then upon the instigation of a successful revolution tried for decades to overthrow Cuba's government via economic sanctions, assassination, and terrorism, or something.

    3. Re:USA's attention to Cuba seems silly by Megol · · Score: 2
      They did? I think you should do some historic research on this topic.

      Fact: The US sanctioned Cuba long before the missile crisis, in fact they started when the communists took control of the country. Strangely the US didn't do that when their puppet ruled there, quite heavy handed _and_ quite non-democratic. Documented facts.

      Fact: The US placed nuclear missiles in Turkey in order to be able to strike into the Soviet heartland long before the missile crisis. That the Soviet wanted to do something similar is called provoking nuclear war for some strange reason, why wasn't the US move called out in the same way?

      Fact: The US silently withdrew their nuclear missiles from Turkish territory which satisfied the Soviets and ended the crisis. Why isn't that fact commonly known by US citizens (those I've communicated with at least)? In short: when the US stopped threatening the Soviet the Soviets didn't need to place missiles on Cuban territory. Strange that.

  6. Re:I hope this is BS by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you've ever met anyone from Cuba they will tell you that the outside world is nothing like what they are told on the news. How is that not propaganda?

  7. Re:A rose growing in shit by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    The CIA isn't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. They're trying to ferment a violent government coup. Once a U.S. puppet is in place, you can kiss this free communication goodbye again.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  8. Re:I hope this is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you've ever met anyone from Cuba they will tell you that the outside world is nothing like what they are told on the news. How is that not propaganda?

    If you've ever met anyone from America they will tell you that the outside world is nothing like what they are told on the news. How is that not propaganda?

    I have met people from the U.S. Other than Fox News viewers-- most of whom, as far as I can tell, have never left the U.S.A.--many of them are reasonably well informed about the rest of the world, know people who have immigrated from other countries, and very often have travelled to other countries.

    So I call BS on your post.

    --on the original topic, I will say that I think that this is what the U.S.A. SHOULD be doing. Skip the CIA bullshit and the invade-other-countries bullshit and the sell-guns-to-groups-overthrowing-governments-they-don't-like bullshit. Support freedom of information? Yes, I can get behind that.

  9. Re:USAID is not a NGO by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Informative

    it seems to say that the USAID helped set up social networks in Cuba that weren't controlled by the government. That sounds like a good thing to me. I'm puzzled why any /. readers would object to this.

    Because the goal isn't to set up social networks, it's to start a violent coup and ultimately reinstall a U.S. puppet government in Cuba. These social networks are just a means to a slimy end.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  10. Re:I hope this is BS by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not American, and as someone who knows a few Cubans, I can tell you most of the country isn't like the tourist zones.

  11. Renegotiation [Re:USAID is not a NGO by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it seems to say that the USAID helped set up social networks in Cuba that weren't controlled by the government. That sounds like a good thing to me. I'm puzzled why any /. readers would object to this.

    Because the goal isn't to set up social networks, it's to start a violent coup and ultimately reinstall a U.S. puppet government in Cuba. These social networks are just a means to a slimy end.

    Why do I care about the purported goal-- what we should care about is what they were actually doing, which was setting up a social network independent of the Cuban government. That's a good thing.

    The stated goal, in any case, was not "to start a violent coup." I don't know if the US government even knows what it wants (Cuban policy seems to nearly zero priority in the US, outside of south Florida)-- but the quote from the article was "its stated goal was 'renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society' ".

    Rephrasing that to make it say "let's start a violent coup" is rather distorting. "Renegotating the balance of power between state and society" sounds like a good thing-- in the US, too.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  12. Re:I hope this is BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Can confirm as a Canadian. I have travelled there, and there are two distinct countries in Cuba.

    One that tourists are allowed to see (which extends off of places like Veradero to cover good portions of Havana and anywhere which tourists travel for experiences like river excursions and the like)
    The other one contains the people of Cuba who have zero contact with foreigners, and zero access to US currency which drives the black market down there.

    Neither of them is really adequately portrayed in North American media because neither of them serve to advance the narrative that the media is content with pushing. Either "Castro is evil, his people need us to give them freedom" or "These people live idylic, peacefull lives, free from the trappings of Western modern society, and they are happy with their lot in life".

    The reality is far more nuanced that either of those sound bites.

  13. Re:I hope this is BS by cusco · · Score: 2

    That's the case in most of the world. The non-tourist areas are always poorer, friendlier and have much better food than the resort areas.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin