

U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors - credo
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12internet.html?pagewanted=all

======
Groxx
I like this, but it feels hypocritical after the recent domain seizures and
bullshit internet and digital media laws, and past censoring / banning of
documents. It's OK to break other nations' walls, but not your own,
apparently.

~~~
mhansen
The US Government isn't some big monolithic entity with one goal, it's made up
of many factions, each pulling in a different direction.

~~~
wisty
Believing in "The Machine" - a single coherent entity running things seems
almost like the belief in Thor, the god of thunder.

Sure, stuff happens for crazy reasons. That's not because of the agenda of
some mysterious weather god, or an elusive organization; it's because of a
complex system of dumb entities bumping into each other. You can rationalize
it as gods or Illuminate, but it's probably just random noise.

Sometimes stuff like the Patriot act can give a single actor a
disproportionate amount of power, but they usually have no idea what to do
with it; thankfully.

------
illumin8
Amazingly, ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) is censoring parts of
the Internet in the US, while we try to export the uncensored Internet to the
3rd world.

I guess the Internet should be free, as long as you don't violate
copyrights...

~~~
GHFigs
When has freedom ever meant violating the rights of others?

~~~
burgerbrain
Traditionally, the united states restricts freedom of speech _legally_ in a
few fairly well defined cases. In all of them, due process is involved.

These domain seizures are such a disturbing issue because there is _no_ due
process. They don't even attempt to pretend like it exists.

Since when has freedom ever meant violating the rights of others indeed.

~~~
GHFigs
_These domain seizures are such a disturbing issue because there is no due
process._

I agree. What I reject is the entirely different idea expressed in the
previous post, to the effect that violating other people's rights is an
essential component of the Internet being free.

~~~
burgerbrain
The previous post is explicitly referring to a situation that involves gross
abuse of rights. Rights _far_ more important than any "right" to copyright
protection.

And yes, I am suggesting with a straight face that some rights are more
important than others.

~~~
GHFigs
_The previous post is explicitly referring to a situation that involves gross
abuse of rights._

Which I said nothing about in mine.

One might speculate that I omitted such reference because I found no
particular fault with what was said about it. I might even agree that domain
seizures have various bad properties. If pressed, I might even acknowledge
that my objection stems from the same root assumption that people have rights
and that having those rights violated is _not cool_ , merely taken to the
potentially heretical length that it remains _not cool_ even when it's not a
government doing it.

Alternately, one might conclude that because the banner I wave is not purest
White that I must be the vanguard of an approaching army of Black, crusading
enemy of freedom and probably no fun at parties.

~~~
burgerbrain
_Or_ , I could just take your refusal to clarify your thoughts as confirmation
that you're just here to troll, and never actually intended to make a well
thought out point.

~~~
GHFigs
Please accept my inclination to never post on this subject on HN again as a
sign that I was not trolling. It is always exhausting to try to explain what
is to me a fairly intuitive and moderate point to an audience that seems quite
devoted to misinterpreting it as another salvo in a battle I have no interest
in fighting. I am just deeply tired of doing it reflexively out of some weird
sense of obligation that you or I or someone will be the better for it when
experience tells me in <h1><blink> that boiling replies are never going to
simmer down.

I have no obligation to explain anything to you, nor you to me. Let's leave it
at that.

------
siculars
Money well spent. Anything we can do to increase communications outside of
officially sanctioned methods within the borders of these regimes is a good
thing in my book.

The article is lite on exactly how communications within a geography link up
with the rest of the larger internet but you need to forgive the poor
reporters who are obviously in way over their heads technically. I give you
nonsense exhibit A:

"Developers caution that independent networks come with downsides: repressive
governments could use surveillance to pinpoint and arrest activists who use
the technology or simply catch them bringing hardware across the border."

To the four cool dudes hanging out with briefcase gear on L street in DC: Pack
those beasties with mesh wifi AND satellite uplinks. Make a few hundred and
let uncle sam distribute them/pick up the bandwidth tab.

~~~
cabalamat
> _Money well spent. Anything we can do to increase communications outside of
> officially sanctioned methods within the borders of these regimes is a good
> thing in my book._

I agree. I would also add that in my book, "these regimes" includes the USA,
UK, EU, Australia, etc.

~~~
hugh3
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we're so slow in making progress in
fighting against the genuinely oppressive regimes in the world -- because when
we _should_ be helping those who really suffer from oppressive regimes we're
too busy complaining and finding false equivalence with our own.

"Oh yeah, it's a big problem that the house across the street is on fire. But
it's also at least three degrees warmer in here than I'd like! It's important
that we go get some hoses for the people across the street. But it's _also_
important that we stop my housemate from turning the thermostat up so high.
Let me tell you more about my annoying housemate..."

~~~
pyre
More like we help the neighbor down the street, while ignoring the shoddy
wiring in our own house. We save the neighbor's house, while our own lights on
fire and burns down.

There's no reason that we can't help others and ourselves at the same time.

~~~
true_religion
Actually there is... time and focus are limited resources.

Meetings and discussions should be focused on one topic---say for instance
stopping the abuses of power by a genuinely totalitarian government. If we
want to talk about the encroachment on civil liberties in a social democracy,
that is good and well but it should be held at a different time.

Conversation about the former shouldn't suffer from interjections by
proponents of discussing the later simply because its an issue that's "closer
to home".

------
Derbasti
Could we maybe use that Shadow internet to circumvent the the censoring and
shutting down of networks in the US?

------
jakevoytko
So the government wants to develop communication links with hot zones. I find
it more likely they want reliable communication with agents in conflict zones
without needing agents to carry specialized equipment that could tip off local
governments [0]. After all, if you install one of these Internet-in-a-suitcase
devices in a conflict zone, you're likely there for more than a package
delivery. What better way to blend in than mixing with hundreds of local
citizens trying to use the same shadow network to communicate with the outside
world? The risk still seems high, but it seems marginally better to be
identified as a protester than a spy.

[0] Except for, of course, the Internet-in-a-suitcase itself.

~~~
felipemnoa
Couldn't an agent just use a satellite phone? I thought they were worldwide.

~~~
jdietrich
Satphones draw attention in much of the world. It's hard to pretend to be an
ordinary peasant when you're carrying a device that costs the equivalent of
two year's wages. When the US and Afghan authorities are detaining people for
possessing a digital watch[1], a satphone is a total liability.

WiFi-enabled smartphones are ubiquitous and dirt cheap - used shanzhai
handsets cost just a few dollars. A smartphone's firmware is the ideal place
to hide crypto.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W>

------
breck
I had assumed we were doing this, and am happy to see it confirmed. Creating
wifi access points is quite a simple thing to do and the benefits it provides
to free speech are quite obvious. With a budget as big as the U.S.'s,
blanketing an area with a ton of powerful wifi points(satellite uplinks,
etc.), is incredibly cheap too.

~~~
pwim
The grant was $2M, not the individual "suitcases".

~~~
breck
Thanks! Edited.

------
makmanalp
On the other hand, if I were a senior official in the US Government, I sure
would want to be the first to know all about renegade gatherings in countries
which I do not approve of.

------
delinquentme
Transparency and detours around censors abroad

... but supports censored internet within the US?

the "S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act" seeks to do exactly the opposite... within
our own country

hypocritical? ... stunt to confuse public?

------
gregory80
Perhaps I am missing the point, but isn't this just the 21st century version
the School of the Americas and the CIAs radio broadcasts / clandestine media
efforts?

I certainly don't oppose freedom, but willfully causing destabilization in
foreign countries, even if that country has a brutal government seems to
violate the concept of state sovereignty, at least a little bit.

[http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2011/03/30/how-the-cia-used-
rad...](http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2011/03/30/how-the-cia-used-radio-in-
the-1954-guatemala-coup/)

<http://www.soaw.org/>

------
derrida
Not mentioned: Obama admin targeting Tor developers, despite the fact this
technology is completely neutral.

~~~
delinquentme
link?

~~~
nhebb
He's probable referring to Jacob Appelbaum, the Tor developer who has been
harassed by the Obama administration because of his links to Wikileaks.

~~~
derrida
I am. Refer to twitter.com/ioerror

------
spir
Why is the US government doing this? Primarily because, for the low low price
of building networks they receive dragnet surveillance capabilities in foreign
unstable and potentially hostile countries. See the SF fiber split dragnet
surveillance. See the Onion episode about "The Facebook Project" - 'normally
it would take CIA operatives weeks of tracking down hotel receipts, but people
just put stuff on Facebook now!!'

------
zitterbewegung
Is the real reason the US is trying to do this is the fact that it wants to
remain friendly to the next people in power? If the US helps the dissidents it
seems more likely they will be friendly to the US in the future. Since the
next regime may or may not be friendly to the United States.

------
chopsueyar
I consider this slightly hypocritical.

Only a despot would mess with DNS w/out due process.

How did revolutions occur prior to the creation of the TCP/IP stack?

------
yaix
This is a very simplistic view on development of societies.

Freedom must always come accompanied with responsibilities. In the West, we
learn that early in school and (hopefully) life.

I have lived many years in countries where people have not learned that. As a
consequence, they all still want freedom (for themselves), but when you start
talking about responsibilities, you are not so popular anymore.

But it's very popular at home (i.e. in the West), so who cares about the
victimes of all this simplistic "development aid"...

~~~
bediger
I agree that freedom comes accompanied with responsibilities, but not the
simplistic, "don't rock the boat" type of responsibilities that 6th Grade
teachers talk about.

Thomas Drake had a responsibility to expose the NSA's massive waste. Elssberg
had a responsibility to expose the Pentagon Papers. Assange and company have a
responsibility to get the US diplomatic cables out there. Those forsenic
economists (<http://www.slate.com/id/2203121/>,
<http://www.iies.su.se/~ekaplan/coups.pdf>) have a responsibility to figure
out who profited from knowledge of US-backed coups in Central America.

Freedom isn't free of cost. We all have a responsibility to spill the beans
about immoral actions by secretive organizations.

~~~
yaix
Agreed.

However, we have learned to not abuse freedom for selfish profit, but to
maintain and protect it. We learned that freedom is the freedom of speech for
others. And to accept conflicting opinions peacefully.

This is not a given everywhere, though. Where Social Capital is lacking,
freedom can easily become a trigger for a breakdown of personal and public
security. Where loyalties are mainly based on family ties or group boundaries,
freedom can easily lead to more hate and large scale physical violence. Where
education is poor, even the most obvious lie will find people that get angry
about it and look for "retaliation", often physical.

I am of course not saying that freedom of speech is bad. On the contrary. But
is has to be dealed with carefully, and differently in differend societies,
taking into account each societies values and development process. Otherwise
it may easily (again!) destroy more than it creates. Just think of the
"elections" desaster in Africa in the 1990s. A huge (and forseable) tragedy,
but it sold well in the West.

