Thread: Wikileaks to reveal second nation NSA is recording all phone calls from.

Something Islamic?
One good thing about the whole affair is that the use of encryption for private stuff has doubled in the USA, and even up to quadrupled in Europe in it's wake. Read that in WIRED.

I'm gonna say Canada... because fuck it, why not? Or maybe Russia.

Also, why the Bahamas? .-.

Just in case it's an oppressive Muslim country:

Fighting terrorism in unnecessary ways seems to tend to stir up more terrorism. We are up a violent rednecks bar and handling the reactions by screwing with the people in the redneck bar in new ways. We are also stripping our own rights by playing that game. When are we ever going to leave the violent redneck bar? When will the downward spiral of excuses end?

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I'm gonna say Canada... because fuck it, why not? Or maybe Russia.

Also, why the Bahamas? .-.

Not Canada. The reason the name of the second country was intentionally omitted was because they said if the name had been released it would result in deaths. So it has to be a nation where there's some turmoil going on.

And why the Bahamas? That's easy. Drugs.

I'd wager tax shelters have something to do with it. I don't see why drugs would make the content of phone calls important.

StephL - Yes, but that's also why Net Neutrality is so important, because without it the independent developers that created encrypted software will be strangled off the internet.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I'd wager tax shelters have something to do with it. I don't see why drugs would make the content of phone calls important.

Well it has led to the "discovery of international narcotics traffickers and special-interest alien smugglers” ...but that doesn't mean those are the reasons for implementing it initially so you may be on to something there.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

StephL - Yes, but that's also why Net Neutrality is so important, because without it the independent developers that created encrypted software will be strangled off the internet.

Let's give the government even more power to control business.

Mussolini.jpg

Didn't you say you're an anarchist?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's give the government even more power to control business.

Mussolini.jpg

Didn't you say you're an anarchist?

What's wrong with this:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4] Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5]
A "closed internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.

Do you want a "closed internet"?
It would actually give more power to the state, not less!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's give the government even more power to control business.

Mussolini.jpg

Didn't you say you're an anarchist?

I don't think there's anything inherently harmful with a government having a certain degree of influence in the markets. Too much control, and it stifles competition. But no control, and larger corporations actively seek out and suppress smaller independents for the sake of forming monopolies. Imo there needs to be a fine balance, with minimal government intervention simply for the sake of leveling out the playing field.

Originally Posted by StephL

What's wrong with this:

Do you want a "closed internet"?
It would actually give more power to the state, not less!

I don't at all think the government should favor certain uses. I think the government should stay out of it, aside from enforcing laws against victimization. A business should be allowed to have website preferences and even disallow websites. It's their business and their property. If they get ridiculous with it, customers can get service from other companies if they want to. I can't stand nosiness into how people run their businesses when they are doing nothing more than exercising their own property rights.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I don't think there's anything inherently harmful with a government having a certain degree of influence in the markets. Too much control, and it stifles competition. But no control, and larger corporations actively seek out and suppress smaller independents for the sake of forming monopolies. Imo there needs to be a fine balance, with minimal government intervention simply for the sake of leveling out the playing field.

Do you think we need even more of such laws than we already have?

Monopolies result from government interference and stifling of the economy. When an economy is allowed to flourish, the abundance of competition prevents monopolies. Also, the government often acts as a monopoly itself, which is extremely unfair.

Originally Posted by nina

Well it has led to the "discovery of international narcotics traffickers and special-interest alien smugglers” ...but that doesn't mean those are the reasons for implementing it initially so you may be on to something there.

I'm not really sold on any of their excuses, the NSA has repeatedly shown that the reasons they give for spying have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons they are spying. For example, looking back, the amount of information they collected showing a potential terrorist attack would hit the twin towers on 9/11 was more than enough to prevent to attack, but unfortunately they had too much information to pull the needle from the haystack in time. And their response, as Greenwald puts it, is to create a bigger and bigger haystack, which effectively renders them useless at actually preventing terrorism, instead we see less and less transparency in government (Obama has Prosecuted More Whistleblowers than All Other Presidents COMBINED Washington's Blog) and less and privacy for citizens because information carries the balance of power.

This article is actually pretty informative on the NSA's alterior motives: NSA Spying Is a Power Grab Washington's Blog

So even if they do turn up narcotics rings, it's a publicity stunt to justify their actions.

The document notes that MYSTIC's use in the Bahamas "is being used as a test bed for system deployments, capabilities and improvements".

That sounds a lot more reasonable to me I guess.

Originally Posted by nina

And why the Bahamas? That's easy. Drugs.

Wouldn't be drugs. As the CIA is the largest drug dealer in the US the NSA would leave that area of criminality well alone.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Wouldn't be drugs. As the CIA is the largest drug dealer in the US the NSA would leave that area of criminality well alone.

I am not sure about the CIA selling drugs, but major illegal drug organizations tend to work toward pushing away their competition. That is why the Mafia, street gangs, and Latin American drug cartels are always shooting each other. This is one of the major reasons drugs need to be legal.

Did they release the other country name yet? I haven't been keeping up.

edit: nvmd I just saw that it was Afganistan...no surprises there

Yep: WikiLeaks reveals information Glenn Greenwald withheld

Who could have guessed :\

I thought it would actually increase violence. The people in Afghanistan had to figure, I mean come on. I feel like revealing it was the Philippines or Taiwan would have actually increased violence.

All these rationalisations - they just listen to what they can listen - Germany is not exactly suspicious for anything "justifying" that they tapped chancellor Merkel's private line among other targets, or is it? At least I hope it's seen such.