Satellite Pics Going Dark?

End of another domestic market by cshotton · 2004-09-08 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

All this means is that the market for domestically produced satellite imagery will evaporate overnight and the owner/operators of foreign imagery services will profit enormously as US customers procure data from an open, unfettered market abroad. Another nail in the coffin of privatize space ventures. Go Congress!!!

--

Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!

Re:End of another domestic market by Loco3KGT · 2004-09-08 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Jesus. Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.

Implying that this is going to destroy the domestic satellite market? You're an idiot. Seriously.

Lets look at this. Government wants to protect data that protects its soldiers and 'operations'. Solution? They go to satellite corps and say "We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse." And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.

That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.

When the government isn't doing this, they're back to on their own and competing.

The government has been doing this for *DECADES*. And you know what? American companies still have satellites taking photos! LIKE OMG. It's freaking amazing how when a company gets paid insane margins to do something that they manage to survive.

The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is: the images the government buys can't be made public, ever. That's a serious concern and killer of our right and power to audit our government.

BTW, you can bet your sweetass we do these same deals with foreign companies.

--
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Re:End of another domestic market by pavon · 2004-09-08 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read the text of the bill (linked from the article), and I don't see anything in there about about banning privately owned satellites from selling their images to whomever they want. All this bill says is that the government does not have to release images that it has to the public. So no this will have zero effect on the private market of satellite imagery whatsover, unless every satalite owner decides out of their own free will to sign an exclusive agreement with the government. I don't know where the submitter or article got that from.

The important questions are how this affects our rights, whether it will improve security, and which outweighs the other. I'm still thinking about that.
Re:End of another domestic market by Rakshasa+Taisab · 2004-09-08 08:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.

There was a story a while back about the US military forgetting to tell the satellite imaging companies not to take pictures of Afganistan. Because they were late they had to pay to get those pictures of the market.

This does suggest that you are wrong. AFAIK whenever the US military doesn't want any private companies looking, they just need to say so. Yeah... i guess you *could* call it an offer they can't refuse.

--
- These characters were randomly selected.
Re:End of another domestic market by maximilln · 2004-09-08 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Government wants to protect data

It's always for our protection.

That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY

Great. Another taxpayer funded pyramid scheme. Another way for you and I to subsidize some businessman that we've never met who happens to have a lobbying buddy in Washington.

The government has been doing this for *DECADES*

And not just in the satellite industry. My pocketbook is pleading for this crap to stop.

The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is:

Lobbying groups get Congress to steal our tax money, again, as usual?

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:End of another domestic market by jcr · 2004-09-08 09:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.

No, just the stupid and evil things it does.

Oh, wait...

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:End of another domestic market by Analogy+Man · 2004-09-08 15:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Combining a few news stories from the last months...
So I can be secretly held (shadow detainees)
in a secret facility (hide and seek from Red Cross)
awaiting my secret trial (military courts for civilian American and foreign nationals)
for breaking a secret law (recent slashdot)
for looking at a secret map (how do we know which ones are OK?)
derived from secret satellite data (that was formerly readily available).
Yes I suppose us Slashdoters are paranoid. If freedom is relative as the Chinese government once professed, maybe we are making the rest of the world a free and democratic society by moving the often referenced "America as a model for a free society" to a police state of Orwellian proportions. Kind of a perverse way of liberating the world isn't it?

--
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Already Done by CatDogLordOfTheRoot · 2004-09-08 07:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you put in the exact address of government buildings in TerraServ's Satellite/Urban pictures they are blacked out. Even though you can put in a relevant location and pan to what is blacked out. =o

--
---------
In the end we are ALL disconnected....

So just dont sell to the govt? by doormat · 2004-09-08 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative

It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.

Re:So just dont sell to the govt? by minion · 2004-09-08 08:02 · Score: 4, Funny

It only seems to apply to images the government buys. Its like they legislating exclusivity agreements, as well as revoking FOIA on this data. If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

Noo. Way!!! Slashdot readers not reading the article and jumping to conclusions? Perhaps we need a "Jumping to Conclusions Mat"?

--

-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? by cshotton · 2004-09-08 08:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that the US Government is far and away the largest consumer of satellite imagery from private sources. So it probably wouldn't be a viable business model to shut off your largest customer. In fact, the government probably loves this proposal because it'll allow them to set requirements on private space ventures if the businesses want the government as a customer. Since it seems to be an all or nothing proposition (i.e., you either sell everything to the US Gov't, or you try to make your way in the commercial marketplace), it's likely that US businesses will opt for the former. The alternative is to try and shop the imagery data to foreign governments and there are already all sorts of limitations on exporting that data abroad. The humor in all this is that there is a direct parallel to the whole RIAA/MPAA fiasco. Here is the government trying to regulate access to data that wants to be free and creating an artificial economy and business model that preserves the status quo and stifles innovation. Anyone see a trend here?

--

Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? by kfg · 2004-09-08 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

It only seems to apply to images the government buys.

Since the Freedom of Information Act only applies to the government, one would think.

If a company puts up a satellite that takes pictures and they dont sell the images to the govt, how would it affect them? I dont think it would.

It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above.

This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.

KFG

KFG
Re:So just dont sell to the govt? by cynic10508 · 2004-09-08 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

It wouldn't. In fact, such would be unconstitutional prior restraint, which the Freedom of Information Act has no power to effect, as per above. This is only about what information a citizen has a right to obtain directly from the government, not censorship of what information he might obtain from some other source.

Thank you for helping clear that up. I thought that was the case as I RTFA and at no point took away the idea that the government was going to censor all satellite data, but rather just not give away their own for free.

As a corollary: Wouldn't this rather boost private satellite imaging if news stations were forced to gather their own images instead of just copying whatever the U.S. government has on file?

Re:Crinkle crinkle by russeljns · 2004-09-08 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now they can send us to war on claims that they have photos of chemical weapons labs in whatever country. But of coarse we can't see them, the photos are all classified.

--

----
This concludes our transmission to Oceania.

Huh? by Overzeetop · 2004-09-08 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Time to burn some Karma...

So, let me get this straight: Terrorists might be able to use satellite imagery to plan an armed assault on some target in the US. The response is to limit 1st amendment rights, but to leave 2nd amendment rights unchanged.

I guess it just depends on who's slippin' you the bills.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:Does this include terraserver, and more... by mgs1000 · 2004-09-08 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Terraservier doesn't have satellite images, it has aerial photographs.

I think someone is overreacting by Gorm+the+DBA · 2004-09-08 08:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Uhh...I *think* someone is overreacting...

From the site: The committee recommends a provision that would exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), (section 552 of title 5, United States Code), data that are collected by land remote sensing and are prohibited from sale to customers other than the United States and its affiliated users under the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, (section 5601 et seq. of title 15, United States Code).. The exemption would also include any imagery and other product that is derived from such data. State and local laws mandating disclosure by a State or local government would be preempted. (Bold emphasis mine)

So this would appear to mean that only some subset of stuff, which is prohibited from sale currently, would be removed from FOIA.

What, exactly, this is I do not know, but it wouldn't surprise me if this means "When the military buys a commercial satellite pass over a suspected terrorist camp and forbids the satellite company from reselling the image (which seems reasonable, otherwise there would be a huge market in 'see what the DoD is taking pictures of' industry), no one can file a FOIA request to access that image".

BUt isn't this our money? by cyberworm · 2004-09-08 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would someone explain how they can do this? It's our (the taxpayers) money. Shouldn't we have free and open access to these pictures? I can understand having time delayed pictures in times of war, so that we don't show our hand. But honestly, what good does this really serve? Will I have to pay to get pictures of the earth, that I've already paid for (in taxes)? Well whatever happens, better start hoarding sattalite pictures now fellas.

Thomas Guides are now part of the Axis of Evil by ARRRLovin · 2004-09-08 08:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Next thing you know, a typical GPS will have to be accurate to +/- 60m and the size of a fridge to fend off would be terrorists.

--
-Randy

TimeCube! by autophile · 2004-09-08 08:04 · Score: 4, Funny

peter303 writes with a more optimistic story in USA Today " about building and launching a satellite for as little as $65K,", as long as you can squeeze it into a 4 inch-cube.

Of course! Must be Satellite in Cube! Dumbass! Even Time obey Cube! NASA is Stupid for not obey Cube design! Dumbass!

--Rob

--
Towards the Singularity.

Logical continuation of earlier censorship. by crush · 2004-09-08 08:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

During the height of the invasion of Afghanistan the government used taxpayers' money to buy up all the satellite images from the private, commercial satellite Ikonos. This allowed them to avoid the problems if they had just tried to censor it. Now they're trying to censor it straight out. The argument _then_ was that they needed to censor it to protect troop movements -- a valid argument. However there has been no release of this years old data which would allow us to evaluate whether what we were being told at the time was a lie or not.

Ignorance is Strength by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-08 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

So any info that belongs to the public, whether generated by public equipment or bought by public dollars, is to be secret from the public? But of course it will be available to government contractors, like Halliburton, under no-bid contracts that are also secret.

--

--
make install -not war

Story Misleading by rherbert · 2004-09-08 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

I think that the story is misleading. Exempting satellite imagery from the FOIA does NOT mean that commercial companies couldn't sell the imagery to news agencies - you just wouldn't be able to make the government sort through and cough up all the unclassified satellite images that it has bought. I'm guessing that defensetech.org is one of those sites that makes wild paranoid predictions about the military.

Re:Story Misleading by crush · 2004-09-08 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Re point 1: I actually do believe that nothing should be exempt. I don't believe that the CIA should exist or has any business screwing around in the world, I don't believe that there should be secret technologies developed, I don't believe that there should be a large standing army with "defense plans". Why? Isn't that extreme? No, all of that stuff relies on security through obscurity and as we've seen with the longstanding Israeli moles placed high-up in the DoD, the history of Soviet spies etc. that information leaks all the time. The result is that the only people that this vital information about our lives and governments is hidden from is us: the ordinary citizens. Spies, armies and wars are all the extreme side of large-government and serve mainly to oppress ordinary citizens of all countries.

Having said that I suppose that that viewpoint will appear to "extreme" to many people reading this forum. To them I'd argue that there only ought to be FOIA-restricted data when there is some form of democratic oversight to prevent the government from declaring anything it wants to be a "security risk". The current proposal we're discussing doesn't do that so it's a grave threat to the limited form of democracy now in operation in the US.

Re point 2: CNN, Fox and the rest of the media are mainly outposts of government propaganda. I can't think of a large enough "leftwing" news organization in the US that could stump up enough money to purchase satellite imagery if the government were bidding against them. There are isolated journalists that might be interested in doing so, but most "journalists" are quite happy to retype and regurgitate the lines fed to them by their official sources (whether they're official embedded or not).

Add to this that the "satellite" companies are usually deeply entangled with the military and defense establishments and you won't see them doing much to rock the boat and advertise that they have embarrassing pictures to sell. Otherwise goodbye contracts, goodbye licenses.

These "shots at the war" are completely relevant and pertinent to the story. The war is probably why this story exists.

Re:Alternate ways to achieve their goals. by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-09-08 08:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

War on Drugs
War on Terror
War on Poverty
War on Internet Piracy
...

What exactly does 'only during wartime' mean these days?

--
Dyolf Knip

But think of the terrorists! by l0ungeb0y · 2004-09-08 08:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Remember, in the war on terror "national security" trumps commen sense every time.

not the end of the world by osmethnee · 2004-09-08 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This would heavily impact news gathering and probably the income of commercial satellite operators - who would only be able to sell to the U.S. Govt.

Of course, the linked article says nothing of the sort. It does say that

maps, reports, and any other unclassified government analyses or communications that are in some way 'derived from' a commercial satellite image would all of a sudden become inaccessible [under the FoIA] ... they would vanish from public view

but doesn't explain how people/organisations are prevented from obtaining such images outside of the FoIA - like, say, purchasing them from the independent sattelite operators.

In short, the end result seems to be that news organisations have to pay market prices for their information, and private satellite operators make a few more sales...

No, no, no! by M.+Piedlourd · 2004-09-08 08:13 · Score: 5, Informative

This bill only applies to satellite images purchased by the government from outside vendors with an exclusivity agreement. From the Armed Services Committee report:

The United States often enters into exclusive licensing agreements with commercial satellite operators that prohibit these companies from selling certain unclassified data and imagery, except to the United States and to approved customers. Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request.

This is a very specific class of satellite photo. Commercial photos sold to private users are still legal; so are government photos obtained via non-exclusive contracts. The submitter and article have the facts all wrong!

Re:eye in the sky by thelexx · 2004-09-08 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

_Electric Eye_ - Judas Priest

Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do

You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Always in focus
You can't feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there

I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
There's nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Protected. detective. electric eye

--------

--
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999

Re:Unreal by SirWhoopass · 2004-09-08 08:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Maybe you should try and read the article and the proposed law before jumping to conclusions.

This would only prohibit the release of data that is already prohibited from sale to customers other than the US Government.

As it currently stands, commerical imagery operators are prohibited from selling certain data to anyone but the government. Third parties cannot buy this data. However, there is nothing to prohibit someone from filing a Freedom of Information request once the government buys it. This would close that loophole.

Re:Unreal by cynic10508 · 2004-09-08 08:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Good to know that they would want to take away technology access that allowed people to evacuate before the hurricanes in Florida. Un-fucking-real.

First line of the story: "You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits, if a new Senate bill goes through as planned."

Ball bearings in a 4-in tube? by Chagatai · 2004-09-08 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

I recall reading a sci-fi story wherein someone effectively stopped satellites, space exploration, and any other spacebound equipment by launching some sand or ball bearings into orbit. As this stuff was travelling around the earth at about 40,000 mph, anything in its path would suffer damage at a minimum or be shredded at worst (think about the paint chips that were found embedded in the Space Shuttle's window an inch or two deep). The damaged stuff, in turn, would further wreck other objects, in perpetuity. Out of morbid curiosity, can any rocket or space scientists estimate what would happen if one of those little tubes was filled with some abrasive agent? I realize, of course, that some would fall back to the earth and some would escape orbit, but how plausible is that sci-fi idea?

--
--Chag

Re:Say goodbye to Xplanet? by legirons · 2004-09-08 08:18 · Score: 3, Informative

"Software like Xplanet be affected too? I hope not."

XPlanet takes its data from university of Dundee, which uses MeteoSat. From meteosat's page, they say:

EUMETSAT is an intergovernmental organisation created through an international convention agreed by 18 European Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. These States fund the EUMETSAT programmes and are the principal users of the systems. EUMETSAT also has nine Cooperating States: Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Romania, the Czech Republic and Latvia.

Crazy interpretation in that story... by georgewilliamherbert · 2004-09-08 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative

The legislation doesn't make it illegal to redistribute any commercial satellite imagery. It just makes it illegal to redistribute imagery that the US government purchased exclusive rights to but has not classified.

They're purchasing exlusive rights over certain image areas to avoid having to classify the data output from all the commercial satellite operators.

Maybe you could argue that they should just go classify it anyways, but the result will be the same. The Government reserves the right to tell commercial image satellite operators where they can't take pictures, or can't sell the images they do take. This is not news. The mechanism by which that is enforced is just adjusting a bit.

Re:Way to go Bush Administration by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-08 08:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Well sir, you got rated a troll for speaking what is quite possibly the truth. A huge number of people are in a collective state of denial and cannot even stand numbers for fear of for fear of disturbing their collective psychosis.

Re:Unreal by jfengel · 2004-09-08 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative

People file FOIA requests all the time, successfully. Just the most recent example off the top of my head was more Bush guard unit records, and there are many many more.

I believe the present government is too secretive, and I can't swear the Secret Service has never shown up at somebody's door to politely suggest cancelling a request, but the act is used all the time.

Re:Unreal by shalla · 2004-09-08 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm still not following why I should not have access to information 1) categorized as unclassified and 2) purchased by my government. If it's a security threat, then classify it. If not, my money paid for it and if I can be bothered to fill out a FOIA request, I should have access to it.

(To quote from the proposed bill: Compelled release of such data and imagery by the United States under FOIA defeats the purpose of these licensing agreements, removes any profit motive, and may damage the national security by mandating disclosure to the general public upon request. While the data and imagery could be protected from disclosure under FOIA by classifying them, the United States prefers to keep them unclassified. Unclassified matter is more easily shared with coalition partners in contingency operations and with State and local officials in disaster relief and homeland security operations. )

Restricting the public's access to unclassified government information to protect a profit motive is not a step with which I'm comfortable. If it's a security risk, classify it, but don't start blocking access to unclassified information just because you can't be bothered to make it classified because it make take an extra step or two to share the info.

If it doesn't fall into one of the nine exempted areas of FOIA and you can't be bothered to make it classified, we paid for the damn information and should be able to make use of it.

How long before we're like USSR by Lead+Butthead · 2004-09-08 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I read somewhere (sorry, it's been a long time) that maps of varies soviet cities were downright inaccurate for "security reasons."

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?

You're missing the point by pixelphsr · 2004-09-08 09:42 · Score: 4, Informative

You all seem to be missing the real impact of this law. As things stand right now, the government can tell commercial satellite imagery vendors that it wants to buy exclusive rights to any new images over specific areas for defined periods of time. The gov't isn't simply protecting the data that it has purchased, it is saying that the vendors cannot sell imagery for these areas to anyone but the government.

That means that the gov't can create a blank spot on the map for regions where they have "special interests". These interests could be anything from military bases (think, Guantanimo) to war zones (insert obvious choices here) to public utilities (nuclear power plants) to national parks (oil drilling in ANWAR or logging in Yellowstone).

Also, I do not believe that the satellite owners will have the choice of not selling exclusive rights to the gov't. I think that the licenses that allow these companies to operate require them to grant this type of exclusive license to any data that the gov't wants. (I could be wrong on this, but I remember reading it somewhere.)

Re:You really are missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-08 10:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The U.S government has always been able to do this with satellites licensed by them - it is called 'shutter control'. In the case of Afghanistan, they preferred to buy the output of Ikonos (the only Very High Resolution satellite then operating) not only to keep it from anyone else but because the data was actually useful - coverage is always a problem with satellite data. Not only that - I think you'll find private companies operating satellites like QuickBird and Ikonos will sell you exclusive rights to imagery if you are willing to pay enough.
You can't keep the imagery from the govt, however. And did you know they will not let those companies sell imagery over Israel or the occupied territories at less than 2 metres resolution, as against the 60 cm capabilities of QuickBird for example.
All this legislation does is prevent using the FoI Act to circumvent restrictions already in place - for US-based companies. And they're not worried about weather sats or Landsat, I'm sure...

Re:Hmm by xmas2003 · 2004-09-08 11:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wonder what I have to do about the satellite pictures of my house - am I OK if they had been taken by European sats, but not OK if from US sats?!?

On a hopefully unrelated note, I noticed the following in my web server logs:
149.101.1.128 - - [07/Sep/2004:08:48:12 -0600] "GET /faq/satellite_photo/ HTTP/1.0" 200 4449 "http://www.terraserver.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-DNJ702R1)"

That IP address resolves to wdcsun28.usdoj.gov ... and the referral of www.terraserver.com is pretty odd too ... and 10 minutes later, the IP address 149.101.1.116 (resolves as wdcsun16.usdoj.gov) looked at the same page ... but so far, no other accesses from 149.101.*.* addresses - have the black helocopters been dispatched?!? ;-)

--
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease

Inconvenient reality? Just say no! by Catbeller · 2004-09-08 14:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

Little known fact (in the U.S.):

During the Bush propaganda run-up to the 1991 Gulf war, the Bushies (same guys as the current Bushies, hence the name) put out the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had amassed troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. Stopping that massive invasion of Saudi Arabia was one of the major reasons to start the war.

Here's the part the U.S. has total amnesia about: news organizations, after the war, simply requested satellite photos of the Saudi border in question at the time we insisted the Iraqis were amassing its invasion.

Guess what? There were no troops there. Empty land. The troops story, like the Iraqis-threw-preemies-from-incubators crock put out by a Washington DC PR firm, was a "misstatement", as the same Bushies still call such things today.

Or a big, fat, loathesome lie.

Now, here in '01 the Bushies have created exceptions from the Freedom of Information Act. Lookee here, three years after that, they are using that questionably legal tactic to shut the hole in the wall of their fake universe that tripped them up 13 years ago: the presence of a camera.

They really don't like cameras, unless its in the hands of the police, taking YOUR picture when you dare to protest the Bushies in public.

If a third party places cameras in orbit, I guarantee they will threaten the owners into compliance with their demands, or they will reserve the right to blow them out of the sky.

This isn't flamebait. This is a scream. They are blindfolding us and gagging us, and they don't even bother to justify it. They just assume we won't care. And they are right.

42 of 369 comments (clear)