Slashback: Google, Surveillance, Stardust

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Brin's defense of Google's recent actions in China, DoJ criticizes Microsoft's delay meeting antitrust regulations, Bush allies defend NSA domestic surveillance, Wisconsin rolls back open-source voting, a look back at Pixar, and Stardust samples exceed expectations -- Read on for details.

Brin defends Google's recent actions in China. An anonymous reader writes "Fortune Magazine recently had a chance to talk to Google co-founder Sergi Brin and asked him about the company's decision to accept censorship in China. As you might guess, Brin defended the move. From the article: 'The end result was that we weren't available to about 50 percent of the users. [...] We ultimately made a difficult decision, but we felt that by participating there, and making our services more available, even if not to the 100 percent that we ideally would like, that it will be better for Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information, though not quite all of it.' Human Rights Watch boss Ken Roth, though, wasn't impressed and had a few scathing remarks about the decision."

DoJ criticizes Microsoft's delay in meeting antitrust regulations. Rob writes to tell us that the US Department of Justice is complaining that Microsoft is dragging their feet on certain antitrust technical documentation submission guidelines. From the article: "Microsoft acknowledged the current problems and the steps it is taking to correct them in a recent status report but "has not detailed the seriousness of the current situation," according to the DoJ."

Bush allies defend NSA domestic surveillance. Jason Jardine writes to tell us News.com is reporting that Bush's allies are coming out of the woodwork to support the recently criticized NSA domestic surveillance program. From the article: "In a continuation of a full-court press that began a day earlier, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday told students at Georgetown University that a wartime president has the lawful authority to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail messages without court approval." Forgive me if I don't agree.

Wisconsin rolls back open-source voting. Irvu writes "One day after the good news that Wisconsin was requiring open-source electronic-voting software was reported on Slashdot, it was gutted. According to BloackboxVoting.org the open-source public review provisions of the bill were removed and replaced with a version requiring the state to escrow the code and, unless a recount occurs, provide only internal examination. The final form of the bill reads: 'Sec 5.905 "...Unless authorized under this section, the board shall withhold access to those software components from any person who requests access under s.19.35...' Meaning that public review is not required and should be, by default, refused. The Legislation History [PDF]reflects the change and points to the final crippled bill. [PDF]"

A look back at Pixar history. An anonymous reader writes "With all of the recent press coverage of Pixar getting bought out by Disney it seems only fitting to take a look back at Pixar history. LowEndMac.com has an interested retrospective writeup exploring the beginnings of Pixar back in the 1970's by Dick Shoup through to the current day."

Stardust samples exceed expectations. carpdeus writes "MSNBC is reporting that the recent opening of the Stardust sample in a clean room appears to be a great success. From the article: 'It exceeds all expectations,' said Donald Brownlee, Stardust's lead scientist from the University of Washington. 'It's a huge success,' he said in a university statement released Wednesday. 'We can see lots of impacts. There are big ones, there are small ones. The big ones you can see from 10 feet away,' Brownlee observed."

Comments

You mean Brin defends his meal ticket

[winkydink]

'...We ultimately made a difficult decision, but we felt that by
participating there, and making our services more available, even if not
to the 100 percent that we ideally would like, that it will be better for
Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information,
though not quite all of it.'

Meaning: "Thereby ensuring that we could sell ads that reach most,
even if not to the 100% that we ideally would like, of the enormous
Chinese market."

Don't kid yourself. This has nothing to do with being evil or not and
everything to do with making money. Great big piles of money.

Re:You mean Brin defends his meal ticket

[MightyMartian]

"I was just following orders."
The Defense of Every Immoral Fucker Throughout Who Screwed Some Segment of Humanity

Re:You mean Brin defends his meal ticket

[Per Abrahamsen]

> "I was just following orders."
> The Defense of Every Immoral Fucker Throughout Who Screwed Some Segment of Humanity

And not the defense Brin gives.

So I don't see how that platitude can be viewed as Insightful, rather than Off-Topic. Unless the moderators don't actually read the blurbs or care about context, and just moderate anything up that seems vaguely familiar and pleasing.

Capturing The Stuff of Stars

[ackthpt]

NASA/JPL explain how dust was captured in Aerogel

alas, poor pixar! i knew him, horatio.

So... how long before the forces of ennui at Disney get to Steve and John, driving them out like Roy? How long before Pixar films are littered with the dumb, ultra-hip Disney characters populate the films?

The US is not in a state of war

[Eric Smith]

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday told students at Georgetown University that a wartime president has the lawful authority to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail messages without court approval."

Even if that Gonzales' statement was true (which it isn't), the United States is not in a state of war, so the reasoning is completely specious.

For the United States to enter a war, Congress must exercise their constitutional authority to declare war. They have chosen not to do so.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[slavemowgli]

Oh! But can't you see that we're in a war on terrorism? A war on a tactic, with no clearly-defined enemy, no location where it's taking place, no fighting, and - most importantly - not even a clear condition whereby we could determine that we have won it...

What Gonzales means is "we (that is, the president and administration) have the right to do whatever we want, all the time, without any boundaries, oversight, or responsibility".

The strange thing about that, though, is that it should be obvious that this statement, no matter how you take it, will not only affect Dubya and future republican presidents, but Democrats as well. I'm not sure what he's thinking, but does he really want to give that kind of power to his enemies? The answer is obviously no - so what will he do to ensure that all future presidents will be republicans? Rigging the elections is a good idea, and it has been proven to work at least twice now (and there wasn't even a big outcry anymore the second time), but is that all?

What *does* he really have planned?

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you mean the resolution that says:

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), [b]unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Do you need help with the math on that one?

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[david duncan scott]

Oh, you youngsters!

The War Powers Act was created precisely to limit what the Executive could do in the absence of a war. FDR, for instance, had a real war, with a declaration of war and everything, and no weird "War Powers" thing.

Nixon, on the other hand, had a police action, or an incursion, or whatever the hell they called it from week to week, and Congress finally up and said, "Look, without a war you can only shoot people for a little while, and then you have to come back to us get permission again." No such requirement exists with an honest-to-God war.

In other words, the War Powers Act is exactly the indication that a state of war does not exist, and really, that shouldn't be a surprise -- neither Osama bin Laden nor "Terror" are nations, and wars are fought between nations.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[Watts Martin]

I think you're missing the Anonymous Coward's point there, which is that the text of the resolution seems to suggest time limits to the "authorization of force" that can't be extended indefinitely. There are also legitimate questions as to whether the "authorization of force" really is equivalent to a declaration of war. Furthermore, whatever you call it, it was an action specifically against the Hussein government, which is unquestionably no longer in power. We are fighting in Iraq, but we are most definitely not at war with Iraq.

These sound like matters of semantics, I suppose, but they're pretty serious ones. Whether the war against Hussein's forces was "legal" constitutionally doesn't automatically mean that continued fighting is. And if we accept the implicit notion that the "war on terror" gives the president expanded powers just as if it was a war conducted against a state, that may well be a long-term shift in the balance of constitutional power between the branches of our government. There is no concrete milestone for declaring victory against a tactic, so when exactly are those powers rescinded? And if we're essentially saying that the president gets to waive fundamental constitutional rights like the fourth amendment in the name of national security, where do we draw the line? The administration may indeed only be tapping phone calls to/from suspected terrorists outside the country, but there's no reason why their logic can't be applied to calls completely within the country. And just what's the measure of "suspicious activity"? If you have certain magazine subscriptions? Attend certain meetings?

Whenever we talk about expanding the powers of any governmental entity, we need to ask ourselves not whether we trust the current administrators with that power, but whether we can reasonably expect to trust the next office-holder with that power. And the next. And the next. And the next. It really doesn't matter whether you think Bush is the greatest president we've ever seen, and it really doesn't matter whether I agree with you, because what we're talking about is potentially changing the powers reserved for the presidency as an institution. Would you have trusted John Kerry with that power? How about John McCain? How about Hillary Clinton?

4 kinds of information

[Ark42]

1. What you know you know.
2. What you know you don't know.
3. What you don't know you know.
4. What you don't know you don't know.

As long as Google tells people items where removed from their search because of their government, then Google is still providing information in the form of #2 instead of #4 like other search engines might, or the absense of any search engine would be.

Re:4 kinds of information

[Mrs. Grundy]

Also:
5. Things you think you know but are mistaken.

Consider what Tiananmen Square stands for. Now look at the images google returns for the normal search vs the Chinese search and ask yourself what you think you would know from looking at these results:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+square

Re:4 kinds of information

[luvirini]

Well US is on fine list with China on many things, including human rights abuses and executing people, so why not on this too?

Re:4 kinds of information

[guaigean]

Well, a search on just Tiananmen shows some of the same pictures on page 5... http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen&svnum=1 0&hl=zh-CN&lr=&cr=countryCN&start=80&sa=N I realize China is censoring (to a great extent), but perhaps some of it also has to do with the difference in culture. In the west, when we hear Tiananmen Square, we think massacre. There's a lot more to the square than that, and the Chinese have more reverance for it. However, pics posted by the Chinese are written in chinese, and so searching by english words won't neccessarily turn up the same thing. Searching in english will turn up the western view of Tiananman mostly, and little else.

Re:4 kinds of information

[Bob of Dole]

Which explains why:
GIS in AU
GIS in CA
GIS in FR
GIS in UK
GIS in RU
GIS in PL
GIS in IT
GIS in ES
GIS in JP

Are all so different, right?
That's not "cultural differences", mate. That's censorship.

Re:4 kinds of information

[cluckshot]

I worked from 2001 to 2005 in a company where I was privy to the bid requests of the DARPA, NSA, CIA and others regards information mining and technology related. I am sure somebody will want to disagree with me and call me troll for saying so, but the Bush Administration's NSA spying campaign which they call limited monitoring of terrorists is nothing of the sort.

The Bush Administration undertook at various high levels in the US Government to secure every single communication and to process it for their use. That is a fact. It is not opinion. To be blunt this was securing a level of invasion of privacy that the German SS (1930's to 1940's) never imagined possible. It's only goal has to be the construction of a police state. I saw this in the bid requests! They wanted 100% of all data including to be able to evaluate photographs, many languages and even other issues. They wanted 100% of all commercial transactions and to pattern everything.

Read this for what you will, it isn't toll to tell the truth. I am reasonably certain some party will think I am being partizan. I am not. I am reasonably certain that the Democrat leadership would do the same thing if given the chance. We in the USA have a real problem with our leaders. Seeking to understand their behavior through the eyes of their party propaganda machines is just nuts. Republicans all too often have a Karl Rove point of view. Of course the Democrats have their own propaganda team. We need to see that what is being stolen in the name of national security is all of our security. We have none if people like these destroy the US Constitution this way.

For those who cannot read, I will spell it out for you. The US Constitution REMOVES from government the power to do anything not permitted. Specifically warrantless searches are prohibited in the US Constitution. The claim that there is no law prohibiting what is happening is just ignorant at the highest level of ignorance. This infinite seaching and invasion of privacy is ILLEGAL 100% no excuses. Excusing it because some Democrat did it or some previous crook did it is no excuse.

I just saw this on PBS....

[IAAP]

Sergi Brin and asked him about the company's decision to accept censorship in China. As you might guess, Brin defended the move.

For one, on the bottom of the Chinese results they do show that the results were filtered according to local law. So, the Chiniese citizens are in fact informed that their results are being filtered indirectly by their Governement.

For two, Google, after all, is a business. They are not a NGO, charity, or some other organization that's in existance to make this planet a better World (TM). They are here to make their shareholders (and themselves) a return on their investment.

Three, Corporate citizenship, HA hahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhaha hhahahahha!

Four, there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Clause!

Five, you get my point.

Re:I just saw this on PBS....

[linguae]

For two, Google, after all, is a business. They are not a NGO, charity, or some other organization that's in existance to make this planet a better World (TM). They are here to make their shareholders (and themselves) a return on their investment.

To quote Milton Friedman:

"The only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders"

Corporations don't exist to be humanitarian organizations. Their job is to make as much money as possible, while remaining within the law.

Re:I just saw this on PBS....

[no_opinion]

Right, despite their slogan of "Do No Evil" Google is still a corporation. Maybe their reality distortion field will start to lose its strength now.

Re:I just saw this on PBS....

[evilviper]

For two, Google, after all, is a business. They are not a NGO, charity, or some other organization that's in existance to make this planet a better World (TM). They are here to make their shareholders (and themselves) a return on their investment.

Thankfully, the two overlap. If people trust google less, the stock price will fall.

The real question is whether they're going to go for the short-term profit or the long-term profit. In the short-term, selling user information will make money, but you will quickly lose customers, and in the long-term, money.

Google, being a homogeneous information service, depends far more on customer trust than (nearly) any other type of company (except perhaps banks). Losing face with their customers will cause them to lose a lot of money for their shareholders as well.

Bush in 20 years

[TibbonZero]

It will be interesting to see how things are viewed when more of the 'truth' is settled on in 20 years for this administration. Will they be seen as the just and right protectors of Democracy, or will he be seen as the worst president of all time?

IMHO, they are with this CIA blowup working on either
1)Nailing their own coffin shut on this
2) Permanently dismantling the basics of american freedoms

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Ben Franklin

China

[bm_luethke]

While I don't particularly care for what China is doing, I can't particularly blame google.

First off, his statement is correct - that is a large market. I can't blame them for wanting to get into it. The Chinese govt is the one imposing the standards - hate them.

Secondly, this is still a march towards not having the censorship. If you demand an all or nothing approach then, at least with this Chinese Govt you will get the "nothing" end of the bargain. It's like demanding "Give me a million dollars or give me death" - while the million dollars would be nice, death sucks and will be the option you are stuck with if you stay headstrong about those being the only two options. Better to choose the path that will get you to the million dollars as quickly as possible and still be likely.

Right now, Chinese Govt is in a hard place (though very good for the rest of the world and the Chinese people). If they do not progress they will die, in order to progress they need to open the information avenues. By opening those avenues they are going to die. All this will do is give another way for dissidents to gather information and learn and show normal average people what they are missing.

It would be nice to wave a magic wand and have them be a free country, but that isn't going to happen. It's going to take a long series of concessions with a final bloody conflict, though with enough of their country inching towards it it will be less bloody - in the long run stuff like this will save lives even if it isn't what you want ideologically.

As to if the founder of google are being greedy bastards who trample on the Chinese rights or see the second part of what I say will depend on your view of the company. They aren't going to say either way. Given Google's past I generally suspect that the second benefit I said plays in their decision - though I do not know how much.

Gonzales is a funny man

[Prien715]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday told students at Georgetown University that a wartime president has the lawful authority to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail messages without court approval.

When asked when the war would started, Gonzales replied "September 11th, 2001". When asked when it would end, he said "Never".

Gonzales, however, is wrong. The war on terror is over! We're now in the "struggle against Islamic extremism".

Somebody should tell this jackass...

[psykocrime]

Georgetown University that a wartime president has the lawful authority to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail messages without court approval."

Somebody needs to tell this jackass that WE'RE NOT F%#KING AT WAR!!! Unless I missed it when Congress issued a declaration of war, but somehow I doubt I slept through that.

Just because a few morons in DC make up a fancy sounding name like the "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs" does not mean that we are magically at war.

What a freaking asshat.

So, Google cowers to China, while resisting US?

[mi]

They are fighting tooth-and-nail against a US government's request for rather innocent piece of statistics -- a million of randomly selected queries over the course of one random week in 2005 -- something no other search engine found in any way objectionable.

And yet they agree to China's much more intrusive demands.

No, I don't think they are "doing evil" with any of it. But heros they are not either.

Re:Administration BS

[Anonymous Coward]

it has been noticed that the secret court that was established for that very reason has never declined a request and allows for retroacive filing for a warrant to tap a phone conversation.

This is why I don't understand the effort to justify spying without a warrant. If it's that easy to get a warrant, and you can file up to 72 hours after the fact, what makes it so necessary to be able to spy without a warrant?

It's like arguing that agents *must* be allowed to breathe without air, because they might not have time to find some air first. It's not that difficult to go through procedures. Is the warrantless wiretap practice supposed to be some paperwork reduction policy?

Google Problem Is Easy

[istartedi]

Tiananmen = "Lock say" (this is actually the westernized way of saying the date, which I found through my un-censored USA Google search).

Other censored phrases can be replaced with more obscure stuff. lakfjdslkdj for democracy, etc. Of course the censors will just clamp down on that. It will be an arms race, just like spam, and just as spam always gets through, so will censored material. Come on, you know you want to enlarge y0\/r d3mocrasee p3nis.

So yeah, the Google execs look like they caved in, but they probably realize this will work as well as... DRM. To the young Chinese hackers: Gentlemen, start your compilers.

Google -vs- DOJ a sham?

[Quixote]

After reading the Google China news, it suddenly dawned on me that the Google -vs- DOJ thing was probably just a sham. I'm inclined to believe that it was a feint to minimize the impact of Google's sellout. Google knows that the information that DOJ wants is harmless; but by putting up a mock fight, it can claim to take the higher ground, "standing up for the rights of our users", while they quietly sellout to the Chinese Government.

It seems to make sense now.

Re:Administration BS

[magarity]

domestic surveilance
 
Everyone in this thread, including the editor, convienently leaves out the "half", as in "half domestic surveilance". When a known Al-Q person outside the USA calls or contacts someone inside, the NSA tries to listen in. So how exactly is it a huge problem that one person in the US is being spied upon because a known terrorist on a short list calls him? Tell me with a straight face anyone seriously expects the NSA get a warrant ahead of time in a world of disposable cell phones. Anyway, if Osama calls me I'd prefer the NSA listened in; I'll try to keep him on the line long enough for the Predator drone to home in on his originating signal.
 
  The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Re:The imperial President

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, civil liberties progressives were ok with crackdowns by Clinton and Janet Reno, so hypocrisy goes both ways.

No. We weren't (at least this civil liberties progressive wasn't). "Clinton did it too" is not an excuse. Fuck Clinton. Fuck Reno. Fuck Bush. Fuck Gonzales. Fuck all of 'em. I want my country back.

Re:Interesting Comments About China

[rmpotter]

While I agree that it is wrong for western companies to bow down to the power of the Chinese government, I think you have to focus more attention on the role of U.S. government. After all, Bush granted China "Normal Trading Partner" status a few years ago. Either the U.S. people should force their politicians to place ethical limits on trade with China or American /.'ers should face the fact that their "democratically" elected regime is more than happy to sacrifice ethics for the Almighty Dollar (or Yen). If your governemt is happy to see its corporate citizens and consumers profit from the misery and subjugation of other people, then why shouldn't Microsoft or Yahoo or Google join in the fun? If we can ignore poor old Google for a minute, we know that North Americans (and Europeans?) are buying up ridiculously cheap Chinese goods -- products that are made with questionable labor and environmental practices. If we can't help ourselves (and morality seems to elude the "market forces" that control us) then all we can do is lobby the government to put additonal limits on how corporations.