Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Google, Surveillance, Stardust
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."
I want some big, important pundit on the right to give an example of something the president does not, by their lights, have the authority to do. If he becomes a dictator in wartime (which it's mighty sketchy to say we're in), why not come out and say this? Can he rape and murder? No, seriously, if he can break one law, why not others?
Shit, I thought I understood our system of government--the legislature expresses the will of the people in laws; the executive branch then implements and executes said laws. For instance, if Congress makes kidnapping a federal offense, the FBI (under the Department of Justice) investigates kidnappings. But according to some of our less stable pundits and her commenters, "The legislature cannot limit the authority of the president, just like the president cannot limit the authority of the legislature." So, does he have divine, kingly powers now? Did we suddenly get that?
Oh, who am I kidding? Clearly the president's imperial authority stops at the beginning of the next Democrat administration.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Having been at Disney during the CAPS days, I can tell you that the article gets a lot of details wrong (e.g. animators didn't paint cels and they weren't painted automatically) but at a higher level it's still an interesting story.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
At least the NSA is choosing people with some intelligence on them and not eavesdropping on every damn call.
I take it you work at the NSA and can actually back this up? Or are we to take the president's word for it?
And I beg to differ that the NSA wiretap is "no different". You know when you're patted down at the airport. You don't know when the NSA wiretaps you. The airport searches are conducted in compliance with the law. The warrantless wiretaps are conducted in violation of the law. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I saw this on Boing Boing earlier today.
Future lawers protest AG's speech
The link is to someone's blog, but the pictures are priceless.
Don't you have someone you'd die for?
It's like the DMCA message you get when you search for things right here in the motherland.
http://www.google.com/search?q=xenu (look at the bottom of the page)
And now, the $1000 question... which local government is not censoring these results?
http://www.google.cn/search?q=xenu
An anecdote, but somehow fitting. A guy I worked with briefly was Chinese. He explained how his grandparents, who lived in Bejing, only within the last couple years learned what had occured in Tiananmen Square. They always knew that something had happened, but explained that the government controlled media simply told them there was a dangerous situation and that everyone was to remain in their homes or workplaces while the authorities dealt with the problem.
It took over 10 years, and I'd imagine news from their western children/grandchildren, before they knew what really occured. I find this amazing. It's a level of goverment control that I don't think most of us can really grasp.
Not counting various missile strikes, CIA operations, commando raids, etc., which might be considered legitimate without a declaration of war (but certainly would be casus belli for the country being invaded).
Congress voting an "authorization to use force" is a sham and an insult to the Constitution.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
"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."
You must be a strict constructionist. Lets be clear that this statement is an opinion, not necessarily a fact, and has been argued since day one. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist. That is until Napoleon offered him the Louisiana purchase. The constitution never says we can annex large swathes of virgin territory, but I, living in Arizona, am glad he changed his mind and saw that things aren't so black and white.
I do agree with you though. The government is way out of line. Lets not pretend like it started after 9/11 either. You and I both know that NSA's Echelon program was up an running for years before 9/11. The FBI had carnivore. Thanks to the war on drugs, local law enforcement can search without warrant. Did any of these massive incursions into our privacy prevent 9/11? Yes, yes it did.