Artist/Astronomer Exhibits Photos Of Spy Satellites

daemonburrito writes "Trevor Paglen, the photographer and co-author of 'Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights' and 'I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have To Be Destroyed By Me,' has an exhibit showing in Berkeley of 189 photos of secret US satellites (exhibit page here). Wired says, 'In taking these photos, Paglen is trying to draw a metaphorical connection between modern government secrecy and the doctrine of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time.'"

Comments

Heathen!

[zapakh]

Everyone knows that the celestial spy satellites are perfect spheres! This "telescope" is a tool of the devil.

Cool...

[ductonius]

That's a pretty neat exhibi$ #_(%#^3 NO CARRIER

Re:Cool...

[jasonmicron]

You really need to ditch that old modem. Broadband is where it's at!

Re:Cool...

[StikyPad]

Maybe he lives in Soviet Russia and got ditched by broadband you insensitive clod!

Re:Cool...

[sfraggle]

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but does anyone else think that maybe it was the CIA who submitted this news article?

Re:Cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! Broadband is the way to æ|!aâ-' CONNECTION RESET BY PEER

wow...

[bsDaemon]

Blame the CIA and the Catholic Church in one fell swoop? Now if that isn't a match made for UCB, then I don't know what is.

Re:wow...

[inKubus]

Blame the CIA and the Catholic Church in one fell swoop? Now if that isn't a match made for UCB, then I don't know what is.

Yeah, everyone knows the Catholics are all in the FBI.

Re:wow...

[Ethanol-fueled]

No wonder why the FBI is so goddamn crooked.

Hmmm...

[sm62704]

Did TFA get slashdotted, or did the DoD bomb Berkley?

Re:Hmmm...

[Simon (S2)]

I guess the latter, because I can't belive that Berkley can be slashdotted...

Re:Hmmm...

[genericpoweruser]

I was about to ask the same thing. Strange that the article could be slashdotted with only 5 comments (based on my last refresh--about 3 minutes ago)...

Re:Hmmm...

[ehiris]

It's clear that the CIA is working with Slashdot to cover up secret spy satellites that can penetrate tin foil.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge assumptions on your part here ... HUGE ... (or sarcasm??? whoosh / me ???) this is probably sitting on one server somewhere and is not mirrored/clustered in anyway ... not the mention TFA and the exhibit page are on two separate domains. NOTE. Wired.com (not slashdotted), www.bampfa.berkeley.edu (slashdotted), I will have my own assumptions that they Berkeley site has better things to look at anyhow

Wait... I'm confused.

[AkaKaryuu]

Is the US government trying to connect with the catholic church and claim the Earth is flat?

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[TheSpengo]

When you think about it... it's really obvious! I hear the Jews had a hand in this too. If you're having trouble realizing it, it's probably because of the mind control rays. Try wearing a hat made of tin foil. also wtc was an inside job. xD

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[lena_10326]

Is the US government trying to connect with the catholic church and claim the Earth is flat?

The Earth is flat. It's space that's curved.

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure science hasn't proven the existence of a right to abortion (or free speech or any other "right" for that matter.) Or is it automatically scientifically proven just because you personally like it?

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[quickbasicguru]

Notice the "... science and reason ..."

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

So "reason" can prove that a "right" exists in some empirical or objective way? Sounds like a pretty sketchy definition of "science and reason" for a Slashdotter, although it might get modded up for agreeing with Slashdot groupthink.

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty funny considering it is coming out of the poster boy's mouth! (Think about it for awhile. You may get it eventually)

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[HopeOS]

Although I'm not completely familiar with the epistemology, Objectivists do believe just that. And they purport to have a logical proof beginning with what is effectively "something cannot exist and not exist at the same time" extending through "non-initiation of force" and the like. From there, they layout a basis of morality using only rational constructs. It's a seductive argument, even if it's too hand-wavy for my tastes.

-Hope

Re:Wait... I'm confused.

[Oktober Sunset]

I've never heard of these 'Jews' before, are they connected to 'T3h jo00zzZ!!!!1111!' in any way?

He is going to disappear.

[jameskojiro]

Quicker than an unattended cookie at a fat camp.

The Universe..

[stretchpuppy]

... revolves around the earth. Those are gods tears in the sky, not spy satellites. The church doesn't have anything to hide.

Now go to your room for life and don't tell anyone what you've discovered.

Re:The Universe..

[idontgno]

Those are gods tears in the sky,

And why is God crying?

Probably because of something you did.

Thanks, Jack Handey.

Doesn't Exist.

[scubamage]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Doesn't Exist.

[ozbird]

Really, there is nothing to see here. All of the photos I looked at (before I got bored) were just streaks in the sky - whoopee.

Gee

[commodoresloat]

Maybe if you guys tried spelling Berkeley right? Everyone knows where you're talking about but computers can be nitpicky about interpreting URLs...

Re:Gee

[sm62704]

Oh, I guess I shouldn't have just typed "Berkley" into the URL bar and should have clicked the link in the summary instead? Wow, your computer skills are 133t!

Censorship?

[mkiwi]

Why did this article get tagged "censorship?" I don't see anyone in the government trying to censor this exhibit.

Re:Censorship?

[uab21]

I believe it was tagged "censorship", not because this exhibit is being censored, but because the existence of the satellites themselves is denied. He is lifting the 'veil of censorship' to show that, yes they do. The government is not yanking his photos, but they are replying "I don't know what you are talking about" when asked about the subject of each picture.

Re:Censorship?

[steelfood]

I don't see anyone in the government trying to censor this exhibit. Exactly.

Re:Censorship?

[Kingrames]

That's because that's what they don't want you to see.

Re:Censorship?

[TrekkieGod]

I believe it was tagged "censorship", not because this exhibit is being censored, but because the existence of the satellites themselves is denied. He is lifting the 'veil of censorship' to show that, yes they do.

No, he is lifting the veil of secrecy. There's a big difference between secrecy and censorship.

Secrecy is a very important aspect of national security, and I wouldn't want to see it go away. That said, I want checks and balances to ensure that only things pertaining to national security are kept secret, and every other aspect of the government is kept transparent. I also want to make sure there are checks and balances to prevent a violation of citizens rights lumped in under national security secrets (like wiretaps of american citizens), and I want checks and balances to prevent a violation in inalienable human rights (like secret prisons) with the same premise as an excuse, but I sure have no problem with secret spy satellites. In fact, if I were an amateur astronomer who discovered said satellites, I would be morally against publicizing that information. I know other countries can look at the sky just as easily as I can, but I don't want to do their legwork for them. That said, if the astronomer in question doesn't have a problem with publicizing the information, I would have a problem with the government trying to shut him up. That would be censorship, not just secrecy. It's one of those "I disagree with what you're saying, but I will defend your right to say it" things.

In the case of Trevor Paglin, the article indicates that he knew where and when to find the satellites by looking at a database compiled by amateur astronomers. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't classify as a "secret" anymore, other than the actual capabilities of the satellites. Therefore, I don't have a moral objection to it. In fact, I applaud all of his other work, which brings attention to those secret prisons I so despise.

Re:Censorship?

[prestonmichaelh]

I still don't really see why not admitting the satellites exist is censorship. What do we expect them to do? Publish when, where, and how each one will be launched, where it is in orbit, and what its function is? Obviously you can't hide a satellite, just like you can't fully hide any military base, but you can conceal the purpose so you don't if it is a laser from sky that can kill a person instantly, or just a decoy satellite that just beeps like sputnik. If you put enough of them up and assume that an enemy has a limited first strike capability (i.e. they can't shoot down all your satellites at once), then you increase your odds that your important ones might remain in case you get attacked (since they won't know exactly which ones to target and will just have to take educated guesses).

I am very opposed to the illegal wire taps, the constant invasion of privacy, and many other things that the government does, but I do think, in some cases, it is okay for the government to have secrets and for them to say "we can't talk about that" or "we don't know what you are talking about". Obviously finding that line, and making sure that a system of checks and balances stays in place so that things don't go to far is hard to do (we are screwing it up right now).

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure whether to mod this funny or insightful...

Re:Censorship?

[mrogers]

Secrecy is a very important aspect of national security, and I wouldn't want to see it go away. That said, I want checks and balances to ensure that only things pertaining to national security are kept secret, and every other aspect of the government is kept transparent.

That's a reasonable goal, but unfortunately it's impossible to achieve. Here's the problem: censors can't be accountable to the public, because by definition the details of exactly what was censored must be kept secret. So why not set up a trusted committee to review the censors' decisions? But the committee can't be held accountable either, for the same reason. Well then, why not set up a trusted court to oversee the committee that reviews the censors' decisions? But the court can't be held accountable either... and so on.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that censorship, including the suppression of information for national security purposes, is incompatible with public control of the government.

Re:Censorship?

[mrogers]

You mean they're using Double Secret Censorship?

Re:Censorship?

[Kingrames]

That's because they're in your head man.

Re:Censorship?

[kmac06]

So you think it would be a good idea to release the full details on the best, fastest, cheapest way to make the biggest nuclear bomb. And you think that we should release the names, identities, and covers of all of our intelligence agents, including ones that may be undercover in organizations such as Al Qaeda. We should release all military plans in Iraq prior to executing them, and release all security information about our bases there, such as patrol patterns, shift changes, known weaknesses, and even all encryption keys?

Re:Censorship?

[Original Replica]

What do we expect them to do? Publish when, where, and how each one will be launched, where it is in orbit, and what its function is? Obviously you can't hide a satellite, just like you can't fully hide any military base, but you can conceal the purpose so you don't if it is a laser from sky that can kill a person instantly, or just a decoy satellite that just beeps like sputnik.

Well first they could say:" Yes, they are spy satellites. Of course we have spy satellites. They cost roughly $153 million each, and there are 170 to 190 of them. We would like to keep their capabilities secret." At least then they aren't lieing like little children with stolen chocolate bar. Also then there can be some semblance of accountability. As it stands there is zero accountability. Zero accountability + huge military budget = dictatorship. Dictatorship!!??!! no no no, that's ridiculous: you say. Given the publics disapproval other "secret" government actions, like extraordinary rendition and wiretapping, I would say that most secret programs don't reflect the will of the people at all. Given that if there are in fact 180+ different spy satellites in the sky, then there have been more spy satellite launches than manned NASA missions. I don't think that is an appropriate way to spend my tax dollars, but I gave no way to challenge that spending, even if my Congressional representative wanted to help me, because no one will even admit that these satellites exist. That makes every tax dollar spent on a "secret" project fall into the category of Taxation without Representation.

Re:Censorship?

[TrekkieGod]

That's a reasonable goal, but unfortunately it's impossible to achieve. Here's the problem: censors can't be accountable to the public, because by definition the details of exactly what was censored must be kept secret.

Realistically, you are correct (although I still object to your terminology. They're not "censors," they're people sworn to secrecy. They only become censors when they attempt to stop the free speech of those who were not sworn to keep the secrets but found out anyway). What I described was an ideal situation. Even if the goal is unreachable, if we all strive to achieve it, we can keep ourselves from straying too far from it.

What we have to our advantage is that there are a lot of people involved in all levels of government in order to make it work. Somebody who believes in a responsible government is bound to be included in every secret project, and when they do, they will be morally obliged to become whistle-blowers and leak the information.

The problem isn't that the "trusted committee" isn't accountable to the public, it's that these days the public just doesn't care. The secrets that threaten public control of the government do invariably get leaked. We know about the wiretaps. We know about the secret prisons. We know about the torture. The problem is that a lot of the public believes this behavior is acceptable. Instead of thanking the whistle-blowers who brought this to our attention, some people go as far as calling them traitors.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that censorship, including the suppression of information for national security purposes, is incompatible with public control of the government.

You're right. Complete transparency of the government is incompatible with the ability to keep secrets. The alternative of keeping no secrets at all is to live with a foreign threat to our public control of the government. The fact that we're straying so far from what you called my "reasonable goal" is an inherent deficiency of a government under public control. When the public doesn't care, they fail to hold their government accountable, even when they do know about the secrets. However, the alternative to public control of the government is even worse. In the end, I prefer to strive to keep the balance. I accept that the government has to keep secrets even knowing that this interferes with the transparency I want from my government, and I accept to live in a democracy even knowing idiots get to vote.

Re:Censorship?

[mrogers]

You're confusing "is" with "ought". I didn't say the government shouldn't have any secrets - I said that if it has secrets, it can't be truly democratic. That's a major problem for people like me (and, I assume, like you) who want to live in a safe, democratic society, because it suggests that what we want can never exist.

Re:Censorship?

[kmac06]

I want to live in a safe Republic, which is perfectly compatible with state secrets :)

Re:Censorship?

[mrogers]

OK, good luck enforcing that constitution when there's no way to find out what the laws are. ;)

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

I said that if it has secrets, it can't be truly democratic.

Anybody who thinks that a true democracy exists, or is even feasible, took 6th grade social studies in too absolute of terms.

Secrecy is just one example why a fully democratic government does not exist. Stupidity is just as much of a reason. A more practical one is the fact that I am not personally involved in every decision of our government. That of course, takes us to the mistaken notion that the US is a direct democracy. It's not. It's a constitutional republic, alternately described as a democratic republic or a representative democracy.

Re:Censorship?

[hosecoat]

Why did this article get tagged "censorship?" I don't see anyone in the government trying to censor this exhibit. yet...

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The alternative of keeping no secrets at all is to live with a foreign threat to our public control of the government.

Keeping secrets doesn't decrease that threat at all. As a matter of fact, secrets make it easier to keep foreign control hidden from the citizens. Which is precisely the situation you have in the U.S.

Re:Censorship?

[kidgenius]

Well first they could say:" Yes, they are spy satellites. Of course we have spy satellites. They cost roughly $153 million each, and there are 170 to 190 of them. We would like to keep their capabilities secret." At least then they aren't lieing like little children with stolen chocolate bar. Also then there can be some semblance of accountability. As it stands there is zero accountability. Zero accountability + huge military budget = dictatorship. Dictatorship!!??!! no no no, that's ridiculous: you say. Given the publics disapproval other "secret" government actions, like extraordinary rendition and wiretapping, I would say that most secret programs don't reflect the will of the people at all. Given that if there are in fact 180+ different spy satellites in the sky, then there have been more spy satellite launches than manned NASA missions.

I think it's better to say that it doesn't exist. How do you know it's one of ours and not one of theirs? Why would you want the government to acknowledge it, so your enemies know exactly which satellites are where, at what time, with which capabilities? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Yeah, I'd love transparency, but we've still got enemies out there, and we can't let them know everything that is in our hand. I have nothing against what these guys have done, but the government has no need to comment on it.

I don't think that is an appropriate way to spend my tax dollars, but I gave no way to challenge that spending, even if my Congressional representative wanted to help me, because no one will even admit that these satellites exist. That makes every tax dollar spent on a "secret" project fall into the category of Taxation without Representation.

Sorry, but you failed. You are taxed. You have a vote. You therefore have representation. If you want a say in where the money goes, vote for individuals who agree with your viewpoint. If no one exists, run for office yourself so you have a say. I don't see what's so difficult about that. You most certainly are not taxed without representation.

Re:Censorship?

[instarx]

First, as far as I know the DoD has never denied the existence of spy satellites - they just don't comment about them at all. That is a big difference. Anyone (and I'm not saying you) who thinks that the government is trying to trick the people into thinking there are no such thing as spy satellites needs to get a life.

Second, these photos prove absolutely nothing - they are just tracks in the sky. Who is to say they actually belong to secret military satellites, weather satellites, communications satellites or Google Earth satellites. And so what if they are spy satellites? Everyone knows they're up there - it's no secret. This is just manufactured controversy.

Third, I'm more mistrustful of the government than most but I don't see the problem with having military intelligence-gathering satellites in orbit. After all, that's what we pay the military to do. Wouldn't you want to know if the Cuban government tried to put nuclear missles in Cuba again, or if the Turks were preparing to send troops into northern Iraq, or if the Taliban were planning a major offensive into Afghanistan?

To classify the existence of these satellites as deceitful, censorship, or part of some vast government plot just doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:Censorship?

[ChrisA90278]

THese photos don't reveil any secrets. The possitions or "obital elements" are published. They have to be or you have the potential of crashes and colisions. What's not publised and what's not shown in these pictures are the details of what the spacecraft do.

These things are really easy to find. You don't need a telescope. Looking that way would be hard. The better way to find them (If the orbital elements weren't published) would be to listen, not look. All of them have radio transmitters that send data to the ground.

Using radio is not a new idea. It was used on the very first satellite. When Russia launched "Sputnik" thousands of US ham radio operators would tune into the radio and used this signal to track the satellite.

Guess someone or something ...

[fewnorms]

... didn't want the pictures seen online by the looks of it. Seems the DoD and/or whatever organization is running these things has figured out that posting a link to an exhibit page on slashdot would completely obliterate the poor Berkeley webserver :) Saves them from having to use (and thus make public) that super laser which mr. Paglen claims to have a picture of, hehe ...

Re:Guess someone or something ...

[lena_10326]

Saves them from having to use (and thus make public) that super laser which mr. Paglen claims to have a picture of, hehe

How did they get the sharks into space?

Re:Guess someone or something ...

[fewnorms]

Saves them from having to use (and thus make public) that super laser which mr. Paglen claims to have a picture of, hehe

How did they get the sharks into space? A fair question, to which I think the answer would probably be: with a rocket. Whether they survived the trip or not is not known at this time, although it does seem very unlikely. Last I heard space was still lacking in the oxygen department and all :)

Re:Guess someone or something ...

[taniwha]

you're right - the DoD did the smart thing and posted a link to Slashdot ....

Re:Guess someone or something ...

[lena_10326]

Whether they survived the trip or not is not known at this time, although it does seem very unlikely. Last I heard space was still lacking in the oxygen department and all :)

Wait a minute. They must be mutated and ill-tempered sharks. I bet that's it.

Nice pics

[Thornburg]

I think I'll archive them in files and as prints... Hang on a sec, there's someone at the door.

I wonder how many times...

[ettlz]

...these things photograph the moon.

Re:I wonder how many times...

[Tumbleweed]

...these things photograph the moon.

That's no moon...

Re:I wonder how many times...

[ettlz]

That's no moon...

No shit, the cocktail brolly was dead give-away.

it didn't end well for galileo

[petes_PoV]

... he was tried and sentenced to house arrest for many years.

Maybe you don't want the parallels to be too close.

Re:it didn't end well for galileo

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, Galileo got off easy. He could have been treated like Giordano Bruno.

Re:it didn't end well for galileo

[mdmkolbe]

Giordano Bruno was condemned because of his Theological beliefs. Galileo was just making scientifically unsound (and later proven false) claims.

Galileo was right that the Earth goes around the Sun, but he also wrongly insisted that it's orbit was circular (thus either introducing errors or necessitating the same epicycles that the geocentric model needed) and that tides were caused by the Earth's orbit and not the Moon. Further while his observations about the moons of Jupiter were insightful, he also mistook Saturn's rings for moons thus impugning the reliability of his Jupiter observations.

Galileo got a lot of things right, but he went about it in a very unscientific way (e.g. he wasn't critical enough of his own findings) that led to him also getting a lot of things wrong. Making mistakes is okay, but Galileo's wouldn't revise them when other academics pointed out their flaws. This eventually made enemies for him in the academic world which is eventually is what did him in.

Galileo did a number of great things. Just keep in mind that the version taught today is a censored one sided version of the story.

Re:it didn't end well for galileo

[Artifakt]

I've argued pretty much what you have about Galileo, that he was brilliant as a scientist in an era when the rules of science were less formal, but was lousy on people skills and pissed off a lot of people who didn't just go around 'inquisiting' everyone, then the Roman Catholic church swung into a more fearful than average phase, he lost the protection of a pope that was willing to cut him extra slack, and he had no other moderates and reasonable men left in the church who wanted to stick their necks out for his particular case. His enemies towards the end included plenty of people who either weren't worried about his effect on church doctrine or would have been willing to let him publish despite their concerns, but they were sticking up for more reasonable people, for example, during that same era, there were people in the church making sure Tycho and Copernicus and half a dozen others weren't charged with anything and that C.'s mom wasn't tried for the allegations of witchcraft brought against her by locals.
        There was also a lot of dealing with anatomists at the time, and again, some people in the church hierarchy were trying to distinguish between people who were 'just' autopsying naturally obtained corpses, and ones who didn't care how the subject crossed the line into death, and were subsidizing possible murder for hire. Respect for natural science was low, but did that follow from church doctrine or because some natural scientists were behaving like something out of Shelly?
      With Bruno, what I'd like to know is, the R.C. church has repeatedly claimed that Bruno got such harsh punishment because there was more to it than just Theological differences. Now this could be a claim that Bruno wasn't just talking about life on other worlds and raising questions about whether such life had a need for a savior and such, but was doing something Occult, or supporting a specific 'cult' such as the Cathars. Bruno certainly could have gotten the pyre for what the rest of us would call a Theological difference and the church could be splitting hairs over what's variant theology and what's occult practice. I'm not saying the Roman Catholic church has never trivialized competing religions or called them just cults. But it would be nice to have someone translate the original texts here into a language I'm more comfortable with, and do a big book on it for modern readers, maybe as part of a Bruno bio.

Re:it didn't end well for galileo

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember the exact issue, but Bruno was promoting something that was a direct contradiction of Catholic theology, as opposed to Galileo, who's arguments were mainly just inconvenient. I have no idea about the claims of occult practices, however, and I'm not saying execution is the proper way of dealing with heresy, even in the context of the 16th century, but his differences with the Church were definitely a level beyond Galileo's.

Also, something almost no one discussing the shift from geocentric to heliocentric studies seems to remember to take into account is that Galileo was not merely challenging a few powerful Inquisitors. He was challenging the entire western world, who "knew" just by walking outside and looking up that the sun revolved around the earth. This seems moronic to us because we've learned that it's a simple misperception since we were in elementary school, but it was what the overwhelming majority of the common people, and no doubt most of the educated people believed at the time (but possibly not either Pope Urban VIII or Msgr Bellarmine...both initially seemed interested in Galileo's work).

Challenging that belief was no small task. Just consider the fuss that was raised when the IAU said that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet. That's just a name change, not a complete re-write of our understanding of the universe presented to a people not accustomed to scientific studies and evaluating abstract evidence.

news?

[Kohath]

I don't understand. What's newsworthy about this? Guy takes photos and displays them. He is not censored. No censorship was alleged.

He wants to make a statement about the parallel between himself being censored and something from 500 years ago. But he wasn't censored and there's really no parallel.

And this would be news if something had actually happened. Are we supposed to be pretend outraged at the imagined censorship that didn't happen? How is that different than the usual pretense to outrage that some folks engage in all the time?

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

the DoD censored the exhibit by having the link posted on Slashdot, where everybody quickly overran the dude's server.

Re:news?

[Illbay]

Yeah, one of the funny, funny things about the Left in this country is how loudly and how often the scream about censorship, the very act of which disproves their claims.

Tim Robbins gives this talk to the National Association of Broadcasters about this "chill wind" of censorship blowing through the country, that gets covered by all the major media, then gets in his private jet and goes home. No "black maria" waiting for him at the airport to take him away, no darkened cell in the sub-basement of the Department of Justice.

Just amazing.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not newsworthy; note he did not take pictures of Chinese or Russian satellites. Just another jackass trying to make a political point imho.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine if he was censored for it though! I would hide in my bunker for fear of the gestapo taking my printing press.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the technology aspect? What about cool photography? Does every news on Slashdot has to be about censorship?

Re:news?

[The Warlock]

I assure you that the libertarian far right does exactly the same thing: conspiracy theroism and paranoia knows no political affiliation; only the details change.

Re:news?

[Thomas M Hughes]

My understanding was the exhibit was not about censorship. It was about looking at things that should not exist, and questioning the reasons why the establishment denies their existence. This can range from the moons of Jupiter or to satellites designed to spy on domestic affairs. His interest is not in the silencing, but in the denial.

Re:news?

[Archangel Michael]

Real censorship is truly chilling. Only it is called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

Anything deemed "offensive" is removed, redacted, covered up, or otherwise stiffled. There are plenty of people who have, are having and will try to have others silenced for saying something that "offended" someone somewhere or another.

Why doesn't Tim Robbins actually speak against the REAL censorship attempts, rather than the nebulous versions he seems to see everywhere?

Re:news?

[holmedog]

Someone mod this man up. The only claim of censorship was by the crappy blurb. He just says he is taking photos of stuff that shouldn't exist. If you want to claim that by not revealing the location of these items (the prisons and the satellites, etc) that they are censoring it, you need to realize what secrecy is.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as people stop complaining about censorship, that is when you know censorship /is/ happening.

Re:news?

[Paranatural]

If you check through some of his other posts, he basically just trolls anything that might be construed as 'liberal'. You won't be able to sway him with a logical argument.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Long time since I saw the old NSA agents posting here! Have you guys being too busy wiretapping our conversations?

Re:news?

[truthsearch]

I don't understand your post at all. Are you saying that because Tim Robbins isn't censored, then censorship doesn't exist? Really?

Really?

Re:news?

[pclminion]

I'm not sure what your point is. Had the exhibit been censored, how would we have known about it? It would be pointless to make this effort only to be prevented from displaying it. It's irony, not stupidity.

Re:news?

[The Warlock]

Thank you for proving my point.

Re:news?

[pclminion]

Except that the best censorship is censorship you are not aware is happening. Clearly, if you want to censor "Topic X," then it seems you must actually DISSEMINATE Topic X, otherwise, how would people know that they were not allowed to discuss it? It takes a sharper mind to figure out how to censor without A) Actually spreading around the very information you want to block and B) Stopping spread of knowledge of the censorship itself.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. That's... sort of the point... isn't it? And I'm not "the Left."

Re:news?

[Dutch Gun]

Real censorship is truly chilling. Only it is called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Political correctness is as unsightly to me as it is to many, but calling it "real censorship" is a bit of a stretch. In most countries with a guaranteed freedom of expression, you don't have a threat of imprisonment or worse hanging over your head. What's the worst that would happen if you said something politically incorrect? The consequences likely range from your co-workers and friends looking at you funny to actually losing your job in extreme cases (no, I'm not trivializing that). And nowadays, it's not all that hard to create a pseudonym on the 'net and spout off about anything you want to.
.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather put up with a societally-imposed politically correctness than a government-imposed suppression of my actual right to free speech. I think some of those that constantly cry censorship and oppression might have a different impression if they lived under a truly oppressive regime (insert Bush joke here for +funny/+insightful). I liken it to middle-class suburban kids who actually think they have it rough growing up. It's simply that they lack a broader perspective to appreciate how good they actually have it relative to most others, and unfortunately, many of those kids grow up into similarly-minded adults.
.
Also, why do my paragraphs munge together unless I put a character between them? I'm posting in text mode...

Re:news?

[qimugtua]

He's not claiming that he is being censored. This isn't breaking news about nefarious activities of the government. This is about an art exhibit that is inspired by typical and ongoing nefarious activities of the government. From the article:

Paglen's initial interest in the government's so-called "black projects" took shape while combing through U.S. Geological Survey archives of satellite prison photos in 2002. He noticed that many of the photo frames of prison sites were missing or, in some cases, heavily edited. "I thought: What the hell is this? We still have blank spots on maps? We've mapped the whole structure of the cosmos and the human genome, so what's this all about?" Paglen said. Eventually, those blank spots led Paglen to other covert subjects and turned a hobby into a full-time job -- one with a decidedly political stance. "For a time, people were getting arrested for photographing the Brooklyn Bridge," Paglen notes. "So to me, what it meant to do photography also changed. There was a new kind of politics to it -- something that was very aggressive and dangerous -- and a presumption that it would reveal some kind of truth or evidence."

I found the article interesting and inspiring. I'm glad Slashdot led me there.

Re:news?

[Original Replica]

how loudly and how often they scream about censorship, the very act of which disproves their claims.

That would only hold true if they where screaming about complete censorship. For example, we know that at least 30,000 National Security Letters are issued every year since 2003, but we have no real idea what they are about because they all come attached to gag orders. So we know that the NSLs exist, but the content is censored, so oversight and accountability is impossible. In the case of the spy satellite photos, we know that they cost millions, if not billions of dollars, and that they exist, but that's it. Again no oversight, and no accountability.

It seems to me that there is was a great deal of oversight, balance, and accountability built into the early constitution because those things are one of the things that enables a truly democratic/representative government, as opposed to a democratic shell over a oligarchic government that holds the true power. That accountability has steadily eroded since the dawn of the Cold War and thus so has belief in our government. I'm not saying that voting does nothing, but I am saying that there a lot of very powerful, very well funded segments of our government that are untouchable (even indirectly) by the voting public. That is not government for the people, by the people; that is government in spite of the people. That is what the Left and the true Conservatives are complaining about when they bitch about government secrets.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, one of the funny, funny things about the Left in this country is how loudly and how often the scream about censorship, the very act of which disproves their claims.

Given that I think it's wrong for the US government (or any government, for that matter) to torture innocent people, I probably qualify as very far left - so let's have a look at how I, as a member of "the left", actually think.

I look at a place like Iraq back in the days of Saddam Hussein and I wonder why ordinary Iraqis didn't do more to prevent their government from torturing innocent people. I don't excuse the inaction of the ordinary Iraqis entirely but I think that there were mitigating factors. First, it was hard to know for sure that the Saddam's government was actually torturing innocent people. Sure, there were rumors, but can you really trust every rumor you hear? Second, if you did speak out, then you risked being tortured yourself. Third, there wasn't an easy way to effect change. It's not like there was anyone else on the ballot besides Saddam Hussein.

But then I look at the USA. It is clearly documented that the US government has tortured innocent people over the last 8 years. There are mainstream news articles about it. A documentary about it even won the most recent Academy Award. There are no penalties for speaking out against the US government's torture of innocent people. Well, you might not get a job in the US Justice Department if you oppose torture but it's overwhelmingly unlikely that you'll be hauled away and tortured yourself. Finally, effecting change is trivially easy. You go to the ballot box and you vote for someone other than a Republican. Not hard at all.

So what bothers me, as a representative of "the left", is not that the US government is preventing people from effecting change - but that people in the USA don't effect change when they most definitely could and should.

Re:news?

[Archangel Michael]

you don't have a threat of imprisonment or worse hanging over your head No, you just lose your job for using the "N" word. No, you just lose your job for having a bible on your desk. Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"

Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.

What's the worst that would happen if you said something politically incorrect? Why should ANYTHING happen? If I call someone a Retard or whatever, as insensitive as that may be, why should anything happen to me? Because someone's feelings were hurt? Golly Gee, that hurts my feelings. But my feelings don't matter, because I'm not a protected class. Golly Gee, that hurts my feelings again.

to actually losing your job in extreme cases (no, I'm not trivializing that) But you are. You're saying that just because it isn't Jail or Death it isn't censorship. Sorry, but it is.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather put up with a societally-imposed politically correctness than a government-imposed suppression of my actual right to free speech. When courts are used to suppress politically incorrect speech, it is no longer society, but rather government that is doing it. Every lawsuit used to suppress speech is using the government power to do it.

The problem is society does use government to suppress politically incorrect speech. So I see no difference between the two.

Re:news?

[hondo77]

So the only way we can know that censorship is going on is if nobody complains about it? Funny thing about the Right in this country and their grasp of logic...

Re:news?

[myth_of_sisyphus]

I think the censorship was in the title. I've always heard the phrase as "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."

I think the publishers thought the threat of "killing the customer"" was too much and changed it to the much wimpier "destroyed by me".

Re:news?

[DerekLyons]

Well, his exhibit still doesn't make sense then - because the government doesn't deny anything about those birds either. (Nor do they confirm anything...) "Not saying anything" != "Denial".

Re:news?

[Kohath]

Yes. Governments keep secrets. It's 1984. Or 1498. Or 489. Or 49 B.C.E. Or whenever.

Secrecy is only actually detectable to this Galileo-wannabe because all this info is published in publicly available, searchable databases.

Galileo was actually talented at something besides seeking attention.

Re:news?

[lgarner]

Know anyone who lost their jobs for having a Bible on their desk? I'd say that is completely unreasonable. The other two examples, though, are of a private organization exercising their rights not to employ people who embarrass them.

Political correctness is one thing, and is often absurd, but if you're "using the 'N' word" or calling people "Nappy Headed Ho's" in my company, I'd fire you myself. I'd never tell you that you have no right to say these things, just that you can't say them while representing me.

Re:news?

[Kohath]

Had the exhibit been censored, how would we have known about it? Slashdot would have posted it. "Exhibit of satellite photos censored" might be the headline.

It would be pointless to make this effort only to be prevented from displaying it. But it's not pointless now because ...?

It's irony, not stupidity. Can't it be both? Maybe it is pretend irony. Maybe the message is: "This would be ironic if only it exhibited the character of irony."

Re:news?

[jdgeorge]

No, you just lose your job for using the "N" word. No, you just lose your job for having a bible on your desk. Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"

Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.

Hmmm. Basically, you're saying that if I fire you because you're an asshole, it's "censorship"? You are confused.

Censorship is when I delete your offensive language from what I broadcast on television. Firing you for being offensive is just removing the antisocial element from my workforce.

Re:news?

[Khaed]

Modern book burnings aren't really censorship; they're morons wasting money. No one is going to buy all of the books published, and as long as they're paying for them, I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure the publishers don't mind, either -- they get their money.

If anything, that sort of behavior makes people curious about the book in question. And when (not if) it turns out the book isn't so bad, then the idiots burning them just look like obstinate jackasses (see: Harry Potter and the religious people that are scared of it).

Re:news?

[dbIII]

Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"

That is what is called being an unprofessional arsehole that pisses off management and advertisers. It is possible to read a lot more into it if you have an agenda to push but IMHO that is stretching the anecdote to manipulate people.

Re:news?

[StikyPad]

No, you just lose your job for using the "N" word. No, you just lose your job for having a bible on your desk. Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"

Damn right you can. If I'm paying you to perform a task, and that task doesn't include spewing whatever rhetoric and half-thoughts your underdeveloped mind struggles to put together, then I have every right to fire you when you deviate from that job description. If your language and/or conduct are detrimental to your job performance and/or costing me money, you're batshit crazy if you think I'm going to continue paying you. It has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with creating a hostile work environment by belittling your co-workers and/or driving business away by belittling potential customers.

In summary, you're a tool, and your arguments have nothing to do with the merits or shortcomings of protected classes. Fortunately for your would-be employers, there's one class that still has no protection: the stupid.

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shroud that stupidity with sufficient visible and immutable traits and it gets protection. If that were not so, Al Sharpton would be out of work.

Re:news?

[Artifakt]

I think you are the first person to mention the prisons in this thread. Personally, I expect the U. S. government to use spy satellites and such. I can see why the U.S. won't acknowledge any specific info on them, although that's of doubtful utility. I'm assuming that most potential enemy nations have the resources to figure out what's up there, by photos, or by having someone live close to the launch sites (just try to hide a delta launch so that no one within 30 miles of the cape knows it happened), and probably by lots of methods. Still, it's at least possible some people hostile to us don't know everything about what might be observing their training camps, etc.
      The more remarkable claim is that there are old prisons on U. S. soil, possibly including ones that are officially long closed, and their pictures are blurred out. I don't see how that can be justified. Even if there's no tin-foil hat grade conspiracy with Dick Cheney building secret prisons for the New World Order, it looks like, at the very least, there's a government contingency plan that involves using these facilities, which are often facilities the supreme court decided were cruel and unusual punishment in the 1930's through 60's. The whole situation seems to imply yet another plan that is classified secret because the administration is defying court orders if they implement it, not for more respectable reasons.

Re:news?

[pipingguy]

...looking at things that should not exist...

Nobody's mentioned goatse yet, WTF?

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Political correctness is censorship done the smart way. Want to censor something? Make the people internalise it and they'll censor themselves and like it that way.

Re:news?

[jc42]

He wants to make a statement about the parallel between himself being censored and something from 500 years ago. But he wasn't censored and there's really no parallel.

Huh? There's an obvious parallel. 500 years ago, the church was claiming that all those things that Galileo saw out there were orbiting the Earth. The article has pictures of things out there that the author claims are orbiting the Earth.

Or, if you don't like that parallel, consider: Galileo described things in orbit around Jupiter, which religious authorities denied existed; today we're talking about things orbiting Earth which authorities deny exist.

If you don't look too closely at the details, but just look at the surface images, the parallels are obvious. And that's enough for a news story, right?

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand your post at all. Are you saying that because Tim Robbins isn't censored, then censorship doesn't exist? Really?

Really?

Oh censorship does exist. But not for Tim Robbins and not in the way Tim Robbins would like people to think it does.

Basically what Tim Robbins means when he talks about "censorship" is that Tim Robbins said something and some folks who disagreed with what Tim Robbins said actually had the unmitigated gall to contradict Tim Robbins and possibly even to criticize Tim Robbins.

This is of course tantamount to censorship in Tim Robbins' mind because after all, Tim Robbins is so gosh-darned smart and insightful and brilliant and enlightened that every little word-turd that drops from Tim Robbins' gaping maw should be taken to heart and cherished as if it were uttered from the very lips of the Buddha himself.

Re:news?

[tehcyder]

Tim Robbins gives this talk to the National Association of Broadcasters about this "chill wind" of censorship blowing through the country, that gets covered by all the major media, then gets in his private jet and goes home. No "black maria" waiting for him at the airport to take him away, no darkened cell in the sub-basement of the Department of Justice.

You sound disappointed

And by your logic, if one black person makes a speech and isn't lynched, then there's no racism in the US?

Re:news?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you just lose your job for using the "N" word. This could happen...

No, you just lose your job for having a bible on your desk. This could happen, but you could sue and win.

Hell, you can lose your job for saying "Nappy Headed Ho's"

This did happen.

Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.

But none of these are state-sponsored censorship. In all cases you could take your employer to court and sue and win.

What you are actually talking about in the two racist examples is the 'right' to be openly racist in the workplace or in public without consequence. To my knowledge, there is no such right. It is my opinion that there should be no such right, and we are better off that employers mandate an environment free from such free 'expression'.

Moral? Being a dick sometimes has consequences.

Re:news?

[Illbay]

That is not what I said. The very act of standing up in a very public venue and crying about censorship, even "naming names" and specific allegations, and being freely allowed to do this - this doesn't seem even the slightest bit absurd to you?

And when you consider that you can easily point to REAL censorship going on, e.g., in Communist China, in Iran, in Zimbabwe, in Myanmar, and a thousand other places, and compare that to the "outrages" that people like Robbins claim, it just looks even more ludicrous.

Accident?

[IMightB]

This guys going to have an "accident".

Re:Accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, of course, taking photos of objects in clear view is enough to warrant an action that would draw much more attention to the guy. Seriously, the CIA, and every other organisation, might resort to that kind of action, but for this? Maybe for threatening to expose agents/release secret information. There's nothing secret about objects that are in clear view - we all can see them. What's secret is what they do.

Or maybe you were joking. I would hope so.

yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

just another young'n who probably didn't know crap about politics prior to the patriot act is now trying to make it seem like we've gone from and open and free society to a modernized nazi germany in 7 years.

i just love the people who were never interested in politics now ranting on like they're experts and telling us how much worse things have gotten. if anything, the government is finally coming clean about what they were already doing for decades.

Re:yawn!

[martin-boundary]

If by coming clean you mean denying, denying, denying even while the public are metaphorically rubbing the government's nose in the evidence, then I agree with you.

Conspiracy Theory =/= Science

[Anonymous Coward]

This fruitloop thinks he discovered 189 secret, artificial satellites in orbit? How does NASA plan its launches around them? How are commercial and GPS satellites launched without hitting them? How does Russia work on the ISS without noticing them? How is Europe going to get those Galileo sats up there with these "secret" ones flying around?

Oh, and what's up with the Catholic Church analogy? It doesn't even make sense for this.

Re:Conspiracy Theory =/= Science

[meringuoid]

This fruitloop thinks he discovered 189 secret, artificial satellites in orbit? How does NASA plan its launches around them? How are commercial and GPS satellites launched without hitting them? How does Russia work on the ISS without noticing them? How is Europe going to get those Galileo sats up there with these "secret" ones flying around?

The USAF has its own launch capability; they buy the same rockets from the same contractors NASA does. Sometimes NASA launches these things themselves; the Shuttle has carried secret satellites from time to time. It's hard to hide a launch, but you can keep the nature of its payload a secret. So, you can identify Mystery Satellite #121 by radar and by telescope, but determining whose it is (the Russians certainly have their own and I'd be surprised if the French don't) and what it is capable of is another matter. And if you're not watching it 24 hours a day, it can manoeuvre onto a different orbit when you're not looking.

So revealing that he's found 189 satellites and publishing his photographs doesn't reveal much the government wants kept secret. Every serious rival nation already knows where these things are. If however someone published that 'Satellite #117 is a Model X SuperScryer made by Lockheed in 2002, operating in infrared frequency x with maximum angular resolution y, resolving objects on the ground to z centimetres, using the following highly classified technologies...' - now that would upset people.

And 189 isn't so large a number. It's not like Star Wars out there, with crowds of vehicles zipping past each other. Space is big, and empty, and spysats are not such big things. They orbit very low, the better to get a close look at the Earth's surface, while communications and GPS satellites are far above, to have line of sight to much wider areas. Collisions are very unlikely, and all concerned maintain an extremely careful radar watch on all orbits intersecting any manned vehicle.

Re:Conspiracy Theory =/= Science

[dbcad7]

You seem to think that 189 satellites must use up an enormous amount of airspace.. how small do you think the earth is ?.. If you separated 189 objects equally in your home city, how far apart would they be ? .. in your state ? in the United states ?... and then you should also realize that the diameter at orbit distance is greater than the diameter on the surface of the earth.

Re:Conspiracy Theory =/= Science

[BPPG]

The common misconception was that Galileo was trying to disprove something that was religiously important. But he was mostly just going on about something that everyone disagreed with. Pope Urban VII allowed him to discuss the possibilities of a heliocentric model versus a geocentric model as long as he didn't just claim it to be true, but the real trouble began when he made light of the Pope. He wasn't trying to disprove the dogma, but he was persecuted for attacking the authority that generated (or preserved) that dogma with his "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems"

I think that's supposed to be the main connection here. It's not about what you believe, it's who you believe. Which still hasn't got anything to do with censorship.

exhibit page offline

[rafaelriedel]

hummm I'm wondering why... Mayb$#_(%#^3 NO CARRIER

Re:exhibit page offline

[sm62704]

After trying for the last... oh, a while, I finally gave in and clicked the link to the Wired Story in the hope that I'd see some of these pictures.

And they are censored - by the guy's stupid cheapassed telescope, long exposure times, etc! They sure are some impressive... um, streaks?

I think the Berkeley (hey I spelt it rite) server stopped working out of embarrassment. Now instead of wondering how Berkely got slashdotted, I'm wondering how the story got on slashdot at all (which I guess is still asking why it got slashdotted)

For once when I saw someone's subject line "nothing to see here" he wasn't kidding!

Re:exhibit page offline

[T-Bone-T]

I have one mod point left but I can't figure out if you are trying to be funny or if you just don't know how satellite photography works.

Re:exhibit page offline

[sm62704]

When in doubt, don't mod at all. If you get it wrong, a metamoderator may mod your mod "unfair" (whether it is an upmod or a downmod doesn't matter) and you are likely to not get any more mod points.

post nuke blueprints too while youre at it

[mytrip]

this guy is an idiot. The chinese have the means to shoot down satellites and this frigard wants the government to advertise their location.

Re:post nuke blueprints too while youre at it

[Rob the Bold]

this guy is an idiot. The chinese have the means to shoot down satellites and this frigard wants the government to advertise their location.

Ooo, good point. Cause if they have the pictures, then they'll know that they're aiming at a satellite, and not just empty space.

Re:post nuke blueprints too while youre at it

[The Moof]

I think if the Chinese wanted to shoot them down, they would. I have a hard time believing this guy could find them, but not China.

Re:post nuke blueprints too while youre at it

[LucBorg]

Exactly. What exactly do these treacherous fools get out of tyring to humiliate his own government? Maybe he should go live in Afghanistan or somewhere if he hates the US so much.

Re:post nuke blueprints too while youre at it

[Paranatural]

If you think that the Chinese need to be told where satellites are, then you must think they are also too dumb to launch something into space in the first place.

They know WHERE every satellite is, anyone with access to the tracking systems that are necessary in order to be able to get a satellite into space can see them. The trick is knowing which one is which. Pictures of the satellites would help them in that, so they won't show the pics, true. So that's no big deal as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, should anything ever get to such a violent point between the countries, China could just simply shoot down every US satellite... Except the ones they actually own, anyway.

US Satellites?

[nonsequitor]

How does he know it is the US controlling a given satellite? I wonder if any DoD guys looked at the exhibit and said "Hey! That's not one of ours."

Re:US Satellites?

[Detritus]

Look it up in the NORAD catalog? There are plenty of satellites that the USA will admit to having launched, they just wont discuss their name or mission.

Re:US Satellites?

[fatphil]

The satelites' missions? "Climate research".

And the supercomputers at LLL, they're for "Energy Research".

Re:US Satellites?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you numbers 12, 15, 48, 99, 171 are not ours.

Re:US Satellites?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, THAT one ISN'T ours!

Re:US Satellites?

[pipingguy]

All the super duper sekrit US satellites have very obvious Canada flags that can be seen with a telescope, so people just go, "Crap, it's Canadian, no evil there - next". You laugh, but...

Exerpt from CIA classified logs

[gearloos]

Link to pictures from satalites of people taking pictures of satalites...

Transgressing the boundaries of photography

[Anonymous Coward]

"For a time, people were getting arrested for photographing the Brooklyn Bridge," Paglen notes. "So to me, what it meant to do photography also changed."

That's nothing! I got arrested for doing nothing more than taking a picture of my neighbor's window!

It was a nice shot, too. I had to climb a tree to get the framing just right. And I took it at night -- you know, to improve the lighting.

Re:creators exhibit planet/population rescue kode

[Broken scope]

AC's have been posting this shit for only god knows how long and not one of you stupid fucks has bothered to clean up the formatting and improve the readability?

It is censored!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you see, the CIA is DDOSing the exhibit by posting it front page on /.! Censored from the masses without all that pesky political unrest that censorship classically causes. Anyone who RsTFA is part of the problem!

In case of slashdotting. . .

[PeeAitchPee]

. . . I'm posting a few of the pix here:

.

x

Re:In case of slashdotting. . .

[Ksevio]

But his are time delay pictures so it looks more like this:
/

you can see them here

[seventhc]

http://www.wired.com/culture/art/news/2008/06/secret_satellites

Google cache

[againjj]

Here is the exhibit page cached by Google. No images, though, since images are not stored by the Google cache.

Big machines parked in orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm

Re:Big machines parked in orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool blurs, but complete loon writing.

Re:creators exhibit planet/population rescue kode

[Rob the Bold]

AC's have been posting this shit for only god knows how long and not one of you stupid fucks has bothered to clean up the formatting and improve the readability?

That's because the AC conspiracy has been denying the existence of the Shift key for decades.

Just another media whore

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's up there it _has_ been seen and it has been tracked. Absolutely no secrets there. All that's being exposed is how many people are staring at their boob-tubes and computer monitors instead of learning something about the real world around them.

Discovery Channel's show "When We Left Earth" mentioned some elementary school teacher in the early 60's who used satellite tracking to teach arithmetic, his students went beyond simple tracking, and computed the location of a secret launch site in the Soviet Union. Satellite tracking's that easy.

So this guy isn't exposing anything that hasn't been public from the day, no, the minute it was launched. If this is new to you, then I can see why you would be outraged and embarrassed that your profound ignorance has been exposed to the world.

Metaphorical?!

[kellyb9]

Wired says, 'In taking these photos, Paglen is trying to draw a metaphorical connection between modern government secrecy and the doctrine of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time.'" That's funny... I thought he was trying to draw a literal connection between himself and Guantanamo Bay.

You guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Some time ago, I had tracerouted to a couple of middle east sites (mainly al jazerra) and the path was open that showed it going through an interesting virginia address. About 30 minutes after mentioning it on /., it went from open to hidden.

Re:You guess

[AHuxley]

Thats why all big telcos touch the USA or US friendly nation.
Its so cheap and the NSA loves it.
Why is data sent 1/2 around the world and back again?

Why not post the details?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, all you need is a 800 dollar telescope (if you're lazy, half that if you're willing to point and level the scope) and some clear skies and a fair amount of free time and you yourself can find them.

So what do they get by keeping it secret? Astronomers now have to talk amongst themselves to find out if that's a new comet heading our way or a CIA spysat.

Al Quaida don't care which it is. As long as they know when it's overhead.

Nuke blueprints...

[MRe_nl]

https://secure.wikileaks.org/w/images/A-bomb-penney.jpghttp:/

You're welcome.

That was...

[CBob]

Pointless. Some genius w/a camera takes pics of satellite tracks. Living in a semi-rural area, I can track eye visible satellites w/a bit of patience. I was hoping for something along the lines of a 16" (or larger) telescope getting pics like are seen often on http://www.spaceweather.com/ they even have a "simple" tracking program. http://www.heavens-above.com/ is a neat tool/toy as well. And if you REALLY wanted to know wtf that codename for that blob of light stood for , hit http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/index.html there's a search function. At one point, there was even one of the UFO "tracking sites" that had some interesting blurry shots of what were prob someone's elint arrays.

Re:That was...

[mrogers]

Did you miss the part of the headline where it said "artist"? The point of the work isn't to reveal 5up3r s33kr1T g0Vt 1Nf0, it's to draw a parallel between two official denials of reality, past and present, by pointing a telescope at something that doesn't officially exist. Yes, you can see the same satellites from your own back yard - that's the whole point! Objectively they exist, but officially they don't (or rather, officially nothing is said to confirm or deny their existence - we've come a long way in 400 years).

Re:That was...

[CBob]

The parallel would have worked had they imprisoned him. One vague steak of light looks pretty much like any other. Paglen seems more worthy as a Fark cliche. Galileo managed to reveal something "hidden" to the naked eye.

A snapshot of performance art, maybe.

 

Two words : Hate Speech

[Shivetya]

Two more words: Hate Crimes

Sorry but the government has already acted. Instead of just being tried for a crime of aggression someone can be tried for what others think the perpetrator was thinking before and during the crime. There have been numerous cases in the press where a criminal case fell apart only to be followed with a "Hate Crime" trial that succeeded because the accusation is all so nebulous. Political Correctness run amok.

The courts already have been twisted into thought control. Yet it is nearly always biased in its application. There is no black and white in the definition of hate speech or hate crimes. Words used by one group become criminal while another group can use them with impunity. That is the very real world we live in today. Unfortunately too many people willingly accept this because they don't have the courage to stand up those who truly profess hate and instead want to wield the club of government to do it for them. Worse, they want to use that threat of government to manipulate and control the system.

The press is in it deep, consistently engaging in the same practice selectively changing context of stories to make the portrayal more offensive than it ever was. We are constantly bombarded by guilt, twisted phrases used to imply any opposing thought is not only wrong but criminal so.

pendulum swings

[Phantom of the Opera]

Now (and even then) you can be fired for using a racial epitaph (though you have to have a pattern of abusive behavior). Second to that, you just might get the shit kicked out of you if you were to try to use one.

Right or wrong, distil 'political correctness' down to its essence and you get "you'll be punished for acting like an jerk". Acting like an ass is one of those inalienable rights implicit in being human.

You could previously be fired for being of a certain race. Now its a little harder to do.

I suppose that's progress. I fear when 'lazy' becomes a protected class.

Re:pendulum swings

[zippthorne]

Uh.. I think you mean a racial epithet. I'm pretty sure you can still have whatever you want on your tombstone. And even if you can't, it's not like they can do anything to you over it.

Re:pendulum swings

[Cro Magnon]

Of course, if you use a racial epithet in the wrong part of town, you MIGHT end up using a racial epitaph.

Artist who show real guts

[Anonymous Coward]

I love artist who try to show how brave they are and take on the US Government and the Catholic church. How about some real bravery? Try drawing the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). That's a real blow for free speech right there.

and yes, I am a Muslim (have the card to prove it too).

Re:Artist who show real guts

[tehcyder]

I am a Muslim (have the card to prove it too).

What, a secret membership card? Like the Tufty Club?

Artistic masturbation

[wiredlogic]

This is typical pointless artistic masturbation. This artiste is pulling a silly stunt to try to make a name for himeslf and wow the clueless intelligencia of the art world. These pictures are less impressive than Iridium flares which are themselves pretty ho hum on the scale of celesial wonder. It would be much more spectacular if he had more detailed pictures taken with a telescope. Granted, these pictures aren't bad if you ignore the topic of prying into the super secret realm of the spooks.

Re:Artistic masturbation

[Brett Buck]

Not only that, he has absolutely no fucking idea what he's taking pictures of. He sees something go over, maybe piddles around on the internet and takes a stab (based on the deluded "satellite spotters" who actually think they know what's going on) at what it might be, and simply asserts that it's some secret program that has a cool name.

          Brett

Re:Two words : Hate Speech

[Dutch Gun]

Two more words: Hate Crimes I'll completely agree with you regarding your disdain of hate crime laws. The problem with this type of law is that it classifies crimes based on the victim rather than the actions of the accused. Is it a more heinous crime to assault a gay man than a straight one, or a black man versus a white man? Justice is supposed to be blind, but hate crime laws lift that blindfold and set a dangerous precedent. Think about how this could be applied in reverse, and you can see the damage these types of laws could do.

Sooo...

[DoChEx]

The CIA thinks we're the center of the Universe or that everything revolves around US?

Can someone say "heart attack"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone say "heart attack"?

Spin City

[flyneye]

Just curious,how does the "artist" know they're U.S. spy satellites and not from enemy nations or just nations that don't like us?
          I guess it sounds better to hype an art exhibit that a 5 year old with a working knowledge of cameras could have taken.
          If this guy is working from a grant paid by my tax dollars,it would be best to keep him out of my arms reach.
            I'd like to draw a metaphorical connection between this shutterplug and public schools that tell even the worst students how "talented" they are and if they emote this talent they can be famous and loved by all.Here,here,have some money so we can see you develop your art into paintings made with cowshit.
            Moron!

whoooosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go mods, mod the joke flamebait and then mod funny the guy who has to explain the joke.

A couple of things:

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have To Be Destroyed By Me.??
Isn't the saying "If I told ya, I'd have to kill ya"? Or did somebody copyright it?
-
2) The resolution of the photos prevented me from making out the nice little American flags painted on the side of these satellites. How do I know they are not Chinese spy satellites? Weather satellites? GPS satellites?
-
3) How does this guy know the names of these "classified" satellites?
-
4) Keeping the above in mind, I actually do believe these are photos of "officially non-existant", American spy satellites. BFD - was anyone, even the government, actually expecting me to believe otherwise?

Apropos sig FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject