Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
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.
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!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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?
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.
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.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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).
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.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.