No, there can be an audit (of the software for example), but that can (and should) happen already. Basically, if the candidates are allowed to look over the shoulder of the ballot counters, then that is an audit. But this can happen already (its what happens in many elections outside the states where the ballots are counted manually, and there are scrutineers). So how is this different?
The solution is manual open counts or opensource machines. Not some scheme like this...
> Here's how it works: > Top sheet of paper says, "Do you want A. The Simpleton B. The Communist", but on the next ballot they are reversed, > e.g. "Do you want B. The Simpleton A. The Communist" > The bottom sheet just has the options "A or B" you mark one and keep the bottom half that just shows you voted for > 'B'. No one is going to pay you/beat you up for voting for an arbitrary letter. > > You can then go home and lookup your ID number and it will show you the bottom half, again confirming that you voted > for 'B'. But, only you (and the machine) know who 'B' was.
No, I disagree that that system works (again, I haven't RTFA except for a quick scan, but it is a long standing problem).
Basically, the method you describe only lets me verify that the ballot was thrown into some machine with the left side marked or the right side marked. It then counts the vote as being for Al Gore or George Bush based on some machine which matches my ballot (left or right side), with the machine's knowledge of whether left or right means Al Gore or George Bush. But how do I know that the cheating doesn't happen at this stage? It would be very easy for the machine to count all votes as being for George Bush regardless of what the bottom half of the ballot says (because the bottom half of the ballot has been destroyed).
This is just a more complicated voting system with the same problems (lack of verifyability) Which gets back to my original post...
Yeah, I haven't RTFA but it sure sounds like snakeoil. You can't have a scheme which allows each individual to verify their vote and do so in a way which doesn't allow them to prove how they voted (and thus sell their vote).
But one could imagine more robust schemes which allow voters to verify the total tally of the vote without allowing any individual to prove how they voted. But I seem to remember that it has actually been proven that even this is impossible. Or perhaps it is just believed to be inpossilbe (to have a voting scheme which is both verifyable and secure from vote selling). Anyone have a reference or know more?
The problem is, that in the information age (sorry), retrieving old information is getting harder not easier. A stone table or cave painting can last thousands of years in some cases. I have data on floppy disks that I can no longer access, and that is only after a decade or so. Some of that data was written using a wordprocessor that no longer exists. Technology is evolving so rapidly, that we are quickly losing the ability to retrieve data which is only decades old. In a hundred years, we may be in a lot of trouble learning what our cultures were like. How long before we don;t know what a jpeg is?
It is no forgery, as alleged of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." or actual forgeries such as those of Anne Frank, or (more recently) Hitler's diary.
yeah exactly. The guy is implying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a forgery, and the diary of Anne Frank and Hitler are. Not to mention the link to a webpage stating that "rich international bankers has infiltrated the monetary supply systems". And the nut-job racist gets modded interesting and insightful. Nice one mods!
There's plenty of manipulation and fear-mongering going on in this world, but you don't need Jews or conspiracy theories for that -- just watch CNNFOX.
The reason that it doesn't violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that the cloning is only approximate. You have one good photon, and you create two copies, neither of which are like the original. They are only somewhat like the original. This means that the evesdropper will get detected. Telecloning, just means that you clone the photon (approximately), and move it to another location (cloning+teleportation). The article claims that this means the location of the evesdropper will thus be safe, even if her attack is noticed. The article is actually about an experimental realisation of telecloning, not the discovery of telecloning itself.
Wrong.
All the article claims is that the Evesdropper's location will be undetected. The fact that someone is attempting to eavesdrop will still be detected, and there are several well known proofs of security of this fact.
FTF Press Release
"Quantum cryptographic protocols are so secure that they can not only discover tapping but also where and how much information is leaking out. Now, using telecloning, the identity and location of the eavesdropper can be concealed."
Quantum cryptography is absolutely secure as long as the laws of quantum mechanics are true.
And even if the laws of quantum mechanics are false, one can still do secure cryptography from some very weak assumptions (it follows
from violating Bell's inequalities and no-signalling) see this
Because if that first node is the Chinese embassy or another node owned by China, and your IP is coming from a Chinese netblock, then your secrecy is blown.
Not exactly.
If your first node is the Chinese Embassy, then the fact that you are using tor will become known, but they will not know what webpages/services you were trying to access. Now, it is probably pretty bad to get caught using tor, but not nearly as bad as them knowing what you were trying to do (assuming that what you were trying to do was more subversive than looking for news).
I think trusting a single person with knowing all your internet use is not a great idea. Pressure can be applied to anyone, and if the Government is really worried about what you might be doing, they will do so. Probably the best would be some combination of the two methods, where you can specify the first tor node to be a trusted one.
Actually, it seems worse than tor. As far as I know, with tor, you don't have to trust a specific machine -- you just need to trust that most of the machines that are acting as onion routers are legit. By the sound of this system, you are linking with a specific machine, and there is nothing to stop the Chinese embassy in Canada from pretending to be a trusted server...
Do people remember the similarities engine? That was really incredible, and I got a lot of music suggestions from there. You would enter three bands you liked, and then it would give you a whole list of recommendations. It was very simple, it just built its list of recommendations by using the list of three bands that other people had entered.
As I understand it, the patent for this is now owned by Microsoft. Would be interested to know whether they are using it to kill other websites like the similarities engine (that
particular website had to close once they sold the algorithm). A good example of a stupid patent. Haven't RTFA, so perhaps last.fm uses a similar idea for their algorithms, and I am just talking out of my ass.
Time also named former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as "Partners of the Year" for their humanitarian efforts after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and the unlikely friendship that developed from that work.
Unlikely friendship??? Someone hand me a hanky. Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there.
And Bono??? Bono???
The guy may be well meaning and all, but by allowing politicians to exploit him, he essentially allows them to look good while they make the problems of Africa worse. Him and Bobby Geldof were complete tools at the last G8, allowing Blair to look like he wanted to help Africa, when all they did was continue the same IMF policies of handouts in exchange for selling off of resources to the west. And Bono does it
over and over again.
The fact that the American government snoops on its citizens without
any oversight is frightening, but perhaps not as freightening as
this:
"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article,
arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert
would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting
with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the
newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional
reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could
be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight,
gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on
making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA
doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.
The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this
knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling,
subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public,
then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful.
That the government removed the provision that wiretaps should be
(effectively) rubber-stamped is shameful. That they kept the people in
the dark about this decision is even more shameful. But that the
supposed free press also kept this massive decision secret?? That's so
fucked, I don't even know where to begin.
A vibrant democracy has a free press. In a democracy, you can speak
your mind without fear. Your government is open, and their decisions
are public and can be scrutinized. Heck, the public can even influence
the decisions!
What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two
figureheads. There are certainly places in this world, where they don't
even pretend to live in a democracy, but this shouldn't give one much
comfort.
America: Please. Do something. Your democracy is so shallow, it barely
exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the
invasion of other countries.
Yes, it's brilliant. Please please, can someone set up a parody site? It would be great to start a fake lobbying campaign to the Senate complete with letters. Also could set up a "Stop recipe patents" campaign in response. Its so Swiftian!
Gilberto Gil is a pretty interesting guy. A few days ago, the guardian had this pretty interesting article about him,
which talks a bit about Brazil's stance on free software. What is going on in Brazil is pretty interesting, also in terms of patents on food. For example there was a huge outcry after a Japanese firm patented a modification of the delicious cupuaçu fruit. The term "biopiracy" is part of popular language over there.
I'm all for democracy in the workplace, after all, why only demand democracy and freedom from our governments. But really, if a company views this as a way to motivate its workers to improve the bottom line, then it isn't genuine -- you just give your workers enough freedom so that they shut up and work harder for you. Can the workers fire the CEO? Cap his/her salary? Decide the company should do good in the world rather than just exist to enrich shareholders?
There are steps towards genuine democracy in the workplace, like the recuperated factory movement in Argentina where factory workers refused to shut down the factories that were closing and instead, run them themselves, for themselves, and for the community. We really need to recognize that we don't live in a fully democratic society if we spend most of our waking hours working in what is effectively a tyranny.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton
Somthing interesting about Newton's quote -- it is usually taken as a really modest statement about Newton's contributions and the nature of research. In fact, it was mostly intended as an insult to his rival Robert Hooke, who was practically a midget!
I'm not sure that's the case here. To quote the summary: "the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet.'".
Well, that is exactly what Science has a policy against. See also here: Science faq. You can submit your paper to an online archive after publication, but not before (and I have even heard of this been disallowed). I think the policy stinks, and think researchers should thus not submit to Science, but it is certainly a well known policy, not something that was cooked up to silence someone.
While I strongly disagree with the journal Science's policy of rejecting articles which have been made public, it is a consistent and well known policy -- not some conspiracy against Dr Peiser's global warming paper. See their faqThey want the scoop, and often don't even allow you to post the articles on preprint servers (which is why many scientists refuse to submit their articles to Science). They allow you to present your work at conferences, but are well known to be jerks about it. The journal Nature used to have such a policy, but now allow you to submit your paper to a preprint archive, as long as you don't announce your result to the media. A lot of this came about because of the cold fusion fiasco, but many find it an over-reaction. The policy should be, don't talk to media, but go ahead and talk to fellow scientists. I guess the internet really blurs these things.
Dude - I never said it was an issue of free speech. I said 22-23 years was a wildly disproportionate to what he did. Now, perhaps you think he got 22-23 years because the judge loves SUV's? Or perhaps you think setting something on fire is so dangerous that it deserves 22-23 years? Potentially dangerous, sure, but 22-23 years???
And compare the danger of what he did, to the potential danger of marketing a gas-guzzling car which contributes to global warming and could cause massive environmental destruction, and death.
You don't need to be completely clean to be a political prisoner, but it is a political decision that says it is okay and profitable to encourage the massive burning of fossil fuels, but try and stop it, and you go to jail for 22-23 years.
One may disagree with his form of political protest, but you have to recognize that certain types of destruction get you thrown in jail, and others get you huge profit.
Well, it was one incident. You can't seriously think that each car is worth seven years. If you think he endangered the lives of firefighters (which doesn't appear to be the case here, but is certainly a possibility in general), then that is a legitimate concern, but you can't seriously believe that it warrants 22 years + eight months, given that lighting someone on fire would probably get you less if your reasons weren't political. Sorry, this guy got thrown away because of the political nature of what he did, not because of any potential or theoretical danger the fires caused. Plus the law in America really seems to value property...
You think that's bad? Get this: A guy in Oregon Jeff "Free" Luers" got 23 years in jail for setting 3 SUV's on fire. I guess protecting cars can get a higher priority than protecting women from rape or murder. His case is not that well known, although there are a few websites
about it.
Regardless of how messed up the case is, I find it interesting that the US ambassador, and the national secuirty adviser are so quickly working to get this guy released. A consular representative was also at his hearing. People are wrongfully thrown in jail all the time, but the U.S. embassy rarely cares - I have tried to get them involved in other cases, and they don't do anything -- well, apparently unless the guy is a CEO. Imagine if this was just some non-millionaire - think Condi would be trying to get him/her out of jail??
If people are interested in alternatives, check out the edible ballot society. Their site is a real laugh, yet their analysis is dead on, and very serious. Their alternatives section has some interesting ideas including deciding elections through sumo wrestling.
Desclaimer: I help them out sometimes.
Not only did it take a long time, but there are tons of stories, not to mention video and pictures which still have not been reported by mainstream media, (at least in America). In Europe, and the Arab world, one sees very different images. As an example, take a look at this video of America's finest punish some Iraqi's for taking wood: DontLoot.wmv,
or try google
The question is not as much whether the images exist, it is whether gutless mainstream American media is willing to show it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there can be an audit (of the software for example), but that can (and should) happen already. Basically, if the candidates are allowed to look over the shoulder of the ballot counters, then that is an audit. But this can happen already (its what happens in many elections outside the states where the ballots are counted manually, and there are scrutineers). So how is this different?
The solution is manual open counts or opensource machines. Not some scheme like this...
> Here's how it works:
> Top sheet of paper says, "Do you want A. The Simpleton B. The Communist", but on the next ballot they are reversed, > e.g. "Do you want B. The Simpleton A. The Communist"
> The bottom sheet just has the options "A or B" you mark one and keep the bottom half that just shows you voted for
> 'B'. No one is going to pay you/beat you up for voting for an arbitrary letter.
>
> You can then go home and lookup your ID number and it will show you the bottom half, again confirming that you voted > for 'B'. But, only you (and the machine) know who 'B' was.
No, I disagree that that system works (again, I haven't RTFA except for a quick scan, but it is a long standing problem).
Basically, the method you describe only lets me verify that the ballot was thrown into some machine with the left side marked or the right side marked. It then counts the vote as being for Al Gore or George Bush based on some machine which matches my ballot (left or right side), with the machine's knowledge of whether left or right means Al Gore or George Bush. But how do I know that the cheating doesn't happen at this stage? It would be very easy for the machine to count all votes as being for George Bush regardless of what the bottom half of the ballot says (because the bottom half of the ballot has been destroyed).
This is just a more complicated voting system with the same problems (lack of verifyability)
Which gets back to my original post...
Yeah, I haven't RTFA but it sure sounds like snakeoil. You can't have a scheme which allows each individual to verify their vote and do so in a way which doesn't allow them to prove how they voted (and thus sell their vote).
But one could imagine more robust schemes which allow voters to verify the total tally of the vote without allowing any individual to prove how they voted. But I seem to remember that it has actually been proven that even this is impossible. Or perhaps it is just believed to be inpossilbe (to have a voting scheme which is both verifyable and secure from vote selling). Anyone have a reference or know more?
The problem is, that in the information age (sorry), retrieving old information is getting harder not easier. A stone table or cave painting can last thousands of years in some cases. I have data on floppy disks that I can no longer access, and that is only after a decade or so. Some of that data was written using a wordprocessor that no longer exists. Technology is evolving so rapidly, that we are quickly losing the ability to retrieve data which is only decades old. In a hundred years, we may be in a lot of trouble learning what our cultures were like. How long before we don;t know what a jpeg is?
End of archeology my ass.
yeah exactly. The guy is implying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a forgery, and the diary of Anne Frank and Hitler are. Not to mention the link to a webpage stating that "rich international bankers has infiltrated the monetary supply systems". And the nut-job racist gets modded interesting and insightful. Nice one mods!
There's plenty of manipulation and fear-mongering going on in this world, but you don't need Jews or conspiracy theories for that -- just watch CNNFOX.
The reason that it doesn't violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that the cloning is only approximate. You have one good photon, and you create two copies, neither of which are like the original. They are only somewhat like the original. This means that the evesdropper will get detected. Telecloning, just means that you clone the photon (approximately), and move it to another location (cloning+teleportation). The article claims that this means the location of the evesdropper will thus be safe, even if her attack is noticed. The article is actually about an experimental realisation of telecloning, not the discovery of telecloning itself.
Wrong.
All the article claims is that the Evesdropper's location will be undetected. The fact that someone is attempting to eavesdrop will still be detected, and there are several well known proofs of security of this fact.
FTF Press Release
"Quantum cryptographic protocols are so secure that they can not only discover tapping but also where and how much information is leaking out. Now, using telecloning, the identity and location of the eavesdropper can be concealed."
Quantum cryptography is absolutely secure as long as the laws of quantum mechanics are true. And even if the laws of quantum mechanics are false, one can still do secure cryptography from some very weak assumptions (it follows from violating Bell's inequalities and no-signalling) see this
Because if that first node is the Chinese embassy or another node owned by China, and your IP is coming from a Chinese netblock, then your secrecy is blown. Not exactly. If your first node is the Chinese Embassy, then the fact that you are using tor will become known, but they will not know what webpages/services you were trying to access. Now, it is probably pretty bad to get caught using tor, but not nearly as bad as them knowing what you were trying to do (assuming that what you were trying to do was more subversive than looking for news). I think trusting a single person with knowing all your internet use is not a great idea. Pressure can be applied to anyone, and if the Government is really worried about what you might be doing, they will do so. Probably the best would be some combination of the two methods, where you can specify the first tor node to be a trusted one.
Actually, it seems worse than tor. As far as I know, with tor, you don't have to trust a specific machine -- you just need to trust that most of the machines that are acting as onion routers are legit. By the sound of this system, you are linking with a specific machine, and there is nothing to stop the Chinese embassy in Canada from pretending to be a trusted server...
Do people remember the similarities engine? That was really incredible, and I got a lot of music suggestions from there. You would enter three bands you liked, and then it would give you a whole list of recommendations. It was very simple, it just built its list of recommendations by using the list of three bands that other people had entered. As I understand it, the patent for this is now owned by Microsoft. Would be interested to know whether they are using it to kill other websites like the similarities engine (that particular website had to close once they sold the algorithm). A good example of a stupid patent. Haven't RTFA, so perhaps last.fm uses a similar idea for their algorithms, and I am just talking out of my ass.
Time also named former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton as "Partners of the Year" for their humanitarian efforts after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and the unlikely friendship that developed from that work.
Unlikely friendship??? Someone hand me a hanky. Gotta love applauding Bush for Katrina. It ain't as ironic as giving Kissenger the Peace prize, but it's gettting there. And Bono??? Bono???
The guy may be well meaning and all, but by allowing politicians to exploit him, he essentially allows them to look good while they make the problems of Africa worse. Him and Bobby Geldof were complete tools at the last G8, allowing Blair to look like he wanted to help Africa, when all they did was continue the same IMF policies of handouts in exchange for selling off of resources to the west. And Bono does it over and over again.
"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight, gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.
The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling, subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful.
That the government removed the provision that wiretaps should be (effectively) rubber-stamped is shameful. That they kept the people in the dark about this decision is even more shameful. But that the supposed free press also kept this massive decision secret?? That's so fucked, I don't even know where to begin.
A vibrant democracy has a free press. In a democracy, you can speak your mind without fear. Your government is open, and their decisions are public and can be scrutinized. Heck, the public can even influence the decisions!
What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two figureheads. There are certainly places in this world, where they don't even pretend to live in a democracy, but this shouldn't give one much comfort.
America: Please. Do something. Your democracy is so shallow, it barely exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the invasion of other countries.
Why we aren't all at the barricades is beyond me.
Yes, it's brilliant. Please please, can someone set up a parody site? It would be great to start a fake lobbying campaign to the Senate complete with letters. Also could set up a "Stop recipe patents" campaign in response. Its so Swiftian!
Gilberto Gil is a pretty interesting guy. A few days ago, the guardian had this pretty interesting article about him, which talks a bit about Brazil's stance on free software. What is going on in Brazil is pretty interesting, also in terms of patents on food. For example there was a huge outcry after a Japanese firm patented a modification of the delicious cupuaçu fruit. The term "biopiracy" is part of popular language over there.
I'm all for democracy in the workplace, after all, why only demand democracy and freedom from our governments. But really, if a company views this as a way to motivate its workers to improve the bottom line, then it isn't genuine -- you just give your workers enough freedom so that they shut up and work harder for you. Can the workers fire the CEO? Cap his/her salary? Decide the company should do good in the world rather than just exist to enrich shareholders?
There are steps towards genuine democracy in the workplace, like the recuperated factory movement in Argentina where factory workers refused to shut down the factories that were closing and instead, run them themselves, for themselves, and for the community. We really need to recognize that we don't live in a fully democratic society if we spend most of our waking hours working in what is effectively a tyranny.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton
Somthing interesting about Newton's quote -- it is usually taken as a really modest statement about Newton's contributions and the nature of research. In fact, it was mostly intended as an insult to his rival Robert Hooke, who was practically a midget!
I'm not sure that's the case here. To quote the summary: "the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet.'".
Well, that is exactly what Science has a policy against. See also here: Science faq. You can submit your paper to an online archive after publication, but not before (and I have even heard of this been disallowed). I think the policy stinks, and think researchers should thus not submit to Science, but it is certainly a well known policy, not something that was cooked up to silence someone.
While I strongly disagree with the journal Science's policy of rejecting articles which have been made public, it is a consistent and well known policy -- not some conspiracy against Dr Peiser's global warming paper. See their faqThey want the scoop, and often don't even allow you to post the articles on preprint servers (which is why many scientists refuse to submit their articles to Science). They allow you to present your work at conferences, but are well known to be jerks about it. The journal Nature used to have such a policy, but now allow you to submit your paper to a preprint archive, as long as you don't announce your result to the media. A lot of this came about because of the cold fusion fiasco, but many find it an over-reaction. The policy should be, don't talk to media, but go ahead and talk to fellow scientists. I guess the internet really blurs these things.
Why not just use tor for anonymous internet use (browsing, sshing etc.). It's free and doesn't place full trust in a single node.
Dude - I never said it was an issue of free speech. I said 22-23 years was a wildly disproportionate to what he did. Now, perhaps you think he got 22-23 years because the judge loves SUV's? Or perhaps you think setting something on fire is so dangerous that it deserves 22-23 years? Potentially dangerous, sure, but 22-23 years???
And compare the danger of what he did, to the potential danger of marketing a gas-guzzling car which contributes to global warming and could cause massive environmental destruction, and death.
You don't need to be completely clean to be a political prisoner, but it is a political decision that says it is okay and profitable to encourage the massive burning of fossil fuels, but try and stop it, and you go to jail for 22-23 years.
One may disagree with his form of political protest, but you have to recognize that certain types of destruction get you thrown in jail, and others get you huge profit.
Well, it was one incident. You can't seriously think that each car is worth seven years. If you think he endangered the lives of firefighters (which doesn't appear to be the case here, but is certainly a possibility in general), then that is a legitimate concern, but you can't seriously believe that it warrants 22 years + eight months, given that lighting someone on fire would probably get you less if your reasons weren't political. Sorry, this guy got thrown away because of the political nature of what he did, not because of any potential or theoretical danger the fires caused. Plus the law in America really seems to value property...
You think that's bad? Get this: A guy in Oregon Jeff "Free" Luers" got 23 years in jail for setting 3 SUV's on fire. I guess protecting cars can get a higher priority than protecting women from rape or murder. His case is not that well known, although there are a few websites about it.
Regardless of how messed up the case is, I find it interesting that the US ambassador, and the national secuirty adviser are so quickly working to get this guy released. A consular representative was also at his hearing. People are wrongfully thrown in jail all the time, but the U.S. embassy rarely cares - I have tried to get them involved in other cases, and they don't do anything -- well, apparently unless the guy is a CEO. Imagine if this was just some non-millionaire - think Condi would be trying to get him/her out of jail??
If people are interested in alternatives, check out the edible ballot society. Their site is a real laugh, yet their analysis is dead on, and very serious. Their alternatives section has some interesting ideas including deciding elections through sumo wrestling.
Desclaimer: I help them out sometimes.
Not only did it take a long time, but there are tons of stories, not to mention video and pictures which still have not been reported by mainstream media, (at least in America). In Europe, and the Arab world, one sees very different images. As an example, take a look at this video of America's finest punish some Iraqi's for taking wood: DontLoot.wmv, or try google
The question is not as much whether the images exist, it is whether gutless mainstream American media is willing to show it.