"OMG, how could you shine a laser from the ground when the windows are on the *top of the plane*?!?!??!!11111one"
Um. I hope you can realized that pilots still have a line of sight to the ground for great distances around them, and only can't see the ground directly underneath/behind them for a comparatively small area.
The warnings would have a good chance of being initiated from an area for which the pilot has direct line of sight, or at least can diverge enough to get to the windshield or some other surface on the plane and be instantly noticed by the pilot.
2. I posted my "Dupe" response (which got deleted along with the article) while logged in, which you can clearly see from my user page (look for "Dupe..." attached to "Can Build Robots But Can't Afford College [dupe]").
Yes, it's ironic and ha-ha funny and all considering the instances of lasers being shined into cockpits as pranks.
But:
The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, said its laser warning system will start in 30 to 45 days. The low-intensity lights are less powerful than the ones that prompted warnings, and tests have shown they are safe for the eyes, according to NORAD.
NORAD spokesman Michael Kucharek said the laser-based warning system someday could replace fighter jets as a way to warn pilots to stay away from the Capitol and the White House.
Hundreds of small private planes[i.e., not commercial jetliners] have strayed into the restricted airspace in Washington, a 15.75-mile radius around the Washington Monument.
In some cases, NORAD has had to divert or scramble fighter jets to escort them away from the area at a cost of $30,000 to $50,000 each time, Kucharek said.
The challenge for NORAD will be to educate pilots that the red-red-green flashing laser beams mean they're flying in restricted airspace.
Isn't looking for a new or novel notification system for myriad planes that may not be able to immediately contacted via radio or identified by radar or other means a good thing? And one that mitigates the need to divert or scramble fighters at great costs?
And yes, I suppose someone could build a system to emulate the NORAD system as a joke/hoax/prank/whatever, as no doubt dozens of drooling slashdotters are anxious to post to echo Timothy, but then, it would be:
- First of all, very unlikely to be encountered, statistically, and when it did happen, it would be:
- Not anywhere near restricted airspace, meaning it would be recognized as a prank to be ignored - In the case of much of DC around the capitol, in restricted airspace anyway, and therefore moot - Likely that instances that would cause significant confusion and/or be mistaken for a legitimate NORAD warning would be about as prevalent as current laser pranks. That is to say, not prevalent at all, compared with the total number of flights.
So in sum, this is a very good idea and not at all surprising.
Further the fact that a man has been (rightfully) charged with a crime for shining a fucking laser at a plane like a dumbass has absolutely nothing to do with a safe, non-obtrusive, well-designed warning system that coincidentally also uses lasers because of their utility that is only invoked if a pilot strays into restricted airspace in the first place, which are likely to be small, private planes, as indicated in the article, and NOT commercial carriers with experienced pilots who know, and have the tools, to stay out of restricted airspace.
You're kind of missing the point. It's not necessarily to prevent things from happening beforehand (though many proponents hope it will).
It's so that investigators even have a starting point after an event has occurred. Whether the IDs are fake, valid, or what-have-you, it's all critical information to investigating the attack, possibly helping to prevent imminent parallel attacks (e.g., all fake IDs coming from the same source/state/etc, sharing a characteristic, etc.), and to prevent future attacks.
To raise a related issue, if no ID at all were required to, say, board planes, and it didn't arouse suspicion or trigger a search to show no ID at all - as the no-ID proponents want - then there would be NO investigative starting point after an attack, and perhaps no way of even knowing who's responsible.
Some might say they'd pay the price of occasional terrorist attacks in exchange for privacy for all. Well, most people won't, as was evidenced by the airline industry reeling to this day after 9/11. Perhaps that's a wrongheaded philosophy, but it's reality. People want to feel like the government is *doing something*. Whether it's national guardsmen walking around airports with unloaded weapons or asking everyone for ID, empty actions like this were important to getting a huge industry - and all of its associated economic influence - back on track.
You are aware that you can speak to a reporter at a newspaper without owning the newpaper, right?
And *again* you demonstrate your ability to completely not understand the situation.
A "newspaper" is typically going to have a much higher standard for what's published, in terms of general interest. E.g., the Chicago Tribune isn't going to publish internal Apple slides about Asteroid, even if tipped off, because it doesn't meet a particular muster. A website can be created easily and quickly exclusively for that purpose, and distribute the information globally instantaneously. So suddenly it becomes easy to leak any and all secret information to an interested audience, whereas before it required work, and a channel for the publication. Putting a flyer up on a telephone pole has a limited audience, and a newspaper, even a local rag, or trade press isn't guaranteed to publish, either. But any number of web sites, because of the ease with which they are established and their instant global reach, will publish anything you give them. The point is that if all web sites are protected as "journalists", no matter the content and no matter whether it is in the public interest, then anyone can leak confidential company information at will with no fear of punishment by simply approaching a web site. The distinction is not that it's any more or less easy to leak it to a web site than it is to a newspaper; this distinction is that by leaking it to a web site, like Think Secret, it will actually *get published to the masses*, whereas by leaking Asteroid information to the New York Times, it will not. The medium itself isn't the distinction; it's the fact that, since anyone can instantly set up a web page and call it a "blog", with great ease, any confidential information can be easily published.
Just admit you completely missed this point and were therefore sadly wrong.
The speech in the form of freedom of the press IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, also may be in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. This is not about freedom of the press. (And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.)
This is about whether journalists - of any kind - can be compelled to reveal their sources when the information is NOT in the clear public interest, and could reasonably be believed to have been the result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg says, indeed, they can be.
The point, dipshit, is that any random person can have a web site easily viewable by the entire world. And if the Apple rumor sites get their way, now you can disseminate confidential information globally, instantly by just leaking to a web site. With no fear of punishment or retribution of any sort.
Any random person cannot have a newspaper, nor can they distribute things like print flyers/pamplets, or spoken word, anywhere *near* as widely or as quickly as a the internet.
That was my point, and if you weren't an idiot, you would have gotten it.
It was the judge in this case himself who said it.
Some other worthy observations by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
Uh, it's not the company. It's the court that already decided that the web sites have to reveal the information.
They already do, doh! You could take some secrets of your company, go to a cybercafe, enter an anonimizing proxy and upload the data to your favorite website. All of this without getting caught.
Apple is still entitled to any and all information that relates to how the web sites came into this information. And if that means finding out that it was sent from a cafe in San Jose at 7:14 pm on Tuesday night, then that's all it is. But they're still entitled to it.
NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.
Yeah. And they do that, dumbass, by having their employees agree contractually in good faith to not leak their fucking information, and punishing them if they do!
And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code). He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.
Um, no. He didn't. He published very specific information that was only known internally to LIMITED numbers of people within Apple. There were also artist renditions and specifications involved (re: Asteroid), and they also published clear and specific information about the Mac mini. Apple picked one thing, but they're concerned about all of it. And under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even journalists are not protected.
In other words, you're completely wrong, but nice try.
The web sites in THIS CASE (i.e., a case that involves information most definitely NOT in the public interest, therefore meaning that the information and its sources are NOT protected, and also that the web site operator is likely in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by publishing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained by the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement) should be compelled to reveal their sources *if they know them*, which they likely do. If it was completely anonymous, via any medium, well, then that's obviously not able to be revealed. But Apple believes there are some clues about the identity in the email messages they received, and frankly, Apple is entitled to that under the law (UTSA). And while Think Secret may be a journalistic endeavor, information that is not in the clear public interest is NOT PROTECTED.
As the judge so eloquently stated:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.
What about speech that isn't protected now?
There has to be some arbiter.
And in your model, anyone could break their contractual agreements freely without fear of any discipline or reprisal simply by leaking to any web site.
This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!
The judge in the case rightly realized that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.
The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a web site!
No secrets! Power to the people! Down with the the man!
And stuff.
* Cue slashdot chorus singing "That's the companies' problem and they should hire their own investigators to find the leaks" *
...that your primary concern in posting these comments is to defend Bush and his policies regardless of the scientific objective.
Wow. Um. Holy shit. I kind of don't even know how to respond to this, since everyone else's purpose on this topic seems to be bashing Bush, and you take my passing reference to it as somehow "defending" Bush. You lost me there a little bit.
You appear to have concluded a priori that the Voyager probes have no scientific value simply because Bush has concluded so.
Again, lost me. I am making absolutely no judgments on the scientific validity of Voyager based on anything that "Bush" says. And it wasn't "Bush", by himself, that made any of these decisions, by the way.
Any argument in furtherance of the scientific value of collecting data as they continue out of our solar system is met with hostile political rhetoric and tautological claims that the data is worthless because it is worthless. I find your arguments highly unconvincing; your heated political rhetoric even less so.
Wow. Yeah. Saying "well, at least SOMETHING at NASA is gettting funded..." and implying the US is like the old Soviet state because conformist, sheep Americans aren't interested in things that don't have pretty pictures isn't rhetoric in itself. Nope. Nosiree.
Dropping the partisan issues here
Which *I* wasn't the one to implicitly bring up in this entire thread (just read the rest of the posts; I wonder, are you telling all of the people whose posts are exclusively political to cut the "heated political rhetoric"?)...
let me ask: what expertise in the fields of space science, astronomy, and physics, do you posess which give scientific validity to your claims of the low relative worth of future Voyager data?
Degrees in engineering and physics aside, you still shouldn't trust me. Perhaps you should ask the scientists, engineers, and administrators at NASA why THEY feel Voyager's priority is low enough to potentially kill it because of that group's budget being cut. What else would still be funded in lieu of Voyager? Where does the Voyager project's money go? Voyager has had a *30 year mission*. If there was no associated cost to keep running it, sure, we could collect data from it as long as possible. But we haven't gotten any scientifically worthwhile, manifestly surprising, or unexpected data from it for years. The only thing surprising about the Voyager mission is how long it's lasted.
Why should I believe you when specialists in the field are quoted as saying that the data is highly valuable, especially given the low collection cost? How about some facts instead of hot air? --M
You shouldn't "believe me". But if you think it's George W Bush personally making decisions to pull the plug on Voyager, you kind of need to get a fucking grip. Budgets get reprioritized, and NASA has to decide what makes sense to fund. The group that administers the Voyager mission may kill it because there are other things that a limited pot can be better spent on.
Lose your emotional and symbolic ties to Voyager and seriously think about what information that would be really valid that they could return simply because they've crossed an artificial boundary?
Wow, are you a fucking arrogant (and ignorant) asshole.
And I find it ironic that in the same sentence, you acknowledge that we've *harnessed the goddamed atom* ("blow ourselves up with Nukes", because, of course, we use nuclear weapons routinely) while at the same time saying "fucks like me" are too afraid to get out of the crib (???) because you're too caught up in your leftist whirlwind of bullshit to realize that the usefulness of Voyager is OVER.
The usefulness of Voyager is over, dumbass. Budgets are limited. It's about prioritization. Would it be nice to fund Voyager indefinitely? Perhaps. They've had an almost *three decade* mission. The mission is over.
And before you start implying other people are closed minded, look in the fucking mirror, "Monkey Boy", and realize there are more points of view other than your fucking own.
Voyager is useless now. (No. It really is. No. Really.) This isn't about pictures on TV. This is about good science. The same general people who care about the rovers are the same general people who care about Voyager, even from the standpoint of what it symbolically represents. Most people got tired of the rovers after the first couple of days on Mars, and haven't cared about them since.
"Interstellar space" is an arbitrary distinction. What, it crosses this boundary and all of a sudden the state of the universe massively changes? For all practical purposes, there is no comparatively valuable information that can be obtained beyond the volumes of information it's already given us from it's primary mission.
It's had a remarkable mission, and it's time to put it to rest.
If you want to use it as an excuse to Bush-bash (not saying YOU are doing that specifically), or, startlingly, make irrelevant and nonsensical references to the US apparently devolving into the former USSR, because we won't continue to fund a useless project, go for it. Everyone else is, comrade.
Plus, the Voyager project's funding was just being *reduced*, not killed. It's up to NASA to decide what to do. The comparisons to how many "hours" of the Iraq war that can now be funded as a result are useless.
Really, it's worth tens of millions of dollars per year to get back occasional useless data from a decades old probe just because it's further away than any manmade object?
A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called "sponsorship scandal" - tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)
Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.
And well they might, if Brault's testimony gives any indication of what they will face. Thanks to a friend of mine, CQ readers can get a taste of what Brault has already told the Gomery Commission. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal this person's name or position, but this person is in a position to have the information. Bear in mind that this comes from a single source, so while I have confidence in the information, you should consider the sourcing carefully.
Payoffs And Kickbacks
On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.
Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring "employees" -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.
Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles ("Chuck") Guité and told him that "there was room for everybody." Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government "sponsorship" advertising (e.g. federal advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.
In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, a
Um, dozens or even a hundred feet *is* close range.
It works at the same range that someone would, say, be able to physically see your vehicle (and its license plate, or other unique identifying characteristics) at.
Additionally, you're just making the assumption that it automatically *will* be abused by law enforcement, and that they *will* build a network of RFID systems - which would be in the literally millions of detectors - that would make it even remotely usable as some kind of "tracking" system.
Apparently, the problem is that it would make it "easier" for police/government/someone to "track" you, right? The argument is that if they want to find someone, they should use good old-fashioned investigation to target only the person they're looking for, right? That means they shouldn't examine anyone else's vehicle appearance or plates, or look at anyone's faces to compare. Telephones and computers make it "easier" for police/government to do their jobs, too, perhaps *too* easy, so those should also be eliminated. People will laugh and think this is an absurd, extreme argument.
What about your assumption that RFID tags in inspection stickers will automatically be used as a statewide tracking system? So what if someone alongside the road can detect the fucking tag? Someone alongside the road can look at your goddamned car too. To say nothing of the fact that you're assuming that's automatically what it will be used for, when its stated purpose is something entirely different. And yes, I understand all the arguments like "well, once they're there, they can be abused for other purposes". What about license plates? Cameras? The fact that your windows aren't tinted black?
I'm well aware there's middle ground, and that is where the majority of circumstances and situations exist. I just was hoping that you'd acknowledge it.
My position is to not distrust technology, and not automatically distrust any person or entity unless it is deserved. I'm considerably well aware of various abuses by government at all levels. However, I have faith in governmental entities to, on the whole, generally behave appropriately. This does not mean that there are not egregious instances of inappropriate behavior, but I do not assume nor expect that to be the norm.
Well, it wouldn't be hundreds, maybe more like dozens. But let's just say hundreds. So what happens when someone can read your license plate at hundreds of feet? Say, with binoculars?
Quick! Better go cover it up! Someone, might, um, see your license plate. And know that you're, you know, you.
Do police or government have any role in a society based on rule of law? I know you'll likely laugh out loud at this, but who would you call if you required police or other emergency assistance? What entities would run the mechanisms of our government?
Or is your position - and I'm asking this seriously - one of eternal vigilance and doubt of the government, as a check and balance of sorts? I mean, I'm not saying there is no corruption or abuse of power that occurs in government, but it's not all evil and malice, coupled with slapping each other on the back and hearty laughs between powerful white men in smoky backrooms devising the next way to trample the faceless masses to ensure their continued power.
False. Standard RFID readers work only at close range, but it is possible to construct long-range RFID readers. Furthermore, if it can be used for toolbooth enforcement, then it can be read in normal traffic situations.
Um, where did I say it couldn't...?
And "normal traffic situations" IS "close range". Even hundreds of feet (which would actually be more like tens) is "close range". This isn't some kind of wide-scale tracking system, nor is it intended to be.
But, yes, automatic optical license plate reading is another serious privacy concern. The fact that we have kind of fallen into that possibility is no justification for compounding the problem by also deploying RFID.
So essentially, what you're saying is that any automated tools should not be used. No technological tools should be used. What follows assumes the system's real purpose is for something else other than what is stated in the bill, but let's do it anyway. Let's have the same discussion that's played out a million times here: what's the difference between a law enforcement officer seeing you, or a tool of law enforcement seeing you? Is anything but someone's physical eyes inappropriate? Should we also disallow government agencies from using computers, or perhaps telephones, because it makes their jobs "easier"? After all, it makes them more efficient at abridging our privacies. That is their primary job, yes?
Every time something like this comes up, I'm utterly astounded at the latent luddite mentality that comes out of the woodwork. Technology is ok, unless it's used by the government (or by corporations we disagree with).
Indeed. And in this case they would track and detain all vehicles in the area EXCEPT the one they're actually looking for. Sounds like a great system, no?
As a matter of fact, it does.
You're making a lot of assumptions, and jumping about 100 steps ahead to a system that is actually designed with the stated purpose of "tracking criminals". This isn't even close. This is designed, as I said, to be used at tollbooths and vehicle registration stations, as is listed in the bill. Therefore, any arguments that "criminals can just remove the tags but all innocent people will be tracked" (as I said) is IRRELEVANT, because "tracking" is not even the use of the system!
Slashdot Mirror
...
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
This is quite frankly the most worthless piece of shit pos...
Oh, wait. I'm reading slashdot.
Never mind.
This came up in some of the other articles.
"OMG, how could you shine a laser from the ground when the windows are on the *top of the plane*?!?!??!!11111one"
Um. I hope you can realized that pilots still have a line of sight to the ground for great distances around them, and only can't see the ground directly underneath/behind them for a comparatively small area.
The warnings would have a good chance of being initiated from an area for which the pilot has direct line of sight, or at least can diverge enough to get to the windshield or some other surface on the plane and be instantly noticed by the pilot.
1. I don't post as AC.
2. I posted my "Dupe" response (which got deleted along with the article) while logged in, which you can clearly see from my user page (look for "Dupe..." attached to "Can Build Robots But Can't Afford College [dupe]").
But thanks for your concern.
...RTFA.
Yes, it's ironic and ha-ha funny and all considering the instances of lasers being shined into cockpits as pranks.
But:
The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, said its laser warning system will start in 30 to 45 days. The low-intensity lights are less powerful than the ones that prompted warnings, and tests have shown they are safe for the eyes, according to NORAD.
NORAD spokesman Michael Kucharek said the laser-based warning system someday could replace fighter jets as a way to warn pilots to stay away from the Capitol and the White House.
Hundreds of small private planes [i.e., not commercial jetliners] have strayed into the restricted airspace in Washington, a 15.75-mile radius around the Washington Monument.
In some cases, NORAD has had to divert or scramble fighter jets to escort them away from the area at a cost of $30,000 to $50,000 each time, Kucharek said.
The challenge for NORAD will be to educate pilots that the red-red-green flashing laser beams mean they're flying in restricted airspace.
Isn't looking for a new or novel notification system for myriad planes that may not be able to immediately contacted via radio or identified by radar or other means a good thing? And one that mitigates the need to divert or scramble fighters at great costs?
And yes, I suppose someone could build a system to emulate the NORAD system as a joke/hoax/prank/whatever, as no doubt dozens of drooling slashdotters are anxious to post to echo Timothy, but then, it would be:
- First of all, very unlikely to be encountered, statistically, and when it did happen, it would be:
- Not anywhere near restricted airspace, meaning it would be recognized as a prank to be ignored
- In the case of much of DC around the capitol, in restricted airspace anyway, and therefore moot
- Likely that instances that would cause significant confusion and/or be mistaken for a legitimate NORAD warning would be about as prevalent as current laser pranks. That is to say, not prevalent at all, compared with the total number of flights.
So in sum, this is a very good idea and not at all surprising.
Further the fact that a man has been (rightfully) charged with a crime for shining a fucking laser at a plane like a dumbass has absolutely nothing to do with a safe, non-obtrusive, well-designed warning system that coincidentally also uses lasers because of their utility that is only invoked if a pilot strays into restricted airspace in the first place, which are likely to be small, private planes, as indicated in the article, and NOT commercial carriers with experienced pilots who know, and have the tools, to stay out of restricted airspace.
Many of the 9-11 terrorists had valid ids.
You're kind of missing the point. It's not necessarily to prevent things from happening beforehand (though many proponents hope it will).
It's so that investigators even have a starting point after an event has occurred. Whether the IDs are fake, valid, or what-have-you, it's all critical information to investigating the attack, possibly helping to prevent imminent parallel attacks (e.g., all fake IDs coming from the same source/state/etc, sharing a characteristic, etc.), and to prevent future attacks.
To raise a related issue, if no ID at all were required to, say, board planes, and it didn't arouse suspicion or trigger a search to show no ID at all - as the no-ID proponents want - then there would be NO investigative starting point after an attack, and perhaps no way of even knowing who's responsible.
Some might say they'd pay the price of occasional terrorist attacks in exchange for privacy for all. Well, most people won't, as was evidenced by the airline industry reeling to this day after 9/11. Perhaps that's a wrongheaded philosophy, but it's reality. People want to feel like the government is *doing something*. Whether it's national guardsmen walking around airports with unloaded weapons or asking everyone for ID, empty actions like this were important to getting a huge industry - and all of its associated economic influence - back on track.
It's not as simple as you want it to be.
You are aware that you can speak to a reporter at a newspaper without owning the newpaper, right?
And *again* you demonstrate your ability to completely not understand the situation.
A "newspaper" is typically going to have a much higher standard for what's published, in terms of general interest. E.g., the Chicago Tribune isn't going to publish internal Apple slides about Asteroid, even if tipped off, because it doesn't meet a particular muster. A website can be created easily and quickly exclusively for that purpose, and distribute the information globally instantaneously. So suddenly it becomes easy to leak any and all secret information to an interested audience, whereas before it required work, and a channel for the publication. Putting a flyer up on a telephone pole has a limited audience, and a newspaper, even a local rag, or trade press isn't guaranteed to publish, either. But any number of web sites, because of the ease with which they are established and their instant global reach, will publish anything you give them. The point is that if all web sites are protected as "journalists", no matter the content and no matter whether it is in the public interest, then anyone can leak confidential company information at will with no fear of punishment by simply approaching a web site. The distinction is not that it's any more or less easy to leak it to a web site than it is to a newspaper; this distinction is that by leaking it to a web site, like Think Secret, it will actually *get published to the masses*, whereas by leaking Asteroid information to the New York Times, it will not. The medium itself isn't the distinction; it's the fact that, since anyone can instantly set up a web page and call it a "blog", with great ease, any confidential information can be easily published.
Just admit you completely missed this point and were therefore sadly wrong.
The speech in the form of freedom of the press IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, also may be in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. This is not about freedom of the press. (And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.)
This is about whether journalists - of any kind - can be compelled to reveal their sources when the information is NOT in the clear public interest, and could reasonably be believed to have been the result of a breach of a confidentiality agreement.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg says, indeed, they can be.
The point, dipshit, is that any random person can have a web site easily viewable by the entire world. And if the Apple rumor sites get their way, now you can disseminate confidential information globally, instantly by just leaking to a web site. With no fear of punishment or retribution of any sort.
Any random person cannot have a newspaper, nor can they distribute things like print flyers/pamplets, or spoken word, anywhere *near* as widely or as quickly as a the internet.
That was my point, and if you weren't an idiot, you would have gotten it.
I can't take credit for it.
It was the judge in this case himself who said it.
Some other worthy observations by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
Yes, but NOT the company in question!
Uh, it's not the company. It's the court that already decided that the web sites have to reveal the information.
They already do, doh! You could take some secrets of your company, go to a cybercafe, enter an anonimizing proxy and upload the data to your favorite website. All of this without getting caught.
Apple is still entitled to any and all information that relates to how the web sites came into this information. And if that means finding out that it was sent from a cafe in San Jose at 7:14 pm on Tuesday night, then that's all it is. But they're still entitled to it.
NO - It is the COMPANY's responsibility to ensure the data isn't leaked in the first place.
Yeah. And they do that, dumbass, by having their employees agree contractually in good faith to not leak their fucking information, and punishing them if they do!
And the Apple blogger in question didn't expose anything that would actually *harm* the company (like publishing some blueprints or source code). He just published A COUPLE OF ROUMORS, come on.
Um, no. He didn't. He published very specific information that was only known internally to LIMITED numbers of people within Apple. There were also artist renditions and specifications involved (re: Asteroid), and they also published clear and specific information about the Mac mini. Apple picked one thing, but they're concerned about all of it. And under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even journalists are not protected.
In other words, you're completely wrong, but nice try.
Nice try, but hardly the point.
The web sites in THIS CASE (i.e., a case that involves information most definitely NOT in the public interest, therefore meaning that the information and its sources are NOT protected, and also that the web site operator is likely in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by publishing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained by the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement) should be compelled to reveal their sources *if they know them*, which they likely do. If it was completely anonymous, via any medium, well, then that's obviously not able to be revealed. But Apple believes there are some clues about the identity in the email messages they received, and frankly, Apple is entitled to that under the law (UTSA). And while Think Secret may be a journalistic endeavor, information that is not in the clear public interest is NOT PROTECTED.
As the judge so eloquently stated:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
And who sits in judgement of what speech is and isn't worthy of protection? You perhaps? That isn't free speech.
What about speech that isn't protected now?
There has to be some arbiter.
And in your model, anyone could break their contractual agreements freely without fear of any discipline or reprisal simply by leaking to any web site.
This actually has *nothing to do* with whether bloggers are journalists!
The judge in the case rightly realized that, and didn't fall victim to the cries that this was a case of "blogger's rights" or any of that other shit. The judge realized that bloggers *can indeed* be "journalists", but not all bloggers *are* journalists.
The cases should be decided on whether there is a clear and significant public interest. In the case of these web sites, there is most definitely not. Therefore, they are not protected.
Great
So now, in their world, all anyone has to do to knowingly break binding contractual confidentiality agreements that they have agreed to in good faith with their employers with no danger whatsoever of being caught, is simply by leaking it to a web site!
No secrets! Power to the people! Down with the the man!
And stuff.
* Cue slashdot chorus singing "That's the companies' problem and they should hire their own investigators to find the leaks" *
An interested public != public interest
...that your primary concern in posting these comments is to defend Bush and his policies regardless of the scientific objective.
Wow. Um. Holy shit. I kind of don't even know how to respond to this, since everyone else's purpose on this topic seems to be bashing Bush, and you take my passing reference to it as somehow "defending" Bush. You lost me there a little bit.
You appear to have concluded a priori that the Voyager probes have no scientific value simply because Bush has concluded so.
Again, lost me. I am making absolutely no judgments on the scientific validity of Voyager based on anything that "Bush" says. And it wasn't "Bush", by himself, that made any of these decisions, by the way.
Any argument in furtherance of the scientific value of collecting data as they continue out of our solar system is met with hostile political rhetoric and tautological claims that the data is worthless because it is worthless. I find your arguments highly unconvincing; your heated political rhetoric even less so.
Wow. Yeah. Saying "well, at least SOMETHING at NASA is gettting funded..." and implying the US is like the old Soviet state because conformist, sheep Americans aren't interested in things that don't have pretty pictures isn't rhetoric in itself. Nope. Nosiree.
Dropping the partisan issues here
Which *I* wasn't the one to implicitly bring up in this entire thread (just read the rest of the posts; I wonder, are you telling all of the people whose posts are exclusively political to cut the "heated political rhetoric"?)...
let me ask: what expertise in the fields of space science, astronomy, and physics, do you posess which give scientific validity to your claims of the low relative worth of future Voyager data?
Degrees in engineering and physics aside, you still shouldn't trust me. Perhaps you should ask the scientists, engineers, and administrators at NASA why THEY feel Voyager's priority is low enough to potentially kill it because of that group's budget being cut. What else would still be funded in lieu of Voyager? Where does the Voyager project's money go? Voyager has had a *30 year mission*. If there was no associated cost to keep running it, sure, we could collect data from it as long as possible. But we haven't gotten any scientifically worthwhile, manifestly surprising, or unexpected data from it for years. The only thing surprising about the Voyager mission is how long it's lasted.
Why should I believe you when specialists in the field are quoted as saying that the data is highly valuable, especially given the low collection cost? How about some facts instead of hot air? --M
You shouldn't "believe me". But if you think it's George W Bush personally making decisions to pull the plug on Voyager, you kind of need to get a fucking grip. Budgets get reprioritized, and NASA has to decide what makes sense to fund. The group that administers the Voyager mission may kill it because there are other things that a limited pot can be better spent on.
Lose your emotional and symbolic ties to Voyager and seriously think about what information that would be really valid that they could return simply because they've crossed an artificial boundary?
Wow, are you a fucking arrogant (and ignorant) asshole.
And I find it ironic that in the same sentence, you acknowledge that we've *harnessed the goddamed atom* ("blow ourselves up with Nukes", because, of course, we use nuclear weapons routinely) while at the same time saying "fucks like me" are too afraid to get out of the crib (???) because you're too caught up in your leftist whirlwind of bullshit to realize that the usefulness of Voyager is OVER.
The usefulness of Voyager is over, dumbass. Budgets are limited. It's about prioritization. Would it be nice to fund Voyager indefinitely? Perhaps. They've had an almost *three decade* mission. The mission is over.
And before you start implying other people are closed minded, look in the fucking mirror, "Monkey Boy", and realize there are more points of view other than your fucking own.
Voyager is useless now. (No. It really is. No. Really.) This isn't about pictures on TV. This is about good science. The same general people who care about the rovers are the same general people who care about Voyager, even from the standpoint of what it symbolically represents. Most people got tired of the rovers after the first couple of days on Mars, and haven't cared about them since.
"Interstellar space" is an arbitrary distinction. What, it crosses this boundary and all of a sudden the state of the universe massively changes? For all practical purposes, there is no comparatively valuable information that can be obtained beyond the volumes of information it's already given us from it's primary mission.
It's had a remarkable mission, and it's time to put it to rest.
If you want to use it as an excuse to Bush-bash (not saying YOU are doing that specifically), or, startlingly, make irrelevant and nonsensical references to the US apparently devolving into the former USSR, because we won't continue to fund a useless project, go for it. Everyone else is, comrade.
Plus, the Voyager project's funding was just being *reduced*, not killed. It's up to NASA to decide what to do. The comparisons to how many "hours" of the Iraq war that can now be funded as a result are useless.
Really, it's worth tens of millions of dollars per year to get back occasional useless data from a decades old probe just because it's further away than any manmade object?
".........." indeed.
April 02, 2005
Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open
A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called "sponsorship scandal" - tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers. Prime Minister Paul Martin, himself a Liberal, appointed the Gomery Commission to investigate these charges and determine whether to bring charges against government officials for corruption and malfeasance. (See the blog Small Dead Animals for some excellent background on the case.)
Most of the testimony heard by the Commission has been public, but Judge Gomery has decided to create a publication ban on the testimony of three key witnesses: Jean Brault, president of the ad agency Groupaction, Charles Guité, an officer of the Public Works ministry who worked on the Sponsorship Program, and Paul Coffin, president of the ad agency Coffin Communications. The potential damage of their testimony has so unnerved the Liberal Party that they have reportedly started working towards a snap election so that they will not have to face the voters once the facts surface from the record.
And well they might, if Brault's testimony gives any indication of what they will face. Thanks to a friend of mine, CQ readers can get a taste of what Brault has already told the Gomery Commission. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal this person's name or position, but this person is in a position to have the information. Bear in mind that this comes from a single source, so while I have confidence in the information, you should consider the sourcing carefully.
Payoffs And Kickbacks
On Thursday, Jean Brault began his testimony, subject to the publication ban, and revealed a massive pattern of corruption going to the highest levels of the Liberal party and government. Brault testified to hundreds of thousands of dollars of bogus transactions designed to benefit the Liberal Party of Canada over a period from 1994 to 2002.
Most of the illegal campaign contributions involved Brault either hiring "employees" -- who were in fact working full time on Liberal Party activities -- or paying invoices for Liberal Party campaign expenses (which were never declared as such) or making untraceable cash donations to Liberal officials. In exchange for helping the federal Liberals in Quebec, Brault received millions of dollars in federal advertising contracts.
Brault said he met with Jean Carle, a key aide to then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to propose a more direct way of ensuring that Groupaction got a large share of federal advertising dollars in Quebec. Carle referred Brault to federal bureaucrat Charles ("Chuck") Guité and told him that "there was room for everybody." Guité later put together the sponsorship program, in which five Liberal connected firms -- including Groupaction -- were guaranteed a monopoly on government "sponsorship" advertising (e.g. federal
advertising at sporting or cultural events) and related work. The sponsorship program eventually became a huge slush fund into which over $250 million was poured, over $100 million of which was paid in fees and commissions to these five advertising firms, with little or any evidence of work done or value for money.
In exchange for these large contracts for little or no work, Brault kicked back generously to the Liberal Party, putting Liberal organizers on his payroll while they continued to perform party work (including, at one point, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's brother, Gaby Chrétien), paying invoices to other companies for work actually done for the Liberal Party, a
RTFA
Or, at least the article's title:
"NNSA Supercomputer Breaks Computing Record: Exceeds 100 TERAFLOPS DOE/NNSA and IBM partnership on BlueGene/L, a tool for national security"
Um, dozens or even a hundred feet *is* close range.
It works at the same range that someone would, say, be able to physically see your vehicle (and its license plate, or other unique identifying characteristics) at.
Additionally, you're just making the assumption that it automatically *will* be abused by law enforcement, and that they *will* build a network of RFID systems - which would be in the literally millions of detectors - that would make it even remotely usable as some kind of "tracking" system.
Apparently, the problem is that it would make it "easier" for police/government/someone to "track" you, right? The argument is that if they want to find someone, they should use good old-fashioned investigation to target only the person they're looking for, right? That means they shouldn't examine anyone else's vehicle appearance or plates, or look at anyone's faces to compare. Telephones and computers make it "easier" for police/government to do their jobs, too, perhaps *too* easy, so those should also be eliminated. People will laugh and think this is an absurd, extreme argument.
What about your assumption that RFID tags in inspection stickers will automatically be used as a statewide tracking system? So what if someone alongside the road can detect the fucking tag? Someone alongside the road can look at your goddamned car too. To say nothing of the fact that you're assuming that's automatically what it will be used for, when its stated purpose is something entirely different. And yes, I understand all the arguments like "well, once they're there, they can be abused for other purposes". What about license plates? Cameras? The fact that your windows aren't tinted black?
I'm well aware there's middle ground, and that is where the majority of circumstances and situations exist. I just was hoping that you'd acknowledge it.
My position is to not distrust technology, and not automatically distrust any person or entity unless it is deserved. I'm considerably well aware of various abuses by government at all levels. However, I have faith in governmental entities to, on the whole, generally behave appropriately. This does not mean that there are not egregious instances of inappropriate behavior, but I do not assume nor expect that to be the norm.
Well, it wouldn't be hundreds, maybe more like dozens. But let's just say hundreds. So what happens when someone can read your license plate at hundreds of feet? Say, with binoculars?
Quick! Better go cover it up! Someone, might, um, see your license plate. And know that you're, you know, you.
Or something.
Do police or government have any role in a society based on rule of law? I know you'll likely laugh out loud at this, but who would you call if you required police or other emergency assistance? What entities would run the mechanisms of our government?
Or is your position - and I'm asking this seriously - one of eternal vigilance and doubt of the government, as a check and balance of sorts? I mean, I'm not saying there is no corruption or abuse of power that occurs in government, but it's not all evil and malice, coupled with slapping each other on the back and hearty laughs between powerful white men in smoky backrooms devising the next way to trample the faceless masses to ensure their continued power.
False. Standard RFID readers work only at close range, but it is possible to construct long-range RFID readers. Furthermore, if it can be used for toolbooth enforcement, then it can be read in normal traffic situations.
Um, where did I say it couldn't...?
And "normal traffic situations" IS "close range". Even hundreds of feet (which would actually be more like tens) is "close range". This isn't some kind of wide-scale tracking system, nor is it intended to be.
But, yes, automatic optical license plate reading is another serious privacy concern. The fact that we have kind of fallen into that possibility is no justification for compounding the problem by also deploying RFID.
So essentially, what you're saying is that any automated tools should not be used. No technological tools should be used. What follows assumes the system's real purpose is for something else other than what is stated in the bill, but let's do it anyway. Let's have the same discussion that's played out a million times here: what's the difference between a law enforcement officer seeing you, or a tool of law enforcement seeing you? Is anything but someone's physical eyes inappropriate? Should we also disallow government agencies from using computers, or perhaps telephones, because it makes their jobs "easier"? After all, it makes them more efficient at abridging our privacies. That is their primary job, yes?
Every time something like this comes up, I'm utterly astounded at the latent luddite mentality that comes out of the woodwork. Technology is ok, unless it's used by the government (or by corporations we disagree with).
Indeed. And in this case they would track and detain all vehicles in the area EXCEPT the one they're actually looking for. Sounds like a great system, no?
As a matter of fact, it does.
You're making a lot of assumptions, and jumping about 100 steps ahead to a system that is actually designed with the stated purpose of "tracking criminals". This isn't even close. This is designed, as I said, to be used at tollbooths and vehicle registration stations, as is listed in the bill. Therefore, any arguments that "criminals can just remove the tags but all innocent people will be tracked" (as I said) is IRRELEVANT, because "tracking" is not even the use of the system!