Slashback: Google, Surveillance, Stardust

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including Brin's defense of Google's recent actions in China, DoJ criticizes Microsoft's delay meeting antitrust regulations, Bush allies defend NSA domestic surveillance, Wisconsin rolls back open-source voting, a look back at Pixar, and Stardust samples exceed expectations -- Read on for details.

Brin defends Google's recent actions in China. An anonymous reader writes "Fortune Magazine recently had a chance to talk to Google co-founder Sergi Brin and asked him about the company's decision to accept censorship in China. As you might guess, Brin defended the move. From the article: 'The end result was that we weren't available to about 50 percent of the users. [...] We ultimately made a difficult decision, but we felt that by participating there, and making our services more available, even if not to the 100 percent that we ideally would like, that it will be better for Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information, though not quite all of it.' Human Rights Watch boss Ken Roth, though, wasn't impressed and had a few scathing remarks about the decision."

DoJ criticizes Microsoft's delay in meeting antitrust regulations. Rob writes to tell us that the US Department of Justice is complaining that Microsoft is dragging their feet on certain antitrust technical documentation submission guidelines. From the article: "Microsoft acknowledged the current problems and the steps it is taking to correct them in a recent status report but "has not detailed the seriousness of the current situation," according to the DoJ."

Bush allies defend NSA domestic surveillance. Jason Jardine writes to tell us News.com is reporting that Bush's allies are coming out of the woodwork to support the recently criticized NSA domestic surveillance program. From the article: "In a continuation of a full-court press that began a day earlier, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday told students at Georgetown University that a wartime president has the lawful authority to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail messages without court approval." Forgive me if I don't agree.

Wisconsin rolls back open-source voting. Irvu writes "One day after the good news that Wisconsin was requiring open-source electronic-voting software was reported on Slashdot, it was gutted. According to BloackboxVoting.org the open-source public review provisions of the bill were removed and replaced with a version requiring the state to escrow the code and, unless a recount occurs, provide only internal examination. The final form of the bill reads: 'Sec 5.905 "...Unless authorized under this section, the board shall withhold access to those software components from any person who requests access under s.19.35...' Meaning that public review is not required and should be, by default, refused. The Legislation History [PDF]reflects the change and points to the final crippled bill. [PDF]"

A look back at Pixar history. An anonymous reader writes "With all of the recent press coverage of Pixar getting bought out by Disney it seems only fitting to take a look back at Pixar history. LowEndMac.com has an interested retrospective writeup exploring the beginnings of Pixar back in the 1970's by Dick Shoup through to the current day."

Stardust samples exceed expectations. carpdeus writes "MSNBC is reporting that the recent opening of the Stardust sample in a clean room appears to be a great success. From the article: 'It exceeds all expectations,' said Donald Brownlee, Stardust's lead scientist from the University of Washington. 'It's a huge success,' he said in a university statement released Wednesday. 'We can see lots of impacts. There are big ones, there are small ones. The big ones you can see from 10 feet away,' Brownlee observed."

Administration BS

[Greyfox]

If I recall correctly, the reason domestic surveilance laws were originally created was due to Nixon administration abuse of the FBI to gather data on people the administration didn't like. Some one correct me if I'm wrong -- it's not something American school history classes like to go into, for some reason. Some very clear laws and some very clear checks were created, and it has been noticed that the secret court that was established for that very reason has never declined a request and allows for retroacive filing for a warrant to tap a phone conversation.

I trust that the "It's not illegal because we don't think it is" defense will convince no one. This administration is resembling the Nixon administration more and more, and I can only hope that it ends the same way.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[Anonymous Coward]

This just shows what the current administration truly wants.

They want the President to have absolute power (i.e. the power of a dictator) whenever we are at war. At the same time, they claim we are in an ongoing war (the War on Terror) which will never actually be concluded.

Logically, this means that they believe the President should always have absolute power.

Re:4 kinds of information

[Ark42]

I think your #5 is really #4.

I don't condone the censorship, but we all know China would just filter all of Google in its entirety if they didn't make an attempt at complying with local laws.

According to http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=zh_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.google.c n%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtiananmen%2Bsquare [altavista.com]
the bottom of the page says "According to the local law laws and regulations and the policy, the part searches the result not to demonstrate." which I'm sure means something along the lines of "your local laws forced us to remove some of the results from this search".

Again, I don't agree with this censorship, but that is the best it is going to get until the chinese people change their government themselves.

Re:4 kinds of information

[Ark42]

See my post above with the translation of "According to the local law laws and regulations and the policy, the part searches the result not to demonstrate."

It does look like Google tells people that things where removed.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[X]

Even if the Gonzales' statement was true (which it isn't)

No, it really is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/us c_sec_50_00001811----000-.html [cornell.edu]

the United States is not in a state of war

No, it really is.

For the United States to enter a war, Congress must exercise their constitutional authority to declare war. They have chosen not to do so.

Actually they have. First, the US is at war "with those responsible for the Sept. 11'th attacks" [cornell.edu] and it is at war with Iraq [cornell.edu]. Both bills specifically invoke the War Powers Resolution.

Given that the wiretaps are in theory being used to track down suspected members of Al Qaeda, they would appear to be authorized by and well within the scope of the Sept. 18th resolution.

It's sad when actions with such significance are glossed over to the extent that people aren't actually aware of them.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[X]

Why oh why is this simple, yet critical fact so rarely spoken? Congress authorized funds, but NEVER declared war!

It's not spoken of because it's not true. Take a look at Senate Joint Resolution #23 from Sept. 18th, 2001 (see link in my other comment in this thread). It very much authorizes the use of force, and most importantly invokes the War Powers Resolution. It doesn't mention one thing about funds.

Re:Surveillance

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Witless FooAtWFU wrote:

While I don't particularly relish the prospect of eavesdropping without warrants, the fact is that warrants take a gigundous mountain of paperwork to get, and that sometimes they really won't be obtainable fast enough to make a difference.

Your statement would be sensible IF it wasn't for the simple fact that:

a: They have 72 hours to get back with the FISA court to explain an unwarranted wire tap.
b: We just happen to have a nice little thing called the Constitution which states in EXPLICITLY CLEAR LANGUAGE:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, what part of that statement ELUDES your understanding? HMmmmmmm???

If idiots like you prevail, we will ALL end up with the government YOU deserve.

RS

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[Anonymous Coward]

a) does not the US code referred to above limit surveillance to
    15 days after declaration of war?

and b) doesn't that require a Declaration of War?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107 [gpo.gov]

I don't know about you, but that doesn't look like a declaratino of war to me.

And the 15 days should be up any time now...

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[d34thm0nk3y]

It's not spoken of because it's not true. Take a look at Senate Joint Resolution #23 from Sept. 18th, 2001 (see link in my other comment in this thread). It very much authorizes the use of force, and most importantly invokes the War Powers Resolution. It doesn't mention one thing about funds.

From the link in your other post (re: suspension of habeas corpus): ...following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Congress has not declared a war!. If you read the texts of the authorization for use of force (which you also linked):
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

From the war powers resolution:
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization,

So as you can see they have authorized force by statutory authorization, not declaring war!.

text of war powers act:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_p owers_resolution.shtml
SJ 23:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./t emp/~c107sfwR8o::

Nope. Good old FDR started it

[SysKoll]

Some one correct me if I'm wrong Gladly. This article [hnn.us] shows that the wiretapping to US citizens by preseidential decree was started by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Other sources will show you that Roosevelt set up a department that had every international phone call and telegraph message intercepted and analyzed even before WWII.

Naturally, subsequent administations never cut back on these practices. Once an agency has an authority and a budget, it's very hard to remove either...

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[blincoln]

A room full of law students turning their backs on Gonzales during his speech [livejournal.com] made me happier than any news regarding the neo-Fascist* administration has for the last few years.

* McCain is a Republican. Eisenhower and Lincoln were Republicans. Calling the members of the Project for a New American Empire "Republicans" is an insult to that party's history.

Re:The US is not in a state of war

[bear_phillips]

FISA only has a 15 day exception and Bush has gone way past that:
"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Court said that presidential powers does not exceed or override the 4th amendment.

Re:Administration BS

[timeOday]

Tell me with a straight face anyone seriously expects the NSA get a warrant ahead of time in a world of disposable cell phones.

FISA already grants the power to act without a warrant, so long as they go back to get a warrant from the secret court within 72 hours. (And how could anybody not know that by now?) So that's not a reason.

Re: Administration BS

[Black Parrot]

> Everyone in this thread, including the editor, convienently leaves out the "half", as in "half domestic surveilance". When a known Al-Q person outside the USA calls or contacts someone inside, the NSA tries to listen in. So how exactly is it a huge problem that one person in the US is being spied upon because a known terrorist on a short list calls him? Tell me with a straight face anyone seriously expects the NSA get a warrant ahead of time in a world of disposable cell phones.

That's just the thing. The FISA law lets them get secret post hoc warrants from a court that's a virtual rubber stamp. Breaking the law buys them nothing.

K, Here it is, from the War Powers Resolution

[TubeSteak]

Your first link [cornell.edu] doesn't apply, since there was never "a declaration of war by the Congress."

Your second link
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.c gi?type=pubL&target=107-40 [cornell.edu]

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

And from the War Powers Resolution:

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

From your third link

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

From the War Powers Resolution:

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-- blah (1) blah (2) blah

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

SEC. 4. (b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

SEC. 4. (c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into

Re:4 kinds of information

[Thing 1]

While I agree with you in theory, in practice the site www.xenu.net appears first in the US search, and only third in the China search.

In other words, the US search is both surprisingly not vetted, and more accurate.

English and Chinese Version of Search

[amerinese]

Enjoy. Tiananmen Square in English, on the American site: http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square [google.com] Tiananmen Square in Chinese, on the Chinese site: http://images.google.cn/images?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%8 9%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4% A2 [google.cn] At many universities in China, they only have access to domestic internet ( *.cn ) and to access ANYTHING foreign you need to find an unreliable proxy. I wonder how hard it might be to do some really long distance Wi-Fi from an uncensored internet source outside the country into the country (HK; Taiwan, which also has a few small islands right off the Chinese coast; Vietnam, S. Korea).

Re: Administration BS

[sp3d2orbit]

I was listening to NPR the other day and someone made a great point about why they are doing this. By law, the Bush administration is allowed to get these secret warrants if they have some sort of probable cause. According to the guest almost none of these warrants are denied. But, he continued, the Bush administration must not have probable cause. If they went to the courts asking for a warrant on these particular cases then they might be denied. In other words, by breaking the law and not going to the court they aren't being told no. It's a lot like not asking your parents to do something because they are going to say no, so you do it without asking.

That's also why the Bush administration isn't defending not going to the courts. They simply repeat "its legal, its legal" because they don't want to argue this on the basis of probable cause.

Interestingly, the gentleman on the radio who was defending the white house said that "if your daughter travels overseas to finish her masters in Arabic and calls home, then you won't be monitored". The other gentlemen asked what process guarenteed this statement. The defender claims that they have to ask an acting officer before doing it. Good thing the American army doesn't have any bad apples in its command chain (Abu Graib)!