Slashdot Log In
Artist/Astronomer Exhibits Photos Of Spy Satellites
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 24, 2008 02:45 PM
from the move-along-nothing-to-see-here dept.
from the move-along-nothing-to-see-here dept.
daemonburrito writes "Trevor Paglen, the photographer and co-author of 'Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights' and 'I Could Tell You But Then You Would Have To Be Destroyed By Me,' has an exhibit showing in Berkeley of 189 photos of secret US satellites (exhibit page here). Wired says, 'In taking these photos, Paglen is trying to draw a metaphorical connection between modern government secrecy and the doctrine of the Catholic Church in Galileo's time.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Heathen! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a pretty neat exhibi$ #_(%#^3 NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he lives in Soviet Russia and got ditched by broadband you insensitive clod!
wow... (Score:4, Funny)
Blame the CIA and the Catholic Church in one fell swoop? Now if that isn't a match made for UCB, then I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the CIA and the Catholic Church in one fell swoop? Now if that isn't a match made for UCB, then I don't know what is.
Yeah, everyone knows the Catholics are all in the FBI.
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did TFA get slashdotted, or did the DoD bomb Berkley?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the latter, because I can't belive that Berkley can be slashdotted...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, I guess I shouldn't have just typed "Berkley" into the URL bar and should have clicked the link in the summary instead? Wow, your computer skills are 133t!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
It's clear that the CIA is working with Slashdot to cover up secret spy satellites that can penetrate tin foil.
Parent
Doesn't Exist. (Score:5, Funny)
Censorship? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he is lifting the veil of secrecy. There's a big difference between secrecy and censorship.
Secrecy is a very important aspect of national security, and I wouldn't want to see it go away. That said, I want checks and balances to ensure that only things pertaining to national security are kept secret, and every other aspect of the government is kept transparent. I also want to make sure there are checks and balances to prevent a violation of citizens rights lumped in under national security secrets (like wiretaps of american citizens), and I want checks and balances to prevent a violation in inalienable human rights (like secret prisons) with the same premise as an excuse, but I sure have no problem with secret spy satellites. In fact, if I were an amateur astronomer who discovered said satellites, I would be morally against publicizing that information. I know other countries can look at the sky just as easily as I can, but I don't want to do their legwork for them. That said, if the astronomer in question doesn't have a problem with publicizing the information, I would have a problem with the government trying to shut him up. That would be censorship, not just secrecy. It's one of those "I disagree with what you're saying, but I will defend your right to say it" things.
In the case of Trevor Paglin, the article indicates that he knew where and when to find the satellites by looking at a database compiled by amateur astronomers. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't classify as a "secret" anymore, other than the actual capabilities of the satellites. Therefore, I don't have a moral objection to it. In fact, I applaud all of his other work, which brings attention to those secret prisons I so despise.
Parent
Re:Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, you are correct (although I still object to your terminology. They're not "censors," they're people sworn to secrecy. They only become censors when they attempt to stop the free speech of those who were not sworn to keep the secrets but found out anyway). What I described was an ideal situation. Even if the goal is unreachable, if we all strive to achieve it, we can keep ourselves from straying too far from it.
What we have to our advantage is that there are a lot of people involved in all levels of government in order to make it work. Somebody who believes in a responsible government is bound to be included in every secret project, and when they do, they will be morally obliged to become whistle-blowers and leak the information.
The problem isn't that the "trusted committee" isn't accountable to the public, it's that these days the public just doesn't care. The secrets that threaten public control of the government do invariably get leaked. We know about the wiretaps. We know about the secret prisons. We know about the torture. The problem is that a lot of the public believes this behavior is acceptable. Instead of thanking the whistle-blowers who brought this to our attention, some people go as far as calling them traitors.
You're right. Complete transparency of the government is incompatible with the ability to keep secrets. The alternative of keeping no secrets at all is to live with a foreign threat to our public control of the government. The fact that we're straying so far from what you called my "reasonable goal" is an inherent deficiency of a government under public control. When the public doesn't care, they fail to hold their government accountable, even when they do know about the secrets. However, the alternative to public control of the government is even worse. In the end, I prefer to strive to keep the balance. I accept that the government has to keep secrets even knowing that this interferes with the transparency I want from my government, and I accept to live in a democracy even knowing idiots get to vote.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess someone or something ... (Score:2)
Re:Guess someone or something ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice pics (Score:2)
I think I'll archive them in files and as prints... Hang on a sec, there's someone at the door.
I wonder how many times... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...these things photograph the moon.
That's no moon...
Re: (Score:2)
it didn't end well for galileo (Score:2)
Maybe you don't want the parallels to be too close.
Re:it didn't end well for galileo (Score:5, Informative)
Giordano Bruno was condemned because of his Theological beliefs. Galileo was just making scientifically unsound (and later proven false) claims.
Galileo was right that the Earth goes around the Sun, but he also wrongly insisted that it's orbit was circular (thus either introducing errors or necessitating the same epicycles that the geocentric model needed) and that tides were caused by the Earth's orbit and not the Moon. Further while his observations about the moons of Jupiter were insightful, he also mistook Saturn's rings for moons thus impugning the reliability of his Jupiter observations.
Galileo got a lot of things right, but he went about it in a very unscientific way (e.g. he wasn't critical enough of his own findings) that led to him also getting a lot of things wrong. Making mistakes is okay, but Galileo's wouldn't revise them when other academics pointed out their flaws. This eventually made enemies for him in the academic world which is eventually is what did him in.
Galileo did a number of great things. Just keep in mind that the version taught today is a censored one sided version of the story.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've argued pretty much what you have about Galileo, that he was brilliant as a scientist in an era when the rules of science were less formal, but was lousy on people skills and pissed off a lot of people who didn't just go around 'inquisiting' everyone, then the Roman Catholic church swung into a more fearful than average phase, he lost the protection of a pope that was willing to cut him extra slack, and he had no other moderates and reasonable men left in the church who wanted to stick their necks out f
news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand. What's newsworthy about this? Guy takes photos and displays them. He is not censored. No censorship was alleged.
He wants to make a statement about the parallel between himself being censored and something from 500 years ago. But he wasn't censored and there's really no parallel.
And this would be news if something had actually happened. Are we supposed to be pretend outraged at the imagined censorship that didn't happen? How is that different than the usual pretense to outrage that some folks engage in all the time?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tim Robbins gives this talk to the National Association of Broadcasters about this "chill wind" of censorship blowing through the country, that gets covered by all the major media, then gets in his private jet and goes home. No "black maria" waiting for him at the airport to take him away, no darkened cell in the sub-basement of the Depa
Re:news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Real censorship is truly chilling. Only it is called POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
Anything deemed "offensive" is removed, redacted, covered up, or otherwise stiffled. There are plenty of people who have, are having and will try to have others silenced for saying something that "offended" someone somewhere or another.
Why doesn't Tim Robbins actually speak against the REAL censorship attempts, rather than the nebulous versions he seems to see everywhere?
Parent
Re:news? (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather put up with a societally-imposed politically correctness than a government-imposed suppression of my actual right to free speech. I think some of those that constantly cry censorship and oppression might have a different impression if they lived under a truly oppressive regime (insert Bush joke here for +funny/+insightful). I liken it to middle-class suburban kids who actually think they have it rough growing up. It's simply that they lack a broader perspective to appreciate how good they actually have it relative to most others, and unfortunately, many of those kids grow up into similarly-minded adults.
.
Also, why do my paragraphs munge together unless I put a character between them? I'm posting in text mode...
Parent
Re:news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship is censorship. It doesn't matter the "punishment" for it.
The problem is society does use government to suppress politically incorrect speech. So I see no difference between the two.
Parent
Two words : Hate Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Two more words: Hate Crimes
Sorry but the government has already acted. Instead of just being tried for a crime of aggression someone can be tried for what others think the perpetrator was thinking before and during the crime. There have been numerous cases in the press where a criminal case fell apart only to be followed with a "Hate Crime" trial that succeeded because the accusation is all so nebulous. Political Correctness run amok.
The courts already have been twisted into thought control. Yet it is nearly always biased in its application. There is no black and white in the definition of hate speech or hate crimes. Words used by one group become criminal while another group can use them with impunity. That is the very real world we live in today. Unfortunately too many people willingly accept this because they don't have the courage to stand up those who truly profess hate and instead want to wield the club of government to do it for them. Worse, they want to use that threat of government to manipulate and control the system.
The press is in it deep, consistently engaging in the same practice selectively changing context of stories to make the portrayal more offensive than it ever was. We are constantly bombarded by guilt, twisted phrases used to imply any opposing thought is not only wrong but criminal so.
Parent
Re:news? (Score:5, Informative)
That would only hold true if they where screaming about complete censorship. For example, we know that at least 30,000 National Security Letters are issued every year since 2003, but we have no real idea what they are about because they all come attached to gag orders. [washingtonpost.com] So we know that the NSLs exist, but the content is censored, so oversight and accountability is impossible. In the case of the spy satellite photos, we know that they cost millions, if not billions of dollars, and that they exist, but that's it. Again no oversight, and no accountability.
It seems to me that there is was a great deal of oversight, balance, and accountability built into the early constitution because those things are one of the things that enables a truly democratic/representative government, as opposed to a democratic shell over a oligarchic government that holds the true power. That accountability has steadily eroded since the dawn of the Cold War and thus so has belief in our government. I'm not saying that voting does nothing, but I am saying that there a lot of very powerful, very well funded segments of our government that are untouchable (even indirectly) by the voting public. That is not government for the people, by the people; that is government in spite of the people. That is what the Left and the true Conservatives are complaining about when they bitch about government secrets.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If you check through some of his other posts, he basically just trolls anything that might be construed as 'liberal'. You won't be able to sway him with a logical argument.
Re:news? (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding was the exhibit was not about censorship. It was about looking at things that should not exist, and questioning the reasons why the establishment denies their existence. This can range from the moons of Jupiter or to satellites designed to spy on domestic affairs. His interest is not in the silencing, but in the denial.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Governments keep secrets. It's 1984. Or 1498. Or 489. Or 49 B.C.E. Or whenever.
Secrecy is only actually detectable to this Galileo-wannabe because all this info is published in publicly available, searchable databases.
Galileo was actually talented at something besides seeking attention.
yawn! (Score:4, Insightful)
i just love the people who were never interested in politics now ranting on like they're experts and telling us how much worse things have gotten. if anything, the government is finally coming clean about what they were already doing for decades.
US Satellites? (Score:4, Interesting)
How does he know it is the US controlling a given satellite? I wonder if any DoD guys looked at the exhibit and said "Hey! That's not one of ours."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In case of slashdotting. . . (Score:2)
. . . I'm posting a few of the pix here:
.
x
Metaphorical?! (Score:4, Funny)
That was... (Score:5, Interesting)
Artistic masturbation (Score:3, Insightful)
This is typical pointless artistic masturbation. This artiste is pulling a silly stunt to try to make a name for himeslf and wow the clueless intelligencia of the art world. These pictures are less impressive than Iridium flares which are themselves pretty ho hum on the scale of celesial wonder. It would be much more spectacular if he had more detailed pictures taken with a telescope. Granted, these pictures aren't bad if you ignore the topic of prying into the super secret realm of the spooks.
Re:Wait... I'm confused. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:exhibit page offline (Score:5, Insightful)
After trying for the last... oh, a while, I finally gave in and clicked the link to the Wired Story in the hope that I'd see some of these pictures.
And they are censored - by the guy's stupid cheapassed telescope, long exposure times, etc! They sure are some impressive... um, streaks?
I think the Berkeley (hey I spelt it rite) server stopped working out of embarrassment. Now instead of wondering how Berkely got slashdotted, I'm wondering how the story got on slashdot at all (which I guess is still asking why it got slashdotted)
For once when I saw someone's subject line "nothing to see here" he wasn't kidding!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
AC's have been posting this shit for only god knows how long and not one of you stupid fucks has bothered to clean up the formatting and improve the readability?
Re:Conspiracy Theory =/= Science (Score:5, Informative)
The USAF has its own launch capability; they buy the same rockets from the same contractors NASA does. Sometimes NASA launches these things themselves; the Shuttle has carried secret satellites from time to time. It's hard to hide a launch, but you can keep the nature of its payload a secret. So, you can identify Mystery Satellite #121 by radar and by telescope, but determining whose it is (the Russians certainly have their own and I'd be surprised if the French don't) and what it is capable of is another matter. And if you're not watching it 24 hours a day, it can manoeuvre onto a different orbit when you're not looking.
So revealing that he's found 189 satellites and publishing his photographs doesn't reveal much the government wants kept secret. Every serious rival nation already knows where these things are. If however someone published that 'Satellite #117 is a Model X SuperScryer made by Lockheed in 2002, operating in infrared frequency x with maximum angular resolution y, resolving objects on the ground to z centimetres, using the following highly classified technologies...' - now that would upset people.
And 189 isn't so large a number. It's not like Star Wars out there, with crowds of vehicles zipping past each other. Space is big, and empty, and spysats are not such big things. They orbit very low, the better to get a close look at the Earth's surface, while communications and GPS satellites are far above, to have line of sight to much wider areas. Collisions are very unlikely, and all concerned maintain an extremely careful radar watch on all orbits intersecting any manned vehicle.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that the Chinese need to be told where satellites are, then you must think they are also too dumb to launch something into space in the first place.
They know WHERE every satellite is, anyone with access to the tracking systems that are necessary in order to be able to get a satellite into space can see them. The trick is knowing which one is which. Pictures of the satellites would help them in that, so they won't show the pics, true. So that's no big deal as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, shou