ChezLark

Have you ever noticed that some people form irrationally strong allegiances towards certain technology brands? I’m thinking here of the perpetual debates on Macintosh vs. Wintel computers, domestics vs. imported cars, iPods vs. all other MP3 players, etc.

In the camera world, the debate is Nikon vs. Canon. Go read this thread on the popular dpreview camera site and tell me things aren’t a little out of control.

In case anyone’s wondering, I use a Canon 20D, which I think is fantastic, but if you have Nikon gear you’re pleased with, or anything else, for that matter, I’m happy for you, too.

Governor Jeb Bush, on Darwin’s theory of evolution:

…I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.

Yeah, it’s probably not too important for students to be taught evolution in biology class…

A spot of cross-promotion: I posted my one hundredth daily image to chromalark today; head on over and check it out (or just look below):

Just a few days ago, I wondered out loud about why the Bush administration found it necessary to bypass the FISA court in the first place to wiretap international phone conversations. The Washington Post suggested that the administration was unable to meet the basic requirements necessary for applying for a FISA warrant: “to name a target and give a reason to spy on it”.

It now seems clear that this was indeed the problem. The New York Times reports that:

The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system’s main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

Several days ago, after listening to the administration’s defense of the wiretapping program, I reluctantly admitted that this scandal might fizzle because the administration’s actions might turn out to have been legal. Since then, though:

• Numerous knowledgeable Constitutional law authorities have opined that the legal defense offered by the administration is bunk
• As mentioned above, the administration’s claim that it monitored only communication involving suspected terrorists is very nearly a bald-faced lie. Even if they only monitored the contents of such communications, they engaged in vast traffic analysis without a warrant.
• The White House used the NSA to spy on UN ambassadors in the runup to the Iraq war
• It’s been pointed out that FISA has explicit provisions for wartime monitoring and that the White House chose to ignore them
• The administration may have decided to stop going to the FISA court simply because it was inconveniently modifying or even denying their warrant requests

So, I am now officially changing my stance: the NSA wiretapping authorizations are an egregious an indefensible violation of the law. Bush should be impeached.

Lest you think me a curmudgeon because of my last post, let me belatedly wish you and yours a happy Christmas / Holiday / Solstice / Pagan Sun-Worship season. May the new year bring us all peace.

Every year at Christmas, Chesty (who prefers to spend the holidays curled up with her Hanukkah bush) provides me with perspective about what it might be like to not be in the Christian majority around the holiday season. Even though I’m a godless humanist, I grew up with mostly Christian traditions, so Christmas seems very natural to me. If you think about it a little, though, you realize how strange this must seem if Christmas is not part of your cultural background. I like this quip from the Daily Show a year ago:

But really let’s face it, all other days bow down to the 25th: Christmas. It’s the only religious holiday that’s also a Federal holiday. That way Christians can go to their services and everyone else can stay home and reflect on the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

Now, the counterargument is that north of 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, so it only makes sense for it to be a public holiday. But this is where the rubber of Church-and-State separation meets the road of majority preference, isn’t it? O’Conner famously (I think) wrote in a Ten Commandments decision that “we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment”.

Should Christmas really be a federal holiday? How about Easter? Lent? Rosh Hashanah? Yom Kippur? Ramadan? Are we counting heads yet?

The House just passed a “defense” (warmaking) appropriations bill that includes $50 billion USD for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is just a stopgap funding measure until next year, when Congress is expected to shell out another $80 - $100 billion USD for the wars.

Call the 12-month funding that will be appropriated for the wars $150 billion USD. What could that buy? Well, I’m not sure if this is accurate, but this website’s figures imply that for that money, you could buy:

• A basic education for everyone in the world
• Water and sanitation for everyone in the world
• Reproductive health for all women in the world
• Basic health and nutrition for everyone in the world
• …and have $110 billion dollars left over

This is all a yearly cost; you would have to spend $40 billion each year to maintain these improvements. Maybe these figures are out of whack? Suppose it cost twice the $40 billion the site claims. $80 billion of spending is only slightly more than the Iraq war costs each year, at approximately $6 billion a month. Which would do the world more good?

Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress is showing some financial responsibility: to pay for the bombs, the appropriations bill eliminates $2 billion in “emergency aid for low-income families facing high heating bills this winter”. Whew.

One question that seems to be on everyone’s mind is, why did the Bush administration feel it necessary to bypass the FISA court, when it’s possible to retroactively get wiretap authorization (what could be more expedient?), and given the fact that the court has almost always granted government requests for wiretap warrants? An interesting Washington Post article offers a possible explanation:

In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

“For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,” said the official. “They couldn’t dream one up.”

The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites.

“There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it’s important to note the distinction between the two,” Bush said Monday.

I added the bold emphases.

This explanation makes sense to me, because until I read it, I was completely befuddled about why it’s a recurring talking point for McClellan and other White House spokesdroids to keep repeating the “there is a difference between detecting and monitoring” line. Back on Monday, McClellan said:

FISA was created for a different purpose in a different era. It was created back in 1978. It was created for a longer-term coverage or monitoring of agents of foreign governments in the U.S.

And since that time, there have been great advances in technology. There’s been a lot of new technology that’s been developed since that time. And FISA is an important tool. We use FISA. The President talked about that yesterday. But we need agility and speed. We need to be able to move quickly to detect and prevent attacks.
[...]
FISA is an important tool. We make use of FISA. But this is a difference between monitoring and detecting and preventing.

So, I guess “detection and prevention” is code for “sweeping surveillance of the population on the off chance that we hear something interesting”.

I have no idea how to write this without sounding overbearing, so please forgive any presumption. I have slowly discovered some useful rules of thumb for taking pictures of people, which I now offer to you to do with as you may.

• Use a longer lens: Peoples’ faces look better if their features are flattened a little by perspective compression. What this means in practice is that you should step back from your subject and “zoom in” if you have a zoom lens, or use a longer focal-length lens if you are using an SLR. People look their worst if you stand very close to them and wide-angle lens (”zoom out”). Doing this tends to make whichever part of the face is closer to the lens (usually the nose) look more bulbous and prominent, which is rarely flattering.
• Don’t aim your flash at people: Using your camera’s built-in flash indoors is very tempting, and lots of cameras will turn it on automatically. Unfortunately, people don’t tend to look good if they are lit by a flash aimed straight at them. If at all possible, take pictures of people under better light, such as next to a window, so you don’t have to use a flash. Failing that, consider investing in an external flash unit that you can aim at the ceiling instead (this is called “bouncing” the flash light).

That’s all for now.

Ryan Marie is two months old today and doing great. Here she is showing off her ability to sleep in pretty much any position:

Slate has a succinct summary of a Bush lie about wiretapping: in 2004, long after the warrantless NSA wiretaps were authorized by Presidential directive, he said, while talking about the Patriot act,

[A]ny time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Scott McClellan, Undertaker of the Truth, says that was only in reference to the Patriot Act. Slate snarkily summarizes:

In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn’t impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part.

Timmy the Human pointed me to this strange and disturbing slideshow from the New York Times’ “Style” section. It shows conspicuously fashionable people lounging in Aspen.

Why is it disturbing? Well, it’s got lots of strange juxtapositions, like:

Many Aspen homeowners live in Los Angeles, Chicago or New York. Richard and Debbie Jelinek, pictured standing by their outdoor swimming pool, which is heated to 88 degrees year-round, are real Aspenites.
[...]
‘‘My husband doesn’t really ski,’’ says Block, active in the International Medical Corps and the Every Child Foundation. He prefers a lunch reservation at the Little Nell, the deluxe hotel at the base of Aspen Mountain. Wendy Block wears a Chanel sweater, $945, denim trousers, $1,110, belt and leg warmers.
[...]
When it comes down to it, there is only one way to get to Aspen [that's by private jet]. ‘‘It is part of the lifestyle,’’ says Sanela Diana Jenkins, pictured at Aspen Airport. [...] Sanela Diana Jenkins wears a Rovalia mink poncho, $12,000. At J. Mendel boutiques. Missoni sunglasses. Louis Vuitton boots and bag (carried by pilot).

Carried by pilot? I’m not making this up: the woman in the $12k poncho is pictured with the “help”.

I can’t quite put my finger on why, exactly, I found this slideshow creepy. Maybe it’s the shadow of the one-half of the world population that lives on less than two dollars a day. For each of those three billion people, a $12k poncho represents sixteen years of living expenses.

Well, today’s the darkest day of the year, and you know what that means: it’s my birthday. Here’s a little graphic summing-up:

My prevailing feeling today is one of gratitude: my beautiful family and supportive friends give my life its color and texture. To everyone who has helped make my last three decades so enjoyable, thank you

Ryan loves her Moby Wrap, even though it makes her all folded up. Here I am with her having breakfast recently:

I’ve seen this point made in a couple of places now, including this rundown in Salon of Snoopgate: the FISA law has an explicit provision for “Authorization during time of war”:

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.

This is interesting because it makes it less plausible that the Congressional authorization to use force against al Qaeda can properly be understood to waive FISA’s surveillance restrictions. Since FISA has explicit provisions for its wartime applicability, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Congressional authorization for force conveyed no special surveillance authorization.

As much as it pains me to say this, the administration may be able to wriggle out of potential criminal charges stemming from the recent NSA domestic spying scandal. Attorney General Gonzales held a press conference at which he laid out the administration’s legal reasoning about the NSA wiretap authorizations. If I’m understanding it properly, he claims that:

• The FISA law prohibits wiretapping by intelligence agencies, except as per the FISA statute (which prescribes that warrants be sought from the FISA court), or if otherwise authorized by Congress
• Congress authorized the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against the perpetrators of 9/11 (now understood to be al Qaeda)
• The President authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps only when one party to the conversation is:
  • Outside the United States (which is probably irrelevant)
  • “[A] member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda”
• “Signals intelligence” has always been a vital aspect of warmaking, so the authorization to use force against al Qaeda must be understood to permit the President to engage in intercepts like this

Now, this claim can and should be vetted by the courts. The whole idea of a government of checks and balances is for there to be impartial review of this kind of stunt, with real consequences for people who break the law. Which is why Presidential condemnation for making these activities public is reprehensible.

All that being said, I’m no lawyer, but at first glance, it seems to me that this line of reasoning might just fly. We’ll have to see.

I stumbled across this piece being run as an op-ed in the LA Times. It’s written by Khaled El-Masri, the German citizen who was kidnapped by the CIA.

You should go read it to get the story straight from the horse’s mouth.

THE U.S. POLICY of “extraordinary rendition” has a human face, and it is mine.

I am still recovering from an experience that was completely beyond the pale, outside the bounds of any legal framework and unacceptable in any civilized society. Because I believe in the American system of justice, I sued George Tenet, the former CIA director, last week. What happened to me should never be allowed to happen again.

Here’s our illustrious leader explaining why he thought it OK to authorize the NSA to perform wiretaps within the United States without a court order:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA’s own records, it’s received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn’t be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different — a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we’re — people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they’re moving quick. And we’ve got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a — it requires quick action.

I have nothing to add.

This is kind of weird. When you board an airplane, the airline companies ask you for ID. Do you have to show ID? Well, the government claims you do, but that the law that compels you to show ID is secret. John Gilmore, a rich computer geek, is suing the administration to bring the issue to light. Oral arguments were heard in the 9th circuit this past 8th of December.

“How do we know there’s an order?” Judge Thomas Nelson asked. “Because you said there was?”

Replied Joshua Waldman, a staff attorney for the Department of Justice: “We couldn’t confirm or deny the existence of an order.” Even though government regulations required his silence, Waldman said, the situation did seem a “bit peculiar.”

Actor John Spencer, who played “Leo” on the West Wing, died suddenly on Friday of a heart attack. He was only 58.