The Chinese government is going to listen to internet and audio traffic during the Olympics, and whatever they cull will be theirs for the listening. And the Chinese government tells the Chinese hotel operators to make sure the customers know this.

Who thinks this is more objectionable than the US government routing all internet communications through a room in San Francisco -- without putting an insert into the AT&T bills, without passing a law authorizing this, and with the President denying illegal eavesdropping under a system which, at least as written down for public disclosure, features a Fourth Amendment generally understood to ban unlawful searches and a Federal law that at least said it was a felony to do that?

In America, even now, it is understood that an employer may regulate internet usage in the workplace and it is common for an employer to tell an employee they have "no expectation of privacy" in internet communications. The defining issue is when somebody does have such an "expectation of privacy" that there is a greater concern for "privacy".

So China says "no expectation of privacy here" and makes sure this message is disseminated by the hoteliers. The US government repeats this in travel advisories.

Whatever one may think about the Chinese policy, at least it is honest. Anyone consider US policy under Bush to be entitled to the same respect? Here, our government hides what it is doing, denies what it did, and then immunizes those who may have helped and helped to hide it. The US government has little to criticize in what China is doing, it would seem. Indeed, why aren't the same legislators who voted for telecom immunity just saying "if you aren't doing anything wrong in your communications from China, what will you have to worry about?"

I may have missed it, there have only been three bilion posts here since Friday, but...

Putting to one side, momentarily, all the other intriguing unanswered questions, I have this one:

Did the FBI ask Ross to identify who supposedly told him that there was bentonite in the anthrax?

I see where Ross asked the FBI to "release" him from a "confidentiality" pledge regarding Hatfill, but that appears to involve the suspicions over Hatfill. I see where the FBI has been so very diligent in its "investigation". I also certainly see where the false information provided to ABC News about a supposed "bentonite/Iraq link" was as, if not more, disastrous for the United States than even the anthrax attacks themselves were.

So does Ross contend that he has refused to disclose the "sources" of the bentonite lie even when requested to do so by the United States government during the "official" investigation? GG's initial post here actually says only that ABC News is continuing not to disclose the answer, and rightly points out that whoever said this to Ross was not a "source" so much as a criminal [fraudulent propagandist?].

And if Ross has never been asked, by the FBI or other government investigators, what four (four?) "informed government sources" told him there was bentonite in this anthrax, suggesting Iraqi origin, why not? Not interested in knowing the answer to this? Maybe they can mention the answer to the "bentonite lie" when they give their "closing briefing" in the Ivins matter?

If I missed this information, sorry.