"we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses...have been similarly targeted."

"Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists"

"Third, as part of this investigation ... we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties"

it doesn't sound like the officer did anything more than ask for identification and turned loose those that were able to produce valid ID.

IANAL but I don't think it is actually against the law to fail (or even refuse) to show I.D. Of course in our modern police state, that may end you in a world of trouble you don't feel like dealing with, and having to fight your case in court, like this guy who went all the way to the Supreme Court:

The court took up the appeal of a Nevada cattle rancher who was arrested after he told a sheriff's deputy that he had done nothing wrong and did not have to reveal his name or show identification during an encounter on a rural road four years ago...

A deputy, who was called to the scene because of a complaint about arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in the truck, asked Hiibel 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4580000/

Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey said Obama's presidency has been a failure so far, while 47 percent of respondents said the year has been a success.  The poll's release came just eight days before Obama marks one year in the White House.

The survey indicated that Obama's approval rating as president stands at 51 percent, down 3 points from last month, with 48 percent disapproving, up 4 points from December. . . .

"Only 44 percent approve of how Obama is handling the economy; just four in 10 give him a thumbs-up on health care, and his approval rating on the federal deficit has plunged to 36 percent. Those are three of the four most important issues on the public's mind today," [the report] said.

This is more bad news for Coakley as she can't even answer a basic question about why she gave such a stupid answer during the debate.

Right. So, just so we're clear, Harold Ford: you want to run for office in New York. You want people in New York to vote for you. Democrats in New York are the people you are trying to appeal to. And, when asked if you prefer the Giants or the Jets, your answer is that you're better friends with the Tisches than with Woody Johnson, so Giants...? That is an insane answer. That is the answer of a man who has not left his bubble of town cars-to-MSNBC and billionaire Democratic donor friends for six years. Harold: name the quarterbacks, not the owners.

Sad news. Every one of his movies I've seen was an exquisite jewel, sad and funny and deceptively simple, always beautifully shot in a beautiful location.

For anyone who isn't familiar with his films, I highly recommend "Le Beau Mariage" (don't remember the English title) and "Pauline at the Beach."

A nice appreciation in Time Out: