Slashdot Mirror
The Pentagon Wants Your Secrets
Teknogeek was one of the many readers to point out today's New York Times report on what one submitter dubbed "Son of Carnivore." "This should scare you: Vice Admiral John Poindexter wants to create a supercomputer capable of hunting through electronic databases all over the world, looking for suspected terrorists. According to the article, Poindexter outlines a need to '"break down the stovepipes' that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.'" Update: 11/10 16:15 GMT by T : Here's an updated link to the (no-registration) Arizona Star. Update: 11/24 17:42 GMT by T : Thanks to expiring links, here's another updated link to the NYTimes story.
But Poindexter, national security adviser in the Reagan administration, has said the government needs broad new powers to process, store and mine billions of electronic details of life in the United States.
I have no doubt that Bush will persuade congress to give federal departments these powers.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
When you operate above the law, there's really nothing stopping you, except from being giving the privilage in the first place.
just my 2cents.
Just how do they plan to identify these so called "Terrorists" of commercial databases ?
... what do they think terrorists do ? use the internet for their purchases ? that Al Quaeda has an online site where they secretly login by clinking on the left nipple of a certain pic in a porn site ? (and if they did, do they think they'll be able to access that db with this computer ?)
... stop invading the whole world's privacy just on the slim chance that you may catch an amateur discomformist doing stupid things, Cos this is surely NOT the way to catch real ones
How can you possibly identify terrorists by searching thru say, Amazon purchases or ubid or ebay ?
If you bought a 101 explosives book, and purchased some potassium chlorate from ebay you are surely on their list, but c'mon
C'mon
They want to look at seemingly "normal" people and see if there is a realtion to "known terrorists". Sounds about the same as seeing if normal people have been conversing with "known communists". They want to be able to setup a database that can flag all "non-normal" activity. Non normal activity is what life is about. I dont want to think that if i dont show up to my 9-5 job on time and get married by the time im 28 and own 1.75 SUV's im flagges as possible terrorist.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Seeing how the US treats mere suspects of terrorism in Cuba, seeing what little respect the US has for due process, I don't think they should be given more help in suspecting people.
They're so busy looking for some reason to suspect it won't take much for person X to paint person Y bad enough to have them carted off.
Sound like East Germany, Russia?
Capitalism is the new communism, all subcontracted out for profit.
Free America is the new oppressive prison state, it's big and you are not encouraged to see the walls.
Hope you are comfy.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Once systems like this are in place and capture a few terrorists, why not use them to nab dead beat dads, or to make sure that your parking tickets are paid, or better yet, introduce some statistical programs to raise little red flags at the pentagon whenever certain triggers are tripped.
I can see it now, subject buys copy of Mein Kampf, visits a Nazi website, and in come the agents to find a 18 year old writing a history freshman paper.
But what do YOU have to worry about? you aren't hiding anything, ARE YOU?
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away... --Dave Mustaine
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Of course this goes far beyond terrorist hunting. Data mining like that would only be the logical consequence of events that have been taken place in legislature and executive for many months now. The outcome of those efforts would be the proverbial "glass citizen" who makes no move without being thoroughly profiled. The government (and the big corporations if you like) know more about the Glass Citizen's state of mind than he himself. Every little crime or disobedience will be found and punished. Science fiction yesterday, hard reality today (and cheered by the masses, too).
Only in the real 1984 almost everyone enjoys being big brothered like that. Everyone cheering the government on should think about the fact that terrorists (short of a grand nuclear attack) have a minimal actual physical effect on the population (speaking of cold hard percent figures). The damage they do results not from the deaths they leave behind but from the fear they create. And this damage has been immense in the US. It is due to that damage, that we allow our government to watch and eventually control us like that. Those terrorists have been incredibly successfull.
Our only consolation is that if this Poindexter fellow, and the whole totalitarian government in place these days came to conquer us, then while they may be king for a day, they too will deteriorate and quickly fade away.
Of course, here on Slashdot, our 21st Century digital boys will cheerlead the front against tyranny, but will rarely lend a helping hand except to mirror a /.ed site off their parent's cable line.
Wake up to New America, people! Forget your mass hysteria!
(I'm not mocking them either--Greg Graffin is really on top of his ballgame)
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Since he was released from his sentence, Poindexter has been working in private industry for a military consulting firm on EXACTLY the technology being proposed here. Setting aside the ethics of using your position to bebefit your former employer, is poindexter the man to decide what to do?
if we take admiral P at his word, that he never told ronny he was commiting crimes then we know he's a yahoo that cant be trusted to follow orders, laws or safegaurds on private information.
This is in keeping with the Bush admin's policy of appointing inappropriate people.
Sec DOE: Abrahams, only former experience was proposing in congress to eleminate the DOE.
Sec Interior: Gail norton, fromer mining industry lobbist
SEC head: former lobiest/lawyer for big 5 accounting firms.
Sec EPA: Christie Whitman, former govenor of NJ, reportedly accepts donations for chem industry.
Sec Labor: Can you even name the sec labor, do we still have one?
Sec Army: Former Enron top official, accepts free ski vacations from ENRON, then proposes to outsource the Utilities on Military bases to enron.
and so on....
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
'The road to hell is paved in good intentions.'
The problem with these programs is that they open up a large possibility of abuse. I do think that if the government wants to enact these decisions there should be a way to invoke a "Right to privacy" act. And making it only possible to supercede such an act would have to be okayed by a judge. That way if you don't want your porn memberships to be public knowledge they don't have to be.
I say let the government do what they want, god knows they will anyways, but create a new "Citizens of Patriotism Act" protecting the right to privacy and safety.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
As I cans see it there are only two possibilities:
1) The people in control of our National Security here in the United States are absolute morons. They believe this technology will help the catch terrorists because they think terrorist groups make travel arrangements through priceline.com.
2) They believe that the American people are absolute morons. They know this technology will not help at all in fighting terrorism. They just see it as an opportunity to invade their citizens privacy and think the average American will fall for the "war on terror" argument.
I am not sure which I am more scared of.
Well, I'm in the military and have been a US Marine for over seven years. Neither I or anybody I have known in the US military want to remove anybody's civil liberties. Just because some old admiral is spouting off about what he'd like to do doesn't mean the US military wants to take away civil liberties. The US military is made up of US citizens that grew up next door to you. Normal people. No one I know owns a black helicopter or pilots one. Anywa, what does "proceduralise" mean?
This guy is way out there
There's more than one problem here. First, who gets to define "terrorist"? One man's freedom figher is another man's terrorist. Find out what Reagan had to say about the Mujahadeen in the 80s, then think about what Bush said about the Taliban (one of the components of the Mujahadeen) in 2001.
Second "the Pentagon" is nominally prevented from law enforcement. If "the Pentagon" goes trawling for terrorists in the US civilian population a principle that has served the US very well goes by the wayside: the military and the navy get used against US citizens. The old USSR shows us the dangers of that path.
Thirdly, we risk a new McCarthyism: do we really want to reinstate guilt by association? There's an extra danger in what Poindexter proposes, too. Do we want the association made by buggy computer programs?
Fouth, we risk giving up an almost sacred principle, that of due process.
-- Thomas Jefferson.Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I demand the Government stop all future terrorist attacks,
Actually, no I don't. I don't demand the government stop all terrorism. I don't demand the government stop all crime. I don't demand the government stop all war. I don't demand the government try to make life fair and perfect because the ONLY way that would happen is if the government could somehow minutely control every action of every citizen. I prefer NOT to live in such a police state.
Somehow, somewhere, someone thought that we should have both freedom and life should be fair. I'm sorry, but you have to pick one of the two and personally, I would rather have freedom, even if it means freedom for some idiot to shoot me. And I am perfectly willing to accept the consequences of freedom and not complain about it. Freedom means things won't be fair. Freedom means there will be abuses of rights and atrocities. However, I think the greater atrocity would be to live in a "safe" society where freedom is replaced by control. That's the only way the government could stop all terrorism or whatever other vice you pick.
That said, there should always be a balance between freedom and the stability that 'fairness' or 'security' brings. Choosing that balance is not trivial. However, just because you don't mind an instrusive government "protecting" you from terrorism doesn't mean others would rather risk violence in order to perserve certain freedoms.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
It doesn't matter if we're about to enter such an era. The next round of government paranoia an abuse could even be decades off. But once we have systems like this in place and accepted as a legitimate tool of government, the key ingredients will be ready and waiting for the proper catalyst.
Ok i dont know if your trolling as the devil advocate or you really believe this BS but let me explain. We cannot live in a free society where the government suspects of things we dont do.
First of all we have the right to privacy. The constitution never says directly that we have this right but the supreme court has made it clear, to have all of our other rights to speech as well as other we must have privacy.
Because we have the right to privacy we should be able to exercise our right and be able to actually keep some privacy. Exercising your rights is not groudns for probably cause, that has been defended over and over again up to the Supreme Court.
I do care if they flag me as a terrorist. Even though i also have no intention of becoming a terrorist who knows what will be defined as terrorism. Read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, he explains that going against the goverment is patriotism at its best and only when you stand up for yourself even while encarcerated you will be more free than any iron bars can ever lock down. Civil Disobediance open with a quote and i will end with it; "That government is best which governs least".
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Lets see, Im a member of the NRA, i bought a book on survival techniques ( im a camper ), involved in an 'alternative energy' news group, and i downloaded a file via P2P..
/me waits on the black helicopters.. and wonders what happened to freedom.
Currently all legal activites, but depending on how they 'search' it comes up ' potential terrorist' and i get investigated. with no true probable cause.
Guess that puts me in the wrong catagory..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The current state of affairs in our county seems to me like a cross between the McCarthy era and pre-WWII germany. Mostly our witch hunts for terrorists and our plans to 'Preemtivly Strike' nations that pose no real threat to us *cough*Poland*cough*Iraq*cough*. Nowadays it seems Terrorists instead of Communists and Muslims instead of Jews. Same situations, different scapegoats. I really have to wonder if the rest of the world sees the US as we did Nazi-Germany in the late 30s/early 40s, a powerful expanding force that needs to be stopped. Makes ya wonder if we're leading ourselves down the path to WWIII, only this time we'll be the bad guys.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Yep.
l
http://www.solai.com/forum/articles/tnoah-1.htm
I think the comparison to Germany is quite appropriate. Instead of actually talking about the real reasons such deranged terrorists are targeting us (among other things, the fact that we let dictators and multinationals run roughshod over the rights of the poor of other countries without doing anything to help achieve real justice, and in many cases with active complicity in the crimes), our boy George spends all of his time waxing eloquent about how they're evil and jealous of our success. Talk about no sense of reality.
Does that mean I think the terrorists were justified? Hell fucking no. Does it mean that I think there are real reasons that they use to justify their unjustifiable actions, reasons which we could actually do something about? Hell yes. And I'm really angry to see our President have his head so far up his ass as to appoint a convicted felon to attack MY privacy in the name of his witch hunt.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Indeed, the convictions were overturned by a court of law; however, the source that you cite would seem to indicate that they were overturned not because he wasn't guilty of the crimes, but rather based on the debatable premise that immunized testimony he gave to Congress concerning Iran-Contra was used against him during trial.
It's also worth noting that, during said trial, his defense was essentially based upon the claim that he lied to Congress: he had claimed full responsibility for Iran-Contra before Congress, claiming that he had deliberately kept the president in the dark about his activities, while during trial he declared that he was innocent because he was just following the orders of the commander-in-chief. Either he lied to the court or he lied to Congress; neither possibility makes him seem particularly trustworthy. Regardless of his intelligence or experience, this is the sort of man that we really ought to be trying to keep out of the halls of power. At least, it seems so to me.
This may be obvious to most americans, but I'm wondering if somebody can explain the whole democrat/republican thing to an outsider? To me, there's no difference, and either one is just trampling on whomever they feel they need to in order to keep votes from the mob, and the differences are only in what the mob thinks at the time....
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Good points. (You probably enjoy Boortz and Hannity on the radio/web, yes?)
...of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Regarding privacy, it's not explicit, but is covered somewhat by "unreasonable searches and seizures" in IV, "deprived of life, liberty..." in V, and most importantly in IX:
"The enumeration
Even if I don't like the other potential drivel the courts might spout, I'll gladly take an "interpretation" that provides a precedent for a right to reasonable privacy.
No explanation necessary. It looks as if you have a complete grasp of the subtleties of the American two-party political system. :-)
Which country is it again, that keeps threatening to invade if its demands aren't met? Who is a threat to world peace?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Who cares who lit the fire? Bush has his Reichtag fire either way.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The big problem here is that your gevernment agencies have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. That's the whole point of having checks and balances. That's why they exist; because your founding fathers understood that power corrupts.
Point being: to live in a free country, you will have to accept a few deaths you couldn't prevent because of the protection a free country garanties. The only way to prevent those deaths is by putting in place systems which deny you your rights. As they say, freedom does have it's price.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The party goal was perpetual and absolute power maintianed by constant vigilence of thought word and deed of citizens, fear intimidation, hatred of the enemy, distrust of all but the party, and distruction of all emotion and loyalties exept towards the state. The Soviet Union came close to this ideal, but failed to develop the needed technology in time and failed to keep their subject from knowing that other societies had relatively better standards of living.
The remaining superpowers will take advantage of such technology as they can. Orwell bassed his predictions on carful study of human behavior exibited in India, UK, Spain and elsewhere. It is this nature he bassed his predictions on, not the technology. When the technology becomes available, it will be abused. That such abuses can openly be considered in the United States by high government officials and researchers is a tremendous blow to anyone who would argue that the US has special laws or attitudes that will protect us from human nature and Orwell's nighmare. The only thing that made the US any different was a relatively limitless frontier. Without such a frontier, the world will fall back to it's usual ways. With new technology, those ways will be more oppresive than you or I can really imagine.
Orwell also predicted that the superpowers would routinely bomb (non nuclear) their own population to maintain their hyseria. Indeed people do that kind of thing.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.