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.

Comments

wait...

[Exiler]

I don't even get to see the black helicopters and they get to read my e-mail? Aww, not fair!

IS it a two way deal

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.'"

I think they probably mean all your data belong to us.

I doubt it would be a two way deal allowing teams of private "intelligence analysts" to search the governments databases.

I'd like to watch a thousand cable channels...

[Istealmymusic]

...but there's nothing on. And my high-speed connection's monitored daily by the Pentagon.

-- Bad Religion, The Defense

Bad Religion knew it all along. Listen to Bad Religion, and you'll be able to predict Slashdot's next article. Good luck, and may the force be with you.

Re:I'd like to watch a thousand cable channels...

[GreyWolf3000]

I'd agree with you, but these days it seems things have flip-flopped, and what's right is wrong and what's come has gone. I mean, can you find anything once clear and pure that these days isn't, well, so sure?

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)

Scary Quote from Article

[Maul]

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.

Re:Scary Quote from Article

[Imperial Tacohead]

I wouldn't be so sure. Private enterprises will surely object to the inconvenience, not to mention the huge potential for abuse; this is not to mention the fact that I'm sure many companies don't want it slipping out exactly what details of your life they know. For once the corruption of the government should work for us: lobbyists from major private firms will hopefully be enough to counterbalance the military's influence in this matter.

Re:Scary Quote from Article

[Katravax]

I have no doubt that Bush will persuade congress to give federal departments these powers.

I doubt Bush will have to try very hard. Congress seems fairly anxious to do things like this already.

Re:Scary Quote from Article

[dattaway]

Private enterprises will surely object to the inconvenience...

Two words: tax breaks.

Re:Scary Quote from Article

[Wyatt Earp]

That is a very simplistic view of the House and Senate.

From Jan 21st 1993 to Jan 8th 1995 the Senate and House were strongly Democrat and a Democrat was President.

The Clinton White House thought that they could run wild in 93-94 with control of both Congress and the White House.

It was very difficult, even with control of the Senate and House to accomplish anything.

Just because a Senator or Representative has a D or an R after thier name DOES NOT mean they will tow a party line.

Look at the Impeachment of Clinton, the Senate was in Republican control and they couldn't get the votes to find him guilty.

Many things in the Senate will take a 2/3rds Majority, which will mean getting 15 or more Democrats to vote thier way.

The House may come up with a Bill that the Senate just doesn't like, it's much harder to get the Senate to agree to a Bill than the House.

Senators are more elite than the Represenatives, even if that house has less power, and Senators are more likely to push thier State's view than a Representative, if you get someone like Hatch to oppose something, it won't pass.

Don't think for a second if the GOP control of both houses will make things a cake walk for the President from a Lawmaking point of view.

It will help with getting Judges and Justices appointed, but laws are another story.

You know...

[Teknogeek]

You could probably get unlimited power by hooking Orwell's grave up to a turbine nowdays.

Re:You know...

[G-funk]

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....

Re:You know...

[lostguy]

No explanation necessary. It looks as if you have a complete grasp of the subtleties of the American two-party political system. :-)

Poindexter?

[AndreAtlan]

wasnt this guy guilty in Iran-Contra?

Scary.

[torre]

Such pushes by Government scare me... Agencies like the CIA operate above the law that other agencies like the FBI have to follow... With know activities that would be considered criminal by other agencies, what locks are in place to prevent them from funding their crusade from selling off data that they've learnt?...

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.

Imagine

[Muggins the Mad]

Just think how much fun this would have been had it been possible during the commie hunting McCarthy era?

I'm wondering if the US is about to enter another one, except with "terrorists" instead of "commies".

With modern information databases, that can get very very scary indeed.

- Muggins the Mad

Re:Imagine

[Cyno01]

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.

Re:Imagine

[elmegil]

Just because there are real terrorists out there, and they did us real harm, doesn't mean that what Bush is doing right now isn't still witch hunting. He (along with his Attorney General, among others) is taking a national tragedy and cynically turning it into an excuse to gut the little bits of the bill of rights left. Oh, except for the right to bear arms. And probably they won't leave much of that around unless you meet a strict wasp pedigree.... And also using it as an excuse to justify any international aggression they might happen to want too. Afghanistan, protecting Bin Laden, was a legimate target. Iraq, who, if they really were this huge threat would have attacked us long ago, is not.

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.

Re:Imagine

[ajakk]

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

So we should be invading Iraq so we can stop a dictator from running roughshod other the rights of the poor of his country?

THe comparison to Germany is not appropriate. Unlike Poland, Iraq has agreed to a UN resolution that said they would unilatteraly disarm. Did they? No. So we have waited around for 10 years waiting for Iraq to live up to their agreements. How much longer should we wait around? Long enough for him to develop the weapons of mass destruction that he is legally bound to not possess.

If you think that we should not invade Iraq or not get the United Nations to unanomously agree to tell them they have one last chance to follow the UN resolutions, what should we do? I have heard many on the Left decry that the US is going alone, and now that the UN has passed a resolution, that the US controls the UN. I have yet hear what a comprehensive solution as to what should be done.

Re:Imagine

[aminorex]

> Today groups like Al Qaeda bomb buildings and take full responsibility for it.

Oh? When did Al Qaeda take responsibility for
the WTC implosions? Did I miss something?
I thought it was paid for by the Pakistani
intelligence service (the director of which wired
Mohammed Atta 100,000$ a week before, and then
went to the U.S. to meet with CIA and Senators
on the 11th of September, if the Washington Post
is to be believed).

As I recall, Tony Blair's dossier of "evidence"
presented to Parliament to justify the invasion
of Pipelineistan contained approximately NO
evidence of a connection between bin Laden and
the Saudi and Egyptian passengers who the FBI
claimed hijacked the planes on 2001/9/11.

Re:Imagine

[Jeremi]

Iraq IS a threat to world peace.

Which country is it again, that keeps threatening to invade if its demands aren't met? Who is a threat to world peace?

Re:Imagine

[Mac Degger]

Who cares who lit the fire? Bush has his Reichtag fire either way.

Re:Imagine

[sallen]

I'm not sure that's completely relavent. I wasn't following foreign policy very closely at the time, but i doubt Iraq entered into any cease-fires because they felt like it. If we are going to insist on writing whatever self-serving* rules we want, people will probably agree to play by them as long as we hold a gun to their head, but not much longer. We can come back with the gun 10 years later, but i think we'd be better off coming up with a set of rules that everybody agrees with.

It was a war. They lost big time. The cease fire isn't meant to come up with terms they both agree to, it's to come up with terms the world (it was UN decision) could live with vs. continuing to pummel Iraq and terms Iraq would agree to to keep from continuing to be pummeled. Iraq agreed with them, period. The lack of a cease fire would have simply meant Iraq would have had to completely and unilaterally surrender (which would have been preferable, IMHO). I really didn't see any need for this new UN stuff, they violated the cease fire.. as far as I'm concerned that means the 'war' from '91 was still on.

That being said, I don't think Poindexter belongs anywhere NEAR the government or holding any position within it. Period. Iran Contra should have sealed his fate. And this idea only seems to continue to highlight that he doesn't understand the military serves the civilian population. That's the reason the military is permitted no operational capabilities in the U.S. except under rare rare rare circumstances. And it should stay that way.

Re:This guy sounds like a real....

[Imperial Tacohead]

This guy still has a job? Wasn't he implicated in some Reagan scandals way back in the day? Shouldn't he have resigned in disgrace by now?

Alert: INCOMPLETE ARTICLE!

[xyzzy]

The original link cited in this article points to an truncated version of the original NYT story. For a more COMPLETE version, use this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09COM P. html

(it's more than twice as long, with much more information)

What ??

[Tensor]

Just how do they plan to identify these so called "Terrorists" of commercial databases ?

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 ... 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 ?)

C'mon ... 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

Re:Poindexter is no Poindexter

[packeteer]

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.

Somewhere in Maryland..

[Anonymous Coward]

...an NSA scientist ponders; "We need another one?"

Want to fight this? Support the EFF.

[updog]

From the EFF website:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was created to defend our rights to think, speak, and share our ideas, thoughts, and needs using new technologies, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web. EFF is the first to identify threats to our basic rights online and to advocate on behalf of free expression in the digital age.

Other than bitching about it on /., you can take action, and join this organization which will help fight against this type of privacy invasion.

Is this the same Poindexter that..

[GreyWolf3000]

..claimed that he was just doing the President's bidding at any cost during the hearings on the Iran-contra conflict?

I saw parts of this guy's testimony on Bill Moyers (yes, I watch PBS). Sounded like a total and complete criminal, especially with Bill Moyers' unforgiving yet true commentary.

Re:This guy sounds like a real....

[xyzzy]

Yes, Yes, No.

Poindexter was convicted during the Iran-Contra debacle. His conviction was overturned. Regardless, there's little reason any of that should preclude him from working in this area -- he has a PhD from Caltech, and has been working in the DARPA research arena for many years. He also has a deep understanding of the nature of intelligence gathering and what needs to be done to make it better.

I'll tell you what's so bad about this!

[samjam]

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

Re:I'll tell you what's so bad about this!

[samjam]

I'm fine too, cos I'm not any of the britons locked up in camp xray (yet).

You're fine cos you're not any of the americans locked up in camp xray yet either.

Doesn't lack of respect for due process scare you? Or won't you still know what such a thing is when you need it for you?

Are you making your country or just living in the one made by people who have more motiviation for making it than you do. Guess who your country will end up belonging to? hHose who make it what it will become.

Sam

Sam

Doesn't Anyone realize what's happening?

[ralphus]

Systems like this can be put in place now because the vast majority of sheep are willing to let them because it makes them feel safe from people with dark skin and beards and snipers. Maybe this will help crack down on terrorists. Of course it will because it is another step down the world to a 1984/Brave New Worldish police state.

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

Disturbing trend

[thasmudyan]

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.

Poindexter IS a convicted felon

[goombah99]

One of the sad ironies here is that poindexter was a convicted felon. (later pardoned I believe) He was the tip-top head of the IRAN contra scam during the reagan administration. (oliver north's boss who claimed he never informed ronnie about his activities). And of course what did he do in the reagan adminstration. Well for one he tried to destroy all the information linking him to the crime. Destruction of records is a crime. How did he get caught. He did not know the white house e-mail system had backups!

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....

Re:Poindexter IS a convicted felon

[goombah99]

You are sort of right. I went and looked it up. True his conviction was overturned on appeal. But the reason was not because he was innocent. Rather the grounds for overturning the conviction were that his testominy before congress had immunized him from prosecution. He is a convicted felon. He just had the conviction overturned but no one, no even poindexter or oliver north, denies he committed a felony.

Here's the problems ...

[SuperDuG]

While this may have good intentions behind it I keep remembering a quote that has stuch with me for some time.

'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.

Re:Poindexter is no Poindexter

[Moirke]

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.

The Pentagon wants MY secrets?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Really, with all the money they have, you'd think they could get their own pr0n. Hell, they could probably hire the actresses to come over and give all the generals a personal lapdance and/or BJ.

Re:Democracy is the Answer

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

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?

Re:what's so bad about this?

[phsolide]

the world needs to be rid of terrorist and I applaud the Pentagon's efforts in this war against terrorism

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.

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape."

-- Thomas Jefferson.

Checks and Balances?

[Alethes]

What are the odds that the Supreme Court would also let this go through if the other two branches managed to slide it through somehow? I don't know the answer, and I'm not naive enough to believe that it would be shot down with 100% guarantee, but I do believe that there are enough angles with which to attack this type of legislation that it would be very hard to have a package that matched up the Poindexter's liking.

Incidentally, any attempt to turn this into a some kind of anti-Republican rant will be easily refuted with the long list of politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle who favor a stronger government and weaker individual liberties.

Re:Checks and Balances?

[r2ravens]

We still have checks and balances, only in a different form. You write the check and we'll tip the balance in your favor. I don't think that's what the framers of the constitution had in mind.

No I don't

[jaaron]

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.

The next era

[dachshund]

Just think how much fun this would have been had it been possible during the commie hunting McCarthy era? I'm wondering if the US is about to enter another one, except with "terrorists" instead of "commies".

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.

Poindexter Biography shows he can do this

[goombah99]

Education Ph.D., Physics, California Institute of Technology, 1964
M.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, 1961
B.S., Engineering, U.S. Naval Academy, 1958 Experience Summary
Brings a unique blend of experience to problems from the highest levels of government to the laboratory. Demonstrated exceptional management and command ability ranging from naval operations to the national security of the United States. Noted for creative solutions to difficult issues and ability to quickly grasp the essence of new tasks. Goal oriented. Professional Background DARPA Information Awareness Office, Director 2002 - Present
The mission of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) is to imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components, and prototype closed-loop information systems that will counter asymmetric threats (most notably, terrorist threats) by achieving total information awareness: enabling preemption; national security warning; and, national security decision making.

SYNTEK Technologies, Senior Vice President 1996 - 2002
SYNTEK is a small high technology firm with contracts in domestic and international defense and commercial business. Poindexter was responsible for high-level advice on management and direction of information systems projects (for example Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's Project Genoa).

TP Systems, Inc., Co-founder 1990 - 1996
TP Systems was a software development firm specializing in commercial software for the IBM PC's and compatibles. Poindexter was the chief designer and programmer. Development included a symbolic debugger for multi-tasking environments, a BBS communications program plus numerous utility programs.

Elkins Group, Consultant 1993 - 1996
Elkins was a business alliance with Electronic Data Systems (EDS), has developed Elkins Interactive Training Network (EITN), a satellite based training delivery system that has world-wide marketing potential. Poindexter was the Chairman of the Maritime Advisory Committee and a member of the Board of Directors. He also provided advice on strategic planning.

Presearch, Inc., Senior Scientist 1988 - 1989 Presearch had primarily been involved with defense studies and analysis. Faced with anticipated defense budget reductions, Poindexter joined the firm to develop new

....
and so on. No where does he mention his crimes.

Re:Poindexter is no Poindexter

[packeteer]

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".

Re:what's so bad about this?

[Centinel]

here on slashdot, the pinko sympathizers will make some excuses for why this is a bad idea, but I believe their motives are only in bashing the great nation in the world.

So, if you are willing to stand up for the Bill of Rights--the 4th Amendment in this case--that makes you a pinko sympathizer?

People like you represent the rule of men, not the rule of law. I bet you couldn't even paraphrase the Bill of Rights in glowing generalities, let alone verbatim, and I would wager you've never even bothered to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Guess im scrwed

[nurb432]

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..

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.. /me waits on the black helicopters.. and wonders what happened to freedom.

What the traditional media seem to leave out...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the article:

But Poindexter, national security adviser in the Reagan administration,

later convicted for his role in the Iran-Contra diversion of monies and coverup. Poindexter's conviction was overturned on appeal -- but don't let that fool you into thinking the appeal court cleared him. Instead of dismissing the conviction, they ordered a new trial. Luckily for the Admiral, President Bush the First pardoned him, obviating the retrial.

This is the sort of shady character we want implementing any sort of information system?? Have we decided that the only way to beat felons, thugs, and barbarians is to hire some of our own?

darpa.mil/iao

[phyxeld]

I knew that name sounded familiar... Oh, thats it! He's the director of the I.A.O., or Information Awareness Office, the agency with the scariest name/logo combination in the entire pentagon! (shouldn't the be a link to the IAO along with this story? *ahem* update:)

Posse Comitatus Act

[Wyatt Earp]

This will violate the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html

Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both

Now if Congress allows this, it's perfectly legal. I doubt it will happen, there are some privacy activists in the Senate and House.

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles /T rebilcock.htm

"The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means "the power of the county," reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States."

http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html

Re:Alert: INCOMPLETE ARTICLE!

[elmegil]

Good. It's about time that real media started paying attention to this. Want to scare yourself silly? Check out the details of what Poindexter is working on at http://www.darpa.mil/iao/ (see link in my sig).

Almost

[dachshund]

One of the sad ironies here is that poindexter was a convicted felon. (later pardoned I believe)

In testimony before Congress, Poindexter took full responsibility for arranging the arms-for-hostages-and-funding-of-Rebels transactions that made up the core of the Iran Contra Affair. He also admitted that he had withheld information and outright lied to Congress in the past, and displayed no particular remorse for his actions.

He's free today because he was granted immunity for his testimony. Prosecutors tried and convicted him anyway, but he managed to have the conviction reversed upon appeal based on this immunity agreement.

I don't wish to libel the distinguished gentelman, so I'll phrase this delicately. Many people are of the opinion that Mr. Poindexter occupies a government office today solely because he demonstrated intense loyalty to President Reagan, essentially falling on his sword and lying to protect the President from being implicated. Although other individuals involved in the Scandal testified that they had notified the President of their activities, Poindexter contradicted them all. In his testimony, Poindexter claimed that he'd initiated those actions to give the President deniability (although why the President would need deniability for actions he didn't authorize struck many as unusual.) That such an extremely disciplined military man would take it upon himself to arrange these actions without the President's approval is almost beyond belief. But with noone to counter Poindexter's testimony, the President avoided impeachment, a fact that most certainly wasn't forgotten in certain circles.

So this is the man who now occupies this extremely sensitive position, and is essentially building the most sophisticated surveillance network ever unleashed upon the people of the United States.

Re:Poindexter?

[Wyatt Earp]

Yep.

http://www.solai.com/forum/articles/tnoah-1.html

Poindexter is a poindexter

[liquid-groove]

Vice Adm. John Poindexter's wife was my den mother for WEBELOS circa 1978. Prior to meeting the Poindexters I was a big scouting enthusiast. After being forced to spend time with those two, I was out of scouting forever.

Both Vice Adm. Poindexter and his horrible shrew of a wife are bland uninsightful drones. He has made a career out of mediocraty. Never willing to put himself or his career at risk for 'what's right', he's always done 'what's popular'. He is a perfect political animal.

Having many heros who served faithfully in the United States Navy, I am disgusted that this SOB has continued to hold positions of leadership in the modern Navy. I'm not sure how deep his level of involvement was with the Iran-Contra affair, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least to learn he lied and schemed to protect his own ass at the expense of honor and country. To beleive that he would head such a program and as the leader of the department have the integrity to protect the rights of Joe Citizen is something I can't even begin to imagine.

All your secrets are belong to us.

new legislation proposed?

[twitter]

To deploy such a system, known as Total Information Awareness, new legislation would be needed, some of which has been proposed by the Bush administration in the Homeland Security Act now before Congress. That legislation would amend the Privacy Act of 1974, which was intended to limit what government agencies could do with private information.

Privacy act, my ass. The new legislation required is a repeal or negation of the fouth amendment. There are many good reasons the government must obtain a warrent by presenting reasonable evidence of wrongdoing in a public court to be able to search your personal effects and property. The FBI just had two agents busted for manipulating stock prices with information they obtained "terrorist hunting." Am I now going to believe that Uncle Sam will keep all my data confidential when any old clerk can get at it thanks to these broken "stove pipes"? There's not supposed to be ANY connection between my information or my company's information and the governement. Yet here's this bozo saying "All your base are belong to Uncle Sam". Chalk one more up for the errosion of the bill of rights. People without rights, who are stripped of the fruits of their labor (think income taxes) are also known as slaves.

Folks like Poindexter make me worry that my own government might actually set off a few small nukes to get their way. George Orwell predicted nuclear and civil wars would bring on the hyseria to build his nightmare society. Where is the conclusive proof indicating exactly who was responsible for September 11th? Why have we not seen it all presented and well documented? I'm getting sick of "security reasons" being used as an excuse for people to do whatever they want with out accountability. I don't care if that idiot, Ossoma Bin Laden, was happy to claim guilt. There must have been 1,000 others happy to do the same. I want public proof and the guilty punnished, not scape goats, censorship and loss of rights.

Re:I'd say,,,

[Imperial Tacohead]

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.

there's suprises then stuff that isn't surprising

[zogger]

"They already exist. Financial institutions already are required to run their databases against the Office of Foriegn Asset Control's list of Specially Designated Nationals and groups, using soundex to look for aliases."

Uhh, that's cool. really. You do this all the time huh, and it's all on the up and up? cool. would you please to reveal the actual for-real names and addys of the people who knew about 9-11 ahead of time enough to put in all those "put options"? Ya know, one of those stories the mass media just seems to love to forget about and act like it never happened. The "magic bullet" of 9-11. Whoops, so sorry, I forgot we are supposed to forget that little detail. Oh what's that you say? Oh, the owner of the brokerage where the bulk of the puts were placed is the ex-#2 guy at the CIA? wow, whut_a_coincidence, I'm sure. Oh ya, excuse me, I thought we were looking for the al queda "terrorists" financiers and assorted hangers on. Connected fatcat western white guys in suits with titles don't count, do they? In fact, letting the cat outta the bag that they had a hand in it for a seriously dangerous political agenda, but got a little greedy and they thought they could slide by and skim a little off the top might be considered a "bad idea", correct? OK-We'll just forget about it then, it's just an embarrasing little incident. Nothing to see here now, move along.....

Re:Poindexter is no Poindexter

[libertarian]

Good points. (You probably enjoy Boortz and Hannity on the radio/web, yes?)

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 ...of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

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.

Yes, it's the Iran/Contra Poindexter

[Animats]

Yes, but he got off on appeal because Reagan refused to declassify some information needed for his defense.

See the Independent Counsel's Report on Iran-Contra: "Poindexter in April 1990 was convicted by a jury on five felony counts of conspiracy, false statements, destruction and removal of records and obstruction of Congress. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in November 1991 on the immunized testimony issue."

The White House has defended Poindexter's current role. When asked in a February 25 press conference about the new appointment, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, "Admiral Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military." He was then asked by veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas, "How can you say that, when he told Colonel [Oliver] North to lie?" Fleischer disagreed and said, "I understand. The president thinks that Admiral Poindexter has served our nation very well."

This is a real worry. It hasn't appeared much in the mainstream press, either.

Re:Yes, it's the Iran/Contra Poindexter

[Mac Degger]

Jesus. You people know your governemnt to be corrupt, and you're still not out marching? Wow.

Fairly easy to implement

[bytesmythe]

I used to work at a company that was involved in customer data mining. During orientation, they have someone come out whose job it is to convince all the new employees that the company is not evil and is providing a valuable service.

See, everyone in the room is freaked out when they learn the company has over 300 pieces of data (including things like name, SSN, birth date, address, marital status, kids, cars, salary, credit history, home value, pets, etc.) on over 150 million people in the United States. I watched a room full of people all look at each other with a slight amount of fear and uncertainty in their eyes. Then out came the propaganda machine to try to set us at ease.

Now, current law prohibits this company from using marketing data in any kind of legal procedings, but that could easily change. The company uses extremely complex algorithms to consolidate data from different sources (which source for birthdate should we believe? how about home value?) into a single record. Client companies (such as stores, banks, etc.) can then take their own customer databases and match them up with the huge store of information that my former employer could provide.

The government could easily have major companies (like banks, car dealers, mortgage companies, grocery stores, gas stations, utility companies, etc.) tie their customer databases to the "master" database my ex-company provided. Tracking the daily activities of almost any given individual from that point would be depressingly simple.

Just thought I should warn you.

By the way, last I heard when I was still working there, that company is the only consumer data tracking company allowed to combine disparate data sources into a single "view" of an individual. Normally datamining companies are legally barred from doing this. If they get a data element from a particular source, then they must sell ALL the data elements from that source together. The place I worked at began the process before the law took effect, so the company was grandfathered in, so they can take income from one place, name and SSN from another, address from yet another, etc.

Be afraid.

Carnivore, Son Of Carnivore and...

[NetGyver]

Don't forget about "Magic Lantern":

"Once installed, the Magic Lantern creates a record of every time you press a key on the computer. It's all saved in plain text, and during the FBI's next secret visit to your home or office, that information is downloaded as the agents also pick up whatever other records and papers they find of interest."

A good article about it here:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/hen toff.ph p

Is it just me, or has privacy gone to hell in a handbasket?

corp crooks

[natefanaro]

Don't you think it would be a lot easier, and more successful, to run large corporation's finances through an advanced version of turbotax to find corporate fraud?

Nah, you have your freedom

[extrasolar]

You're just being paranoid.

Terrorism is a real problem and if we can catch a few of them bastards in exchange for causing you to hallucinate black helicopters, then I'm all for it.

Now I know you're protective of your rights and we all should be. But there is always an exchange between a certain about of security and a certain amount of privacy and the question shouldn't be wholly one-sided, a proposition that seems to thrill the slashdot audience. We must ask where's the balance.

Now let me attempt to toss away the rubish and rhetoric so common to politics that throws around words like "freedom" as if they mean anything outside of context and spiffy quotes by gentlemen we admire and I'll attempt to enter the light of clear thinking. To you and each one of you "freedom" seems synonymous with distrust or, even worse, you forget you are speaking about people altogether. That every three-letter acronym in the USA is run by our government which in turn are elected by us Americans and this must position some trust on their behalf. That the professionals that we, in effect, hire may be trusted and at some level are trying to do their jobs well and care about what they do enough to do a good job of it. Don't you think recent troubles with terrorism weigh more heavily on them than anyone else?

Otherwise, read my sig and take to heart. And let me know when the black helicopters come your way.

Re:Nah, you have your freedom

[Mac Degger]

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.

1984 and nuclear war

[twitter]

Your memory is incorrect. 1984 describes hundreds of nukes dropped in Europe in the wars before the establishment of the final superpowers. After the establishment, those powers build and sit on those nukes but never use them because they know that invasion is impossible and unnecesary. Their goal in warfare is to waste resources.

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.

Cryptome has a link as well

[Irvu]

see here