Slashdot Mirror
Keeping An Eye On Total Information Awareness
mesozoic writes "Wired is running a story about hackers publishing John Poindexter's personal information (like satellite photos of his home) to protest the proposed Total Information Awareness system. This is just too funny, and it may even raise a few more eyebrows among the national media."
Noone here said he has broken any laws (which, as far as I know, is not as clear though). But I haven't either - still my record is/will be searched and is/will be available for many people who I don't like to have my records.
So why not make Poindexter's records available too?
No, he's a member of the ruling elite. Do you not understand what a Plutocracy is yet?
That was classic intercourse!
and one that illustrates the point excellently.
:/
it's particularly encouraging that the press don't seem to be universally attacking the stunts as well.
it staggers me that people don't immediately start shouting "1984!!" when this sort of thing is suggested. im also a bit disappointed that clinton is a supporter, i thought he was a bit more libertarian than that
What qualifies "future criminals"? I mean if you know they're going to be criminals soon... why not just go out and get 'em.
And remember, shoot first, ask later!
Hey now... and I thought he had nothing to hide. Well, himself, I guess.
----- Wtcher Dragon, UDIC
In that case, everyone involved in the phone listing, record keeping, and such, is a criminal. As pointed out in the article, the reporter mainly collected publicy available data.... I don't see how he can possibly be tagged as criminal for that...
TIA would even be worse, since it'd collect non-public data as well.
Tsuyoikoto ha taisetsu da ne, dakedo namida mo hitsuyousa (Strength is an important thing, but tears too are necessary)
...is good for gander. Nice little article, I really hope this little skit achieves what it sets out to do and doesn't end up off course, as so many of these good intentions do.
Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
I agree, this is so Orwellian. Wasting a unholy ammount of money, to filter a few bad people. Give them another black hole to filter money to politicans, ya thats the ticket.
I sometimes think, that our goverment has opened the doors to the world, not for cheep labor, not because of humanity, but to delute the mass of people who have voices and care about where they live. That gives them a agenda, a reason to clatter the sabers, and let you know how they are going to spend BILLIONS in finding the bad guys they let in. Oh ya, and help their buddies become rich. Why should they care, work two years, and get full pay for life.
I suggest you talk to your VOTING friends, parents, and anybody who will lend a ear, that this is a BAD thing. Its hit the papers here in Dallas, so it makes a nice conversation topic. Actually it helps having a known criminal working on it. Makes the whole administration look bad for supporting the idea.
Yes, exactly. Poindexter is a criminal -- no, wait a minute, he isn't, because he was declared not to be! Similarly, the people who collected and disseminated the information (whom Wired calls "online pranksters," but whom the spookocracy will call "hacker pirate terrorists") aren't criminals -- until they are declared to be. This has nothing to do with law as rational people understand the concept (you know, a nation of laws and not of men, the majesty of the law, equal protection before the law, all that) and everything to do with raw power.
...
In 1776, the American Revolution began with Americans declaring they would no longer be subjects of the King. In 1865, the Revolution ended with the final defeat of aristocracy on American soil. In 2001, the counter-revolution began; it is now coming to fruition. It took us a little longer than France or Russia, but the end may well be the same
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Using such playground language only serves to paint Gilmore as some juvenile lefty-crank. Gilmore's article would have greater impact if he chose to speak plainly and coolly in an adult voice.
We know he's emotional about this issue, but take a few deep breaths, set the emotion aside, gather your thoughts and express them rationally and clearly. There are far too many of us on this side given to tantrums and rants.
To be honest, It is way too late to stop this admin. The critical time was shortly after 9/11.There was enough of a scare about 9/11 and anthrax (which the admin did a number of lies on), that this admin has been able to remove the normal public oversight and religate it to the politicians. So everybody went for an impossible security from terrorist and have now set us up for terrorism from our own government. Keep in mind, that for a long time, admins. have hidden what goes on by keeping it out in the open and changing the verbage on it. I was into, supposedly, a bio. defense project at a university back in the early 80's. As time went on, we were instructed by the DoD to make changes to what and how we did. It became apparent over time, that we were not working on defense, but offense. Yet, it was out in the open and appeared defensive. BTW, that is the reason why the US has pushed the UN inspectors hard in Iraq to fully inspect the universities.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Quote from DARPA: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists - and decipher their plans - and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
What a load of bull*. Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Risk implies trust. If our government doesn't trust us, can we trust it? If we do, how much freedom are we risking, and for what?
I think those are significant questions that should be answered, probably in exhaustive detail. But appearently questioning the people who answer to you is offically unamerican (if the insipid talking heads are to be believed). It's vaguely reminiscent of that old McCarthy news reel footage in a way. Which is why I'm not worried. How'd that end up? McCarthy is an american villain, poor ol' J Edgar a joke, MLK a canonized hero Ali a living legend. When the executive branch has detailed records of Justice Thomas's prefered Long Dong Silver rentals, who's knows what kind of civil liberties crusader he'll turn into. He may even regain his powers of speech.
Among other things, Poindexter violated his officers loyalty oath, and helped make it possible for Osama to get some of those Stinger missles. Hardly a saint. He and Ollie, by all rights, should be fighting wild dogs for scraps of meat in urine soaked alleys, but not enough oral sex was involved to warrent much investigation.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
All the information quoted in the article that people have dug up is publicly available anyway. If you want to make anyone's life a misery, get their phone number, publish it, post their address - and make sure to target geeks who think it's all very funny, so they'll get signed up for lots of mailings and badgered with phone calls. In cases like spamming the spammer, it's funny and appropriate. In cases like information awareness, making his address public is one step - harrassing him using those details is another thing entirely.
I mean, come on, they have access to all your information in case of need anyway. They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time? You think they're going to find it funny that you rent a pron video of animal action once a month? They're not even going to care... the local store clerk has far more chance of finding it funny. Having information accessible to governments is not a problem unless you're naughty.
If you seriously think that a central repository of information about you is so much worse than the chance of it doing good by catching criminals or terrorists, I personally think you're a dumbass. You think they're even going to look at your records unless the computer highlights something dodgy? You think that your credit card information will be published online for anyone to google? Yah.
If you don't trust those people who'll be working with the information, do something about it - lobby for better selection procedures, vote for someone else. If you think harassing somebody who rightly thinks it's a good anti-crime system is a good way of preventing the system occuring, ask yourself - who's it going to help?
This continuing story is based very little on fact, and mostly on emotions. Here are two of the points that I think cause some of the anger and confusion:
/. would argue that fighting terrorism is a bad thing. The policy aspect determines *what* information would go into the system. It would be totally determined by law, and like any law of this nature (IMHO) we citizens could (and should!) oppose ones that sacrifice our hard-won personal freedoms. This guy said it better:
1. The TIA system *could* be applied to personal information.
2. Poindexter is an unliked former government official with a criminal record.
Regarding 1, what people are missing is that there are two aspects (at least with respet to this program) of developing software: technology and policy. With TIA, the technology is mining large quantities of *some* data to find patterns to help stop terrorists. I don't think many on
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Regarding 2, Poindexter was probably a great choice for the technical development of the program (he's really smart), but in hindsight a bad choice for personal reasons.
So what can we as software developers do? I think we have a duty to do what we can to ensure our programs are used correctly. Should people who do research into data mining stop because it might be used against innocents? No - someone else *will* develop the program, and they might not care about personal freedom implications. In the case of data mining, we should do as much to make the programs smart enough to limit (as much as possible) their inappropriate application to innocents. A few ideas: ensure that the program tells users when they are returning results that aren't valid, when they are being applied incorrectly, etc. But ultimately we cannot control how our work is applied - it's like developing any powerful technology such as, say, a web authoring tool - yes you can use it to promote hatred, tell how to bomb your local clinic, or publish my personal phone number and pictures of my house because you don't like me.
Just trying to present a bit of balance...
How come this is titled "Impossible socialist dream"? My country is socialist and yet nobody has proposed something this stupid, and we ranked nr. 1 in freedom last year.
"If you need a police state to enforce your laws, then your laws are wrong."
-- dunno where I read that.
Software Wars
What?
Correct me if I'm wrong (note: I am not a lawyer, nor a US citizen, my judgement may be off).But if he was *convicted*, then he was found guilty... so he's a criminal.
If, later, he was pardoned, doesn't that just mean that the king ^H^H^H^H president decided he'd suffered enough and should be let free?
If new evidence proving innocence had come to light, surely he shold be retried and found innocent, then be paid compensation?
It may be cheesy and sophomoric, but it works.
He is a fuckin' ratfink. Actually, I think the word 'fink' needs to be broadly applied to all of America's current ruling aristocracy.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
After all, you voted these jackasses in when you voted for a demopublican or a republicrat.
I guess a few of you voted Libertarian, and thus can't be blamed, but the rest of you made your bed - now lie in it.
Lets say someone kills someone else with a gun. The act of killing can be judged based on many factors (although it is my opinion that it's easier to prove that any killing is in some way bad rather than that any killing is in some way good.) The act of being killed can also be judged, but only weakly ... what if the person killed ran in front of an operating machine gun?
But the gun ... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
The sarcastic asshole liberal would also like to add, "I'm sure this is what you explained."
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time?
That is the whole point! Yes the FBI can get this information, but first they have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that you are breaking the law. They can't just walk down the hallway and say, give me everything on X and don't ask why.
The US Constitution and laws are built this way for a reason. There is a whole system of Checks and Balances to help prevent misuse of power. To prevent, specifically, the tyranny the colonies were living with under the English rule. How have those goals to prevent tyranny changed in 200 years?
That haven't; some politicians have just forgotten why the country was formed.
Come on everyone, this whole post is basic 9th grade civics.
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
The next addition (if it's not part already) of TIA will be keeping track of who accesses public databases looking for information about public figures.
Remember our good friend Henry Kissinger? He just resigned from the non-partisan committee to investigate September 11, and changed his answering machine message because of all the flak over having a war criminal and cover-up artist in charge of the most sensitive piece of police work going on right now. I'm sure he's in favor of locking up people who look for his personal info... or at least overthrowing their democratically elected leaders and installing a dictator who will kill them anyway.
(aside: I can't stop laughing at this one joke on the most recent page of Get Your War On -- When Kissinger signs a government paycheck, does he use a ballpoint pen, or the bloody, severed limb of an East Timorese child?)
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
I may be off base here, but every time I see what is effectively a "There will be too much data for them to abuse (or attack one person)" I think the following:
That sounds, and is, silly; you only need to use a small part of the border to cross illegally. I think the "too much data" argument is equally silly. You don't need to use all of the data provided to perform illegal actions, just a small part of it. Similarly, adding a bunch of noise won't prevent someone from being persecuted because they emailed the same phrase as a joke.
Putting data into one place is dangerous, period.
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
Good post. As a non-American and a regular basher of the American administration, I'd like to add one additional thing loudly and clearly right now:
I don't hate America. I actually rather admire it, and the principles upon which it was founded. The disjunct between principles and practice is one of the prime factors in why America is subject to more criticism than another country which has never aspired to those goals.
I wish you well - America has wandered into a true crisis within the past few years (although in retrospect the seeds can be seen germinating as far back as the Nixon and before). I really hope the forces of good triumph for all of our sakes.
Well, Poindexter doesn't seem to have been disadvantaged by his criminal past.
Notice how police state uses a police force to exercise repression- a non-police state will use a police force to maintain its citizen's freedom.
They can do this. You are correct. But this requires concent of something called a "judge". I like to think of this "judge" as an impartial third party with little interest besides the law. Under the TIA, they won't need a judge, they can just access all your information and profile you.
Ok... let's throw up a for instance. You make a large cash withdrawl to loan a friend money for rent. You have to do this every couple of months he's kind of down on his luck. Now you go to the book store to purchase a book for your English class, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. A couple months later you move to Chicago, so you buy a one way plane ticket. No big deal, you are not doing anything wrong.
Now, do the same things, for the same reasons, being a 26 year old Middle Eastern Male...... Now you have the FBI NSA ATF etc. grilling you. But you weren't being "naughty." just "Middle Eastern."
I am just trying to help you see the flaws in your logic. You are entitled to that opinion. Just as I am entitled to the opinion that if you seriously think a central repository of information will do so much good in catching terrorists, that you would waive your right to privacy and proper searches, I personally think you're a coward.
I wish there was some there was some way that I could be outside playing basketball, in the rain, and not get wet.
How is it that Americans protesting their government's actions somehow amounts to their being apathetic? Seems QUITE the opposite to me.
Our founding fathers fought, and many of them died, just to avoid having a government that interfered too much. Perhaps this needs to happen again, but I'd rather see it not happen.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Not to pick nits with your evidenciary dilemma, but:
Technically, that's not true. If they plan to commit an act of terrorism, they're guilty of conspiracy, whether or not the actual action is carried out.
I'd make the observation that, by your logic, the idea of the FBI keeping files on say .... John Lennon, for instance, should just be accepted as all part of the effort to fight communism. And if an unnamed government source, ala Richard Jewel, accidently leaked, at the height of The Beatles popularity, that Lennon had a particular affinity for child porn, as long as the government prints an official appology on A23 in the smallest italics the intelligence community can afford, it's just part of the price we all must pay.
You sir, are a bonafide optimist. I, however, consider myself more pragmatic. I find myself unable to place my faith in a "higher power", and unwilling to place it, perhaps more precariously, in my fellow man.
Why would Kenneth Lay lie, he's a shareholder too! As an example.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
IIRC, he wasn't pardoned - his conviction was overturned on a technicality. Which, in my book, means that he should not do jail time, but he also should not be appointed to further posts of responsibility.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Sad part is, that just by saying that, you can now be investigated and arrested for "conspiracy."
Hoo-ray for the land of freedom.
The wrong is in the doing, not in the whom it is done to.
I know a lot of you out there are thinking that the liberals should be against the TIA thingy, but it really should be the Republicans that have a shitfit over this crap.
The good old Republican party used to be for less government and less government in your shit. What the hell happened to that? These fucking neo-cons that are running our country are scary mofos.
Yes the ACLU should be throwing a fit and they are, but everyone (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Greens) should be putting up their fists and fighting this blatant abuse of power.
Please write or fax your politicians and tell them what you think. Harassing some dork with phone calls is funny, but this aint Crank Yankers this is politics and prank phone calls are going to stop anything. The only hope is that the media stop sucking Bush's dick and start talking some smack.
LoRider
Seriously. Easy or not, do we really want everybody's personal information accessible?
Also, if information is difficult to access, but still present, who will be the most likely to search it out? We can see who right now - those who want to cause some form of embarrassment or harm to the person.
What happens to the woman who's husband was abusing her if he can track down where she now lives? What happens to the poor 68 year old single man who happens to use his credit card to buy a lot of lacey underwear and garters that happen to be his size? How about the head of the PTA or school principal who in her off hours frequents the fetish clubs?
Maybe you won't try to impose your morals on these people, but can you honestly say there's nobody out there who will?
Brin's arguments are nearly as flawed as Marx's in that they fail to take into account basic human nature, and give all the power to those people who have no sense of shame - usually those who believe their actions are the most righteous.
Also, when reading Brin's Transparent Society, he horribly glosses over the problems of inequitable power. He blithely assumes that if we can see all our bosses peccadillos we will have as much power over our boss as he does over us. Of course, this is ludicrous - we can't fire our boss if we don't like his choice of reading material.
If we all lived in a world where people used reason above all else to make their choices, maybe the fully transparent society would be a good one. Unfortunately, we don't. People tend to be reactionary, prejudiced, and frightened. Knowing something does not equate to understanding it, and as a whole, we tend to react violently to things we don't understand.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
John Poindexter has broken laws that we're currently subjecting people to military tribunals for breaking.
And the database doesn't track criminals, it tracks everyone, on the premise that any of them *might* become criminals. You, me, anyone.
Of course, the next logical step is if you know that you want to lock someone up, you study their record, and find a law you can use against them. If one doesn't exist, you make one. It's very convenient.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
About an hour ago, I saw one of those commercials from the President's Ass...err...Ad Council. It was that commercial where you first see a neighborhood with no flags in it, then the commentator says something like, "Terrorists thought they could change America on nine-eleven...they did", and then you see the same neighborhood, only this time covered in American flags. The next message on the screen is, "Freedom. Cherish it, Protect It."
What a bunch of BS. Here they sit preaching freedom when, in fact, we are losing freedom with such questionable practices like the US Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, TIPS, and now TIA.
I guess all it takes is a few airplanes hurtling from the sky to push the American people into submission and toss aside the rights that so many fought so hard for in the past.
Don't be a scared sheep, contact Congress and voice your opinion, for whatever it is worth. You can fax Congress and the President here -> www.truemajority.org
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
I remember reading some where, I wish I could remember, that the FAA was supposed to contact the military when any flight deviates from its course without notification. If that was done, there would have been jets around the planes well before they could have crashed into the buildings. Sometimes executed response plans are enough to help ensure safety.
Whether or not the FAA contacted the military, there would have been no jets around those planes. Until 9/11, we thought that the worst that would happen with a hijacked plane was that it would be crashed and all the people in it (including the hijackers) would die. We also thought that that was the *last* thing the hijackers wanted.
The reason the fourth plane never hit a target was because someone on their cell phone found out about the first three, and realized they were all going to die no matter what they did... and the least they could do was make sure no one on the ground died too. Until that bit of info filtered in, it was "common knowledge" that hijackers are only deadly if you don't cooperate. i.e. they won't kill anyone so long as you don't send military jets up to escort them.
Just after 9 a.m. EDT on 9/11/2001, planes were reclassified as weapons of mass destruction. But no one imagined they would be used that way until then, and no one thought to treat them that way either.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
The fact that the TIPS program was even proposed is alarming, not to mention what will be when it's created