Tech's Answer To Big Brotherism

StCredZero writes "Along the same lines as the earlier article about Poindexter's info being posted, C|Net has an interesting editorial by Declan McCullagh on how to protect our personal information from unauthorized snooping by the authorities, yet let them have a database for tracking down terrorists. McCullagh's solution is based on algorithms developed for Digital Cash."

Comments

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[CreamOfNavistream]

i dont think its as easy as delete from people where hat like '%towel%' and ethnicity = 'Muslim' and profession = 'pilot'

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why EVERY bit of info is important. We need things like money transfers, associates, time spent traveling, etc.

Re:In Soveit Russia

[mschoolbus]

Soveit Russia
Excellent In Soviet Post. All criteria was met.

Spelling it right should be part of the criteria...

Never happen.

[wilburdg]

Your talking about an agency which tried to get a backdoor placed into Phil Zimmermann's PGP. Even if they did try to protect the information, there is not way they would do anything which would impede their ability to extract every bit on just a whim. 'Encrypting the data' would just be a PR stunt.

let them have?

[SirDaShadow]

...yet let them have a database for tracking down terrorists...

let them have it? since when have we have any say on what the authorities can or can't do?

Re:let them have?

[rainman31415]

since when do we even have the resources to obtain an effective terrorist database?


insert script kiddie here
rainman

Re:let them have?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is a republic and we elect the people that make the laws that the authorities follow?

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[CreamOfNavistream]

okay fine..

delete from people left join bank on people.bankaccountid = bank.customerid where bank.money > 100000000 and people.hat like '%towel%'

am i getting warmer?

protecting yourself

[wattersa]

The article could have been summed up in one sentence: the best way to protect yourself is to buy everything with untraceable methods like cash or money orders, and limit your recorded transactions to things like land. Oh, and don't take out any loans either, or buy anything online, or fill out a census form. In other words, all the progress of the 20th century will be reduced to us paying cash at the local general store like in the 1950s because we can't trust our government. If ordinary people can avoid the new system, how hard will it be for terrorists? Thanks a lot, Uncle Sam.

Re:protecting yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet not having enough tracable transactions will also flag you as a person of interest. Best to use that credit card at least a little.

I suspect we'll have to have barcodes tattooed on
our foreheads before this is over....

Re:protecting yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

>If ordinary people can avoid the new system, how hard will it be for terrorists?

Try buying air travel tickets with cash.

Re:protecting yourself

[Ralph Wiggam]

Just last week I payed cash for my one way ticket from Amman, Jordan to Baltimore. Everyone was very understanding when I explained that I had lost my wallet in a taxi and didn't have any ID. If you're just polite to people and smile, it will go a long way.

Re:protecting yourself

[Gareman]

The problem with cash and other less visible transactions is that your profile would stick out and you would be suspect.

Terrorists understand this and would likely tend to electronically blend in. Buy your standard groceries with your supermarket card, pay for gas at regular intervals, etc., all in an attempt to create a normative profile. Save cash and other less visible transactions for the sketchy stuff (large amounts of chemicals, ammunition and firearms, etc.).

This of course leads to the outlawing of cash and thus makes the cash-only people even more suspect. When cash is outlawed, only outlaws will use cash.

--gary

Re:protecting yourself

[JWSmythe]

Of course, some vendors like Radio Shack, require you giving information when you purchase something. I'm so glad they're dropping that policy..

After having my own bank tell me that my transactions were suspicious, I've gone to using cash as often as possible.

Re:protecting yourself

[Jonny Ringo]

Cool! So I'd be protecting myself from the government and helping out small businesses and rubbing that in the face of large corperations? You sold me!

Re:protecting yourself

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

I believe you've missed the crux of the article. I believe that Declan was saying that the owner of a database can protect against future misuse of the database by scrambling the database itself against misuse by future owners. For instance, Slashdot scrambles the IP address of all visitors using an MD5 hash to protect against abuse of IP information. This approach is of course insecure and flawed (MD5 of an IP can be brute forced in a day), but the principle is sound. The federal government could easily implement a competent version of this principle to protect our privacy while still mining the database for terrorist threats.

Re:protecting yourself

[jackb_guppy]

Cash is already outlawed.

Try to take to put more than $5000 in cash to a bank account.

Keep $10000 is cash in a cookie jar.

Carry *ANY* negotiable item more than $2500 across a legal boundary - state or country. Or even just have in your pocket on a street corner.

You are a "drug runner" until you can prove otherwise. PERIOD. Your money is impounded and forfeited - unless you can quickly show receipts otherwise.

Right now - go and by a one-way airplane ticket with cash, say SF to LA... Guess who is getting a stripe search?

Re:protecting yourself

[jazman_777]

This of course leads to the outlawing of cash and thus makes the cash-only people even more suspect. When cash is outlawed, only outlaws will use cash.

If cash is outlawed, then how will the State counterfeit currency?

Re:protecting yourself

[ksuMacGyver]

Guess who is getting a stripe search?

What about plaid searches?

Re:protecting yourself

[zoloto]

Your own bank? could you be alittle more descriptive?

Re:protecting yourself

[buswolley]

if i dont want to smile, that is my concern. the system should not base rights, and privacy on how you smile, if you are polite, or if you have a set of breasts.

Re:protecting yourself

[Handpaper]

I'm not in the least religious but...

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six. KJB Rev 13:16 - 13:18

Re:protecting yourself

[Rick the Red]

If cash is outlawed, then how will the State counterfeit currency?

Easy: they'll just adjust the computers at the Federal Reserve to show a positive balance in the State's account -- it'll be easier for the State to counterfeit money under the new system.

[in Soviet Russia, currency counterfeit you]

Re:protecting yourself

[JWSmythe]

I opened a new bank account with $1000 cash.

I made a few small transactions over the next month, and large cash deposits weekly.

After 1 month of having an account, I bought a plane ticket for my girlfriend's daughter, two weeks in advance of the flight.

I moved recently across the country. I personally flew the same route a couple times, and my girlfriend and her daughter about 6 round trips. All those trips were with another account at a different bank. On most of the previous transactions, the airlines called the bank to verify information. My bank volunteered the information to me, as they had it all on record..

This particular trip, the airline called the new bank. The new bank thought because it was a large purchase ($250).

Instead of contacting me, my account was marked as suspect/fraud and suspended, my bank card (ATM/Mastercard) was flagged as stolen.

We got to the airport to let her fly. We went to the ticket counter to check her in. Security was called over to keep an eye on us. They asked to see the credit card, and held onto it behind the counter. Then they asked to see my ID.. Luckly, I carry several forms of ID around with me. That was enough to get my credit card back.

They then told me that the card was used fraudently to purchase the ticket. I told them *I* made the purchase, and I am the card holder.

They then told me the card had been stolen. I opened my wallet back up, looked inside. Oh look, card is still there. I told them it had not been stolen.

The airline was being cooperative with me. They weren't dicks about it, just trying to be safe.

I stepped out of line to call the bank.. Standing in the middle of LAX, waiting to get a little girl on a flight. I had roughly 10 minutes to get this fixed...

The bank calmly told me that the card had been reported stolen at 6am that morning. Well, the card was in my wallet, locked in my house, with me at 6am. It wasn't stolen (we left for the airport at 7am). I asked them who reported it. They don't record information like that. Only that someone called and said it was stolen. So I asked, "Can I call the bank, and say that your card has been stolen?". That made her very nervous.. Yes. Anyone can call and say anything they'd like, and they will respond to it.. You can call and say you've found a credit card belonging to one of their customers, and that card is now useless.. (Evil thoughts to do to bad customers, huh?)

Through about 8 hours of me interviewing everyone I could get on the phone, I came to understand what happened. The bank messed up. They took the fact that I had only made small purchases (up to $100) at local stores, and the fact that it was a plane ticket, and decided I couldn't have possibly bought the ticket, and froze everything..

8 hours of talking on the phone to come to that realization, and get them to unfreeze my bank account. It was another three weeks before they'd send me a working ATM/Mastercard .

Needless to say, she missed her flight.

The only advice the bank had, was not to make large purchases {sigh}, and that my girlfriend's daughter should have bought the ticket with her credit card. I don't know how the rest of the world sees it, but a 12 year old girl probably shouldn't be running around with her own credit card. Well, not until she has a job to support it. :) Generally, we don't let her go out by herself in the bigger cities, so very rarely would she have a need for a credit card of her own..

Now when I make purchases, I wonder if the bank will suddenly decide to reverse the charges on them.. I love banks, honestly.

Since I got to California, I've had some problem with two different banks, that has required me to be in the bank at least once per week to straighten out. I spent almost two hours at "Bank Of America" a couple weeks ago, just to get a check cashed. Not waiting in line, waiting for someone to make the executive decision that my check was ok to cash. Not just any handwritten check, it was my payroll check. The vice president happened to walk by and say "Have you been helped." I told him the story as quickly and concisely as possible, and told them just to take care of me..

It's sad when the secret to getting any simple task done in a bank requires you making an ass of yourself in front of other customers til it gets taken care of. They're growing to know me when I walk in now.. I'm the customer that *WILL* make an ass of himself til they do what I need done. It's not like I ask for extraordenary things. I bring in a payroll check to the bank it's drawn on, and I have proper ID (several forms), I want it cashed. I still don't get how they have the nerve to ask me if I want to open an account with them, when I know it's this much of a pain to work with them normally.

I could rant more, but.....

Re:protecting yourself

[jonadab]

> Try buying air travel tickets with cash.

Shouldn't be any trouble -- cash is money, after all. It doesn't
make you untraceable, however, because you still have to plonk
down ID.

Re:protecting yourself

[pben]

The odd part is that the round trip tickets were purchased with a credit card on 9/11/01. If you were going to run a plane into a building would you pay cash? They send the money back to their leaders and carged it.

Re:protecting yourself

[susano_otter]

Because, of course, your life would be much better if there were no humans mediating between you and the machines.

And you know what? Any time you want to be treated like a human being, all you have to do is smile, or be polite, or (apparently) have breasts. I know you're capable of doing at least two of those things.

Wake me up when they deploy a perfect system, that handles all eventualities without error, mistreatment, or accidental cruelty.

In the mean time, give me people who respond to a smile any day.

Re:protecting yourself

[mindstrm]

Uhh
You can deposit any amount into a bank account, though you may have to file a small amoutn of paperwork declaring where it came from if it's over $10,000

You are free to keep $10,000 in a cookie jar all you want.

You can carry any amount of negotiable item into most countries, though you have to decolare it if it's over a certain amount. In the US, it's $10,000

Please don't spread bullshit.

Re:protecting yourself

[Black Rabbit]

***EVERYTHING*** that the terrorists did on 9/11 was low tech. That's why it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to install all this high tech security equipment to try and stop these kind of people from getting a bomb on the plane. After all, the plane WAS the bomb, and all that was needed was some very simple weaponry to take it over and redirect it. Sillier still is the notion that barring cutlery, knitting needles, nail files etc. is just as futile, since something as simple as a shoelace can be used as a weapon. What's next? Are we going to shackle each and every passenger to his or her seat in yet another vain attempt at airline security?

That's why I'm of the very firm belief that something was/is going on WRT 9/11. It's all just too convenient for Baby Bush to have everything he ever dreamed of doing handed to him on a silver platter! Isn't there anybody else here that has wondered this?

Re:protecting yourself

[Catbeller]

No tattoos: embedded chips, probably. Something microscopic and embedded.

First, it'll be for "pedophiles".
Then, it'll be for The Safety of Our Children.
Then, it'll be for anyone who goes to or leaves prison.
Then, it'll be a requirement for employment in sensitive jobs.
Then, it'll be a requirement, like immunizations, for joining the armed forces. And there'll be a reinstituted draft soon, if I read the sneaky 'pubs right lately. So everyone 18 and over gets chipped.
Then, it'll become an expected part of getting a job in a corporate environment, even if you're a paint mixer at a Benjamin Moore store.
Then, it'll become a requirement for going to a state university. Or just attending school of any sort.

Sounds silly? Think of drug testing, and how we drop our pants on command without even questioning why we are doing it. America will swallow chipping if it's done slowly, over years.

Ten, fifteen years from now, my objections to chipping will sound to the Americans of that time like I do to the Americans of this time when I refuse to take a drug test. A damned liberal hippy, probably a criminal.

I hate being right.

Re:protecting yourself

[Catbeller]

Or just drive. Why does everyone assume all attacks concern flight on airlines?

And everyone, please remember that the terrorists bought their tickets right out in the open. There is no way to catch a sleeper agent -- they act like everyone else.

Re:protecting yourself

[NortWind]

You can deposit any amount into a bank account, though you may have to file a small amoutn of paperwork declaring where it came from if it's over $10,000

Or, to rephrase what you said, you cannot deposit more than $10,000 without filing the proper forms. In fact, any "irregular" transaction will be reported to the authorities.

You are free to keep $10,000 in a cookie jar all you want.

This is legal, unless your house is searched and the money discovered. Then it may be seized based on new interpretations of old laws, and new anti-terrorist laws like the USA Patriot Act.

You can carry any amount of negotiable item into most countries, though you have to decolare it if it's over a certain amount. In the US, it's $10,000

The US treasury disagrees with you. Fail to file acceptable reasons, and the penalties can be quite severe.

Re:protecting yourself

[AtariKee]

Two words:

"Credit Union"

I have NEVER had a hassle with mine. Although banks would like to see them outlawed (as they are no-profit, and cut into bank business), I will support mine for as long as it's legal. I REFUSE to do business with banks.

Re:protecting yourself

[JWSmythe]

I've seriously thought about it, but I'm new to California, and I have no clue of which ones would be good or not. I don't suppose anyone could recommend one in the Los Angeles area? Preferably somewhere from Pasadena to Burbank..

Re:protecting yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

You also can't deposit more than $10K over the period of several days without the same sort of hassle. I'm no longer able to drive, so I sold my and my wife's cars. I deposited about $6,500 one day then almost $5,000 two days later. My (expletive deleted) bank froze all of the bank accounts I had there and all of the ones that had my name on them. My name was also on my great-nephew's checking account, and he ended-up bouncing about a dozen checks. He had just started college and was spending money like crazy to pay for tuition and furnish an appartment. The little stunt the bank pulled cost him over $200 to straighten-out. His checking account is now marked as bad by TeleCheck (or whatever its name is) that many stores use, so he can't write a check in, for example, Wal-Mart. I'm 74, so I don't exactly fit the profile of a terrorist or drug dealer. I still haven't figured-out a way to make it up to him.z

Re:protecting yourself

[shdragon]

Uhmmm.... not to quibble over details, though it appears as though you are trolling.

First, the actual limit in the US for cash transactions before a financial institution is REQUIRED to report it to the IRS is $10,000 , not $5,000. The reason for this (and I can assure you as I was a customer service manager for Bank of America for some years and have dealt with this on a daily basis) is that people try and get around reporting income to the IRS and/or try and fuck people out of money.

Second, keeping $10,000 in a cookie jar (or elsewhere that is not secured) is just plain stupidity. Not illegal. I know of certain customers that survived the great depression and have LARGE quantities of cash hidden/buried.

Third, so you mean when I cross state or county lines with my checkbook I am breaking the law? Or traveler's cheques? Or that cashier's check I'm taking for my closing costs on my home? Perhaps you meant cash? No, I've had several customers tell me stories about being pulled over with large amounts of cash, *NONE* of them have ever said that the officer had a problem or confiscated their money.

Fourth, I have bought many a plane ticket from Houston to Austin/Dallas/SA, etc. without a hitch but I will concede that I have never bought one from SF to LA.

Re:protecting yourself

[Reziac]

A one-way ticket from SF to LA costs $29 on Southwest Air. Man, this "cash is illegal" thing must be getting tight!!

Re:protecting yourself

[Reziac]

I'm also in the L.A. area. I've been with Washington Mutual ever since they ate Great Western (must be around 10 years by now? I forget), and so far feel no urge to go hunting for another bank (far from it, after a stint with Home Fed). I even have my mortgage with them by choice. No charges on personal or small business accounts, and lower than average fees on larger accounts. Generally intelligent behaviour from tellers and managers, and they DO get to know you by name after a while.

They have counters in most Lucky supermarkets, and branches all over the place. I think I've seen one near the freeway when I go thru Pasadena, but couldn't tell you exactly where.

Re:protecting yourself

[will_die]

Before you say it is bullshit you may want to look up the facts.
Start with Willie Jones - 1991, then Volusia County Sheriff Bob Vogel.

Re:protecting yourself

[buswolley]

wrong. law, and justice, and your Rights, should have nothing to do with one's disposition. You might be able to get things if you are polite, but you should not be unfairly treated if you do not. And thats the main point. The laws should not be unjust.One should not have to depend on one's pursuasive powers, charisma, etc to ensure one's rights.

But yeah its nice when people are polite. no problem there. but i dont want to be required to suck some airport-security-officer's dick, just so i would not be harrassed about buying an airplane ticket with the true American tender, CASH.the dollar bill. the greenback... to get back to the point...

Re:protecting yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more likely, offer some convenience associated with having the chip. If you have a chip you can charge purchases without using a card, can log onto a computer system without using a password, can listen to encoded music, etc. People will line up in droves without thinking about privacy issues!

Re:protecting yourself

[zfalcon]

The clerks at Radio Shack are perfectly happy to sell you things without your address. Just tell them politely that you'd rather not tell them your info. Saves both of you time.

Re:protecting yourself

[Johann]

amen, brother

Re:protecting yourself

[inKubus]

Applied Digital Solutions makes implantable RFID capsules..

I see it more as like this:

FIRST, the capsules will be used in livestock. (already done)

SECOND, the capsules will be implanted into companion pets (done)

THIRD, they will be put into every suitcase and you will have to have a registered suitcase to take stuff on a plane.

FOURTH, they will put a mini-transmitter into a football and use it to show exactly where the ball is on the field at any given time, thus removing all questionable calls at the goal line.

FIFTH, they will put GPS enabled capsules in all of the things they already have them in--pets, etc.

Imagine, the airport says they lost your bag; you log into a website, slide your card that came with the suitcase, and it shows you the exact location on earth (within a few meters) of where it is.

Or your pet. Or your car keys. Or a piece of mail, a package, a shipping container.

Perhaps then the law will realize they want to know where the pedophile is at any given time.

Then, people will just get them implanted into their grandparents with alzheimer's.

Then, maybe their children.

Then, it's done.

Re:protecting yourself

[mindstrm]

Yeah, I mean, because a couple people got screwed over by overzealous morons, that means it's illegal to carry money.

Re:protecting yourself

[mindstrm]

Right. Acceptable reasons.

And as much as I hate to say it.. you don't have a problem if your money is obtained legally, and you pay your taxes.

If you are, say, hiding money offshore, and bringing it in.. what do you expect?

algorith

[dirvish]

McCullagh's solution is based on algorithms developed for Digital Cash.

if (!terrorist)
ignore ();
else
collect_data ();

Re:algorith

[Ark42]

int ignore(void)
{
collect_data();
}

Re:algorith

[jon787]

you forgot to return a value.....
how about "return collect_data();"

Re:algorith

[JWSmythe]

// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();

Re:algorith

[Anonymous Coward]

static void
noop() { /* noop */
}

Re:algorith

[kin_korn_karn]

#define private public

Re:algorith

[sir99]

And to think, some people think code is too "functional" in nature to be constitutionally protected.

Re:algorith

[jonadab]

> you forgot to return a value...

The value of the last statement evaluated in a block is returned
as the value of that block. The following two functions have
exactly the same effect:

sub ignore() { collect_data(); }
sub ignore() { return collect_data(); }

Of course, you're relying on the user not to have set %data=undef;

Re:algorith

[Reziac]

No, no, no..

// if (!terrorist)
// ignore ();
// else
collect_data ();
profit ();

Re:algorith

[rthille]

void ignore()
{
collect_data();
}

A Start... Maybe

[isaacwith2as]

It sounds much better than an unencrypted database, but it would need a much better password than a person's full name. If someone went to the trouble of getting a copy of this database from whatever government computer it's hidden on, they certainly aren't going to worry about getting some list of full names.

Privacy is overrated

[frotty]

I only value privacy when it amounts to avoiding people pushing products, unfairly judging me, taking what's mine, and/or impersonating me.

Other than that, knowing any amount of data about us could only be used to make generalizations about us. . . who would really have the time to come up with a fair assessment? Who's job would that be?

It seems like it'd be less preventative and useful in the "clean up our mess" department of the guv.

Re:Privacy is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

frotty (586379) is into astronomy, frotty may have a crude sense of humor at times. Frotty cares about MMORG's. Frotty works in marketing.

If you are a government agency who would like to know wh frotty is, please harass the parent company http://www.vasoftware.com/

Re:Privacy is overrated

[andrewski]

Who's job would that be?

A felon by name of Poindexter.

Re:Privacy is overrated

[infolib]

Other than that, knowing any amount of data about us could only be used to make generalizations about us

Or, it could be used against you when you started voicing the wrong opinions or hanging with the wrong people. Or more likely if you somehow became an annoyance to the wrong person. (The kinda guy that IN SOVIET RUSSIA would have good party connections)

Whatever. Read some Solzhenitsyn. He tells it so much better. Besides, it's a really good book.

Re:Privacy is overrated

[frotty]

Exactly:
So what? If everyone told the truth all the time, all agendas would be out on the table and we'd have no "secret enemies", right?

On the flip side:
We should all be very, very afraid. A friend of mine went to a li'l' Communist meeting at his college, signed the sign in sheet, and a few years later when he was applying for citizenship he was rejected and that meeting was cited.

\\\

I think somewhere in between are the less-than-utopian privacy issues... the grey areas... that are worthy of argument.

How about the power to edit our "permanent records"?

Is it a privacy issue that an employer should/shouldn't have the right to know if their employees visit "post-minority fisting-report" websites in their spare time?

Re:Privacy is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

"unfairly judging me"

And how consistent do you think the guidelines will be? Perhaps because of your attitude about privacy now, you will be unfairly judged later on? But what does unfairly judged mean? I mean, if everyone must meet the same scrutiny, how is it unfair? You aren't discriminated against...everyone must meet the standards set.

I guess you should prepare to meet all future requirements by not reading any subversive material for any reason, and basically only engage in the most boring lifestyle you possibly can as to ensure that you are never going to clash with the rules of any future system. That is the only way you will not be "unfairly judged". See the problem?

No comprendo

[sheddd]

So,

1) Customer pays me for a widget with an untraceable transaction.

2) I don't ship the widget

3) Profit!!!

Re:No comprendo

[KjetilK]

4) ???

Because Customer may know where you are... :-)

Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[LoRider]

Yeah, that's what it's for; tracking terrorists. The FBI just needs to read their own memos from their own agents to track down these terrorists. Why doesn't anyone ask that question? Do we really need to give up our privacy and freedom simply because the FBI isn't processing the information that is readily available to them?

Aside from the memo sent out by their own agent, I can promise you there was way more information available to the FBI prior to 9/11 that should have made them take notice. Taking into account that they had the information prior to 9/11 before everyone was shitting in their pants about terrorism it's no wonder they didn't do anything.

We are such reactionists. We got hit by terrorists, now lets shred the constitution and live under Marshall law and military rule until we stop shitting ourselves.

I don't believe we need a Dept. of Homeland Defence or any of that shit. The FBI and CIA need to read their fucking email and act on the information they have. Or did they have the information and we told not to act on it? I wonder.

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[Verteiron]

Or did they have the information and we told not to act on it? I wonder.

If the FBI was "told" not to act on information regarding a terrorist attack of the magnitude of Sept 11th, then you're talking about a conspiracy involving a LOT of different branches of government.

Really, what you're suggesting is the ultimate evil act... that the Sept 11th attacks were in fact supported (or at least ignored) by our own government in order to provide themselves with a blank check. But since that really WOULD require a world-wide secret organization, that's a little too tinfoil-hat-ish even for me.

Call me naive, but I don't think for a moment that every single human being in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies would willingly allow 3000 innocent American citizens to die. I'm sure many employees of these agencies had friends or family that died in those attacks. No way could there be a conspiracy THAT massive. These people are US, they go to work, do their thing, and go home. They don't want to die, and they don't want other people to die if they can help it.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[jazman_777]

Call me naive, but I don't think for a moment that every single human being in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies would willingly allow 3000 innocent American citizens to die. I'm sure many employees of these agencies had friends or family that died in those attacks. No way could there be a conspiracy THAT massive. These people are US, they go to work, do their thing, and go home. They don't want to die, and they don't want other people to die if they can help it.

You're right, and it's the anti-conspiracy Strawman. Of course, not _everybody_ in all the named organizations needs to be involved. Just a small few, a couple to spike things. How hard is that for a determined bureaucrat? Oh, we're talking government workers, you say? I think I agree with you.

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think for a moment that every single human being in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies would willingly allow 3000 innocent American citizens to die

On the other hand... Let's go to war and secure that oil! And by the way: manditory small pox vaccine injections for everyone. Even if 1 in 1 million people die from complications, that's still only 400 people...

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a congressional comitty asking just this question, please calm yourself.

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

And do you think it will do any better than the Warren commission?

Re:Database to track terrorists, ha ha

[sjames]

Call me naive, but I don't think for a moment that every single human being in the FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies would willingly allow 3000 innocent American citizens to die.

Why not? Several agencies of the U.S. government (including the CIA) have a documented history of performing potentially lethal medical experiments on citizens without consent (see Tuskegee experiment for a single example)

By the same token, I don't believe that the attack was deliberatly allowed to happen. In this case, there is good evidence for exactly the sort of incompetance we have come to expect from the U.S. government.

Re:In Soveit Russia

[classzero]

What criteria?

Big Brother is More Than That

[Grip3n]

The thought that many people consider, like this article, that Big Brother was just the government watching everything you do really goes to show the author probably never read the book. Big Brother is much more than monitoring...actually the monitoring plays a very minor role.

Big Brother's scariest tactic was the use of DoubleThink - and it's rampant today. DoubleThink meant you could see something one way, but you would willingly force yourself and thereby *believe* the opposite to be true, if the government requested it of you. In the book by George Orwell this was common regarding rations of chocolate, war with Eurasia or Eastasia, etc.

In today's society it's Nike saying they free people to achieve their dreams while running sweatshops in Asia. It's McDonalds saying "My McDonalds" when really they're the ones dictating what I can and cannot eat. Its the Gap saying "People of the world, join hands" in their newest commercial while they're, once again, utilizing sweatshops in Asia. Its Microsoft saying "Where do you want to go today" while basically saying "This is where we're going to take you today".

Big Brother is not just monitoring - it's an entire way a society thinks. Sure, prevent people from possibly taking over your data, but I believe that should be the least of your concerns. The first priority should be to stop people from taking over your mind.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[JPelorat]

Really? McDonalds dictates what you can and can't eat? How do they do that exactly? And how do they punish people who refuse to follow their demands? With guns? Riot gear? Jail time?

You must have a cast-iron stomach and paper-thin willpower.

(but other than that bit o silly, you've got very good points...)

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[sabinm]

Your comments are pretty interesting
but you would willingly force yourself and thereby *believe* the opposite to be true,

that is mostly true. however the real insidiousness of it lay in the fact that the people were not *forcing* themselves. Infact, winston was tortured becasue he was *forcing himself* to believe what the party was telling him.

forcing oneself to believe has the implication of somewhere knowing that one is still aware that one is lying to oneself.

the true "converts" (there can be no converts) to the party were those who could believe two things at once with no contradiction (we are at war with Eurasia, we were always at war with eurasia).

in other words, people unconsiously thought in terms of dual or multiple realities. there was no deception on anyone's part, only acceptance of all things at once.

scary, huh.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[jeorgen]

In today's society it's Nike saying they free people to achieve their dreams while running sweatshops in Asia. It's McDonalds saying "My McDonalds" when really they're the ones dictating what I can and cannot eat.

Maybe sombedody has already had a take on this, but here goes:

Sweatshops as you call them give jobs and money to people who would otherwise go without.

McDonald's is successful because people like to eat there by choice.

I don't eat there, and that's my free choice (because I don't eat that kind of food).

"Sweat shops are slavery" and "McDonald's force us to eat there", now that's double think!

/jeorgen

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[paranoic]

You mean like this Framing our country's fight against terrorism? It's all about the presentation of information, not the content. We're sheep, we don't want to think.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[loosenut]

Some people are quite aware of the means that justify our current lifestyle, they just don't want to change their habits.

A few weeks ago, I was out at a large local mall doing some Buy Nothing Day shit, and there was a guy there tabling for Vietnam Veterans against War.

I stood by and observed a conversation he started with a funny little man from out of town. They started talking about the war, the man asked the veteran if he supported the bombing of Afghanistan, and the veteran said, no, while 9/11 was really tragic, bombing innocent civilians to support the American way of life wasn't something he could agree with. The man got stiff and said something like, "well, if that's what it takes to provide me and my family with the goods we need to be happy, so be it". The vet said "Even if it means the death of innocent people?". The guy started to walk away, visibily disturbed, stammering out a "yes, if that's what it takes".

Kinda blew me away.

By the way, don't click on either of those links, or your name will end up in a database and you'll be tagged as a potential terrorist. Have a nice day.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

So is it your opinion, then, that the US military is deliberately targetting and attacking innocent civilian targets? Or are you against attacking terrorists if there's any possibility that an innocent civilian might be killed in the process?

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Jaysyn]

I was thinking the same thing, I haven't eaten at a McDonald's in *years*.

Jaysyn

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[jazman_777]

Big Brother is not just monitoring - it's an entire way a society thinks. Sure, prevent people from possibly taking over your data, but I believe that should be the least of your concerns. The first priority should be to stop people from taking over your mind.

If you had _really_ read _1984_, you'd know that Big Brother _wants_ you to think exactly what you are saying here. Somehow I can see you sitting in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, with that gin-tinged tear rolling down your cheek, loving Big Brother.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Paradise Pete]

Really? McDonalds dictates what you can and can't eat? How do they do that exactly?

In fairness, you're ignoring the first half of the sentence to which you're replying.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever seen a sweatshop? I'm not talking about a little sewing factory where everyone working there happens to be Mexican and they work for shit money, I'm talking about an honest-to-goodness fucking SWEATSHOP in a poor as shit country. The people (usually children who were sold to the company running the shop) who are working there aren't working there to better themselves nor their families. They are working there because if they stop, the company fucking kills them, period.

Sweatshops as you call them give jobs and money to people who would otherwise go without.

You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Atsjoo]

Another book that sheds some light on exactly this way of thinking is "The screwtape letters" by C.S. Lewis. It is supposed to be correspondence from a major demon to a lesser "temptor" demon where the major demon attempts to explain characteristics on human thought.

It sounds awfully religious but the major part of the book is a very enlightening view of how modern man percieves his surroundings and well worth a read.

I haven't the book readily available now but to quote part of a related passage from memory: "Humans don't percieve ideologies as primarily true or fals but rather stark or courageous. Outworn or contemporary. Keep your patient focused on the stream of immediate sensory perception and fuddle his mind."

There is an audiobook version floating around the p2p net these days read by John Cleese in six parts of around 20MB each. Well worth a download.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had _really_ read _1984_, you'd know that Big Brother _wants_ you to think exactly what you are saying here. Somehow I can see you sitting in the Chestnut Tree Cafe, with that gin-tinged tear rolling down your cheek, loving Big Brother.

I honestly don't think your comment bears any weight or validity. Care to elaborate on your comment?

In general defense, Big Brother wasn't after your data, jazman. They were after your mind. What you say doesn't matter, it is what you *think*, as they can be two vastly different things, which is why there were Thought Police.

Anyhow, if you want to elaborate further or perhaps have a debate about this I would be more than happy. ICQ: 23062059

PS: Yes, this is Grip3n, didn't want this offtopic comment really to be modded.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[jazman_777]

I honestly don't think your comment bears any weight or validity. Care to elaborate on your comment?

It does, remotely, because the whole thing Winston Smith went through was set up for him by BB's minions. He really thought he was part of a heroic resistance! And that there was hope (even if it was in the proles, those lottery-loving losers). And in the end, he was a broken man, betraying Julia. It was all a clever mind game he was put through. That was some depressing end to the whole thing, which I never really hear mentioned about _1984_, and which I take every opportunity to bring up--that he _loved_ BB.

And in the end, I agree with your thoughts on taking over the mind. They want our hearts, minds, and souls, those devilish Statist Idols. Everything else will follow--the proper enthusiasm at the 5-minute hate, etc.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[susano_otter]

Sweatshops as you call them give jobs and money to people who would otherwise go without.

See, I've always suspected that was the case. What would be unacceptable working conditions in this country could very well be hard work for an honest wage, in a country that doesn't have the luxury of a 40-hour, 5-day work week.

On the other hand, what if the "sweatshop" in question neglects the safety of its workers? Is that just part of the toil and trouble of a developing nation? Or is that a company that refuses to spend any money on worker health if not forced to--in spite of the fact that they're saving millions of dollars by operating in the Third World? Working hard for a living wage is one thing. Being mistreated and exploited by a sweatshop because, in spite of its inhumane policies, you have to work somewhere, and suffering in a "sweatshop" may be a better way to die than lying in the gutter--that's something else entirely.

I'm not saying Nike runs the second kind of "sweatshop", but if they were, no amount of "things are different over there" arguments can excuse the behavior.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[susano_otter]

If you're going to say "bombing Afghanistan makes us no better than the terrorists", then please back it up.

Show me the civilian casualties. Show me the civilians who were targeted on purpose. Show me either the official military plans to bomb civilians, or the unofficial military plot to bomb the civilians. Show me civilians who died for any other reason than because they were hanging around military targets.

People die in war. Not all of them signed up for it. No matter how much you may be pained by this fact, saying it aloud or writing it down always seems callous and uncaring. But it's sad because it's true.

"We won't fight wars, because people die," is an adimirable sentiment, and one we should all agree on. Until we do, though, it's a pretty stupid principle to base foreign policy on.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like holding tea and no tea at the same time?

Of course to do that, you would have to remove your common sense.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[sjames]

McDonald's is successful because people like to eat there by choice.

But if it was really MY McDonald's I could go there and expect to be served anything I wanted (on the menu or not). In truth, it is THEIR McDonalds and MY choice is limited to eat what's on the menu or eat elsewhere.

There's nothing wrong with that, they have to draw the line somewhere, but it certainly is NOT MY McDonalds.

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[loosenut]

If you're going to say "bombing Afghanistan makes us no better than the terrorists", then please back it up.

Did I say that?

Show me the civilian casualties. Show me the civilians who were targeted on purpose. Show me either the official military plans to bomb civilians, or the unofficial military plot to bomb the civilians. Show me civilians who died for any other reason than because they were hanging around military targets.

It's hard to show you, because they are all dead. Seriously, there is no plot, but the US military has tried to convince us of the greatness of smart bombs for a while, and that's bullshit. More big brother propaganda to alleviate any guilt we might feel about our bombing-for-a-good-lifestyle.

"We won't fight wars, because people die," is an adimirable sentiment, and one we should all agree on. Until we do, though, it's a pretty stupid principle to base foreign policy on.

Meanwhile, should we base foreign policy on controlling oil reserves at the cost of innocent lives?

Re:Big Brother is More Than That

[susano_otter]

My mistake. You may have implied that we're no better than the terrorists, but I probably was reading too much into it.

The military has been misrepresenting the intelligence of their so-called "smart" bombs. So now what? They're still smarter than the "stupid" bombs--should we go back to using those?

Using no bombs at all would be even better, of course. It's unclear whether the U.S. government has done enough to avoid using bombs, before resorting to them. That is something worth debating.

But why does everybody insist that this war is about trading innocent lives for oil?

Do we get oil out of this war? Yes. A nation acts to preserve its interests. Big surprise. I tend to prefer that to nations that spend their treasure without preservering their interests--especially when the treasure happens to be my tax dollars and value-adding labor!

But isn't it just possible that there's other good reasons for using "smart" bombs in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Moral reasons? Ethical reasons? Practical reasons? I've heard strong arguments in support of these reasons. I hope your counter-arguments consist of more than simply "this war is about trading innocent lives for oil".

I think the U.S. has a tendency to mistreat and kill innocent people as part of its institutional preservation of its interests. I think that many have suffered in the U.S.'s quest for oil.

But I think that even if we had no oil interests in the middle east, there could still be excellent reasons to go in there with the best weapons our technology can provide us. And I think that we have those reasons now. We're protecting our oil at the same time? Well, what did you expect?

Since..

[JPelorat]

Since a few people have always resisted attacks against the Second Amendment.

I have three 'votes' on what the authorities ultimately can and can't do: HK93, Mauser P.08, and Enfield #1 mk3. I hope the day never comes that it becomes necessary to cast those votes, but it's always good to be prepared.

How about you?

Re:Since..

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you?

How about David Koresh and Randy Weaver? They had even more votes, but ultimately lost the election.

Re:Since..

[Cid Highwind]

I have three 'votes' on what the authorities ultimately can and can't do: HK93, Mauser P.08, and Enfield #1 mk3.

That's nice.
The CIA has unmanned Predator aircraft that carry hellfire missiles. I think you've just been outvoted!

Re:Since..

[Jaysyn]

If it reaches that point, more than likely the revolution is already underway.

Jaysyn

Re:Since..

[susano_otter]

I have three 'votes' on what the authorities ultimately can and can't do: HK93, Mauser P.08, and Enfield #1 mk3.

You've got to be kidding. When the authorities come to debate the issue with you, what, exactly, are you going to do? Shoot some cop, soldier, or CTU agent? Some guy with a job to do, and maybe a family, or a dog, or whatever back home waiting for him?

Then what? The authorities are going to back down and let you keep whatever rights they were planning to take away from you? Please.

If you're lucky, you'll get that grunt's commander in your sights before they gun you down, but it's not like he sets policy either. Or maybe you're betting that once the SWAT team figures out that the job involves getting shot at, they'll call the whole thing off.

Of course, if you get enough citizens armed and ready to fight, you might have some impact--the exact same impact a large number of citizens would have if they engaged in peacful noncompliance.

Would people get shot during a nonviolent protest? Probably. Would people get shot during a violent protest? Most definitely. So where's the benefit to your solution?

If the SWAT team does desert, it won't be because you're shooting at them--it'll be because they've heard a lot of reasonable debate on the subject, and you position makes much more sense to them than the other guy's. So there they are, teetering between their responsibility to their employer and their growing conviction that their employer is wrong. They're having second thoughts about this whole raid. Maybe you're a nice guy, they're thinking. Maybe you have a good point. Maybe taking you down would be the wrong thing to do. Maybe it's time to take a stand and make a change.

And then you start shooting at them. Nice going, Einstein. Now you, and your family, and your dog, and your mp3 collection--gassed, and firebombed, and mercilessly slaughtered. And the media will carry the story of another crazy gun nut getting shut down before he could endanger innocent lives.

Of course, if you don't think your arguments could make a change, or you don't relish joining thousands of other dissenters in prison for your beliefs, or you've seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid one too many times, then maybe going out in a violent, bloody, and futile blaze of glory might seem pretty appealing. It's certainly more cinematic than sitting in prison for a couple decades, like Nelson Mandela. Certainly more heroic than traveling the countryside, educating citizens with your example of passive resitance, like Gandhi. Congratulations! Vin Diesel will star in the MTV movie of your extreme rebellion.

What do your "votes" have to offer that peaceful protest does not, except more dead people and less calm discussion?

By all means, excercise your rights! Keep those guns, enjoy them. But if you think they're going to help you make a difference during some armed rebellion, you may want to consider moving to the United States of Some Parallel Universe. I hear that there, the 2nd Amendment guarantees everybody's right to own a main battle tank, a joint strike fighter, mechanized artillery, a recon satellite, and a cruise missile.

Re:Since..

[buswolley]

ahh some rational thoughts. The gandhi way is the WAY, to resist. to fight back with guns is to be a "pussy". To resist violence with non-violence.. that takes the most guts of all.

to the bravest of the past. *cheers*

Re:Since..

[CoreDump01]

Tasteless Sig: In Nazi Germany, the showers took you.

Tasteless, indeed.
Please don't make jokes on behalf of dead people.

Re:Since..

[CoreDump01]

Score: 6, Insightful

Re:Since..

[Tackhead]

> ahh some rational thoughts. The gandhi way is the WAY, to resist. to fight back with guns is to be a "pussy". To resist violence with non-violence.. that takes the most guts of all.

Nice sentiment, but I think it's as naive as the guy who thinks it's right to resist law enforcement with force.

Earlier in the thread, was some guy's Tasteless .Sig: "In Nazi Germany, the showers took you."

In the grand scheme of life, I say Mr. Tasteless .Sig gets the (+1, Has Gotten The Point) for his joke, and both of you get (-1, Hopelessly Naive) for your sentiments, with an option to go for (-2, Fuel Source) should you actually try to act on them.

Re:Since..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I mostly agree with your sentiments, I hesitate to swallow them whole. Under certain circumstances the powerful are more than happy to crush peacefully non-compliant right out of existance. For instance, peaceful non-compliance has been of only limited value to the Tibetans. I also suspect that ceasing to use violence wouldn't slow the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Especially not the ones with cherry ocean-front views.

It is regrettable, but violence does have impact on world political situations. Certainly it is a terrible way to manage a large group of people for an extended period of time. However, it is very effective at extracting valuable resources or silencing troublesome individuals or small groups.

Don't give your guns away too easily.

Re:Since..

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you think they're going to help you make a difference during some armed rebellion, you may want to consider moving to the United States of Some Parallel Universe.

If you really think it's so futile, then it shows you haven't studied history closely. My father saw the Nazi's held-off for 27 days in Warsaw. It took the Germans only 16 days to capture the entire country, but a few untrained Jewish men with rifles held them out of the Warsaw ghetto for 27 days. I see many Christians that act like sheep, just as you are proposing, (I guess it has something to do with the prophet Jesus' teachings), but I know my people will never be sheep again. You probably won't hear us brag about weapons like some hick, but we have them and are prepared to use them. There will never be another holocaust.

Re:Since..

[DEBEDb]

You think the "TV watches you" joke is
on behalf on happy joyful people who are
(mostly) alive? You're damn wrong.

Re:Since..

[DEBEDb]

You've got to be kidding. When the authorities come to debate the issue with you, what, exactly, are you going to do? Shoot some cop, soldier, or CTU [fox.com] agent? Some guy with a job to do, and maybe a family, or a dog, or whatever back home waiting for him?

Like a soldier in pretty much anyone's enemy's
army (in the entire history) was not just
"a guy with a job to do and family waiting for him"? Great argument.

Probably of the Nazi Germany's soldiers weren't
vehement Nazis, or at least racists - they also
were guys with families waiting at home and a job to do (or conscripted to a job to do - is that better? At least in the former case they volunteer for their jobs)

Re:Since..

[DEBEDb]

Probably of the Nazi Germany's soldiers

I meant "most of the Nazi Germany's soldiers;
of course.

Re:Since..

[Anonymous Coward]

> It took the Germans only 16 days to capture the entire country,

Umm, no one was fighting for those 16 days?

Ok granted, it was:

Poland: 1 tank division, 11 horse divisions
Germany: 11 tank division, 1 horse division

but, I'm pretty sure they put some kind of fight.

oh, and

> There will never be another holocaust.

This only makes it so "your people" won't be subjected to another holocaust....

Re:Since..

[JPelorat]

No, retard. I'm not talking about shooting all cops that knock on my door. Or any other situation but self-defense. Political and physical.

Ya know, for all you wankers screaming about "1984" and how Bush and crew are working up the next Reich, you get all squeamish and pussified when someone actually starts talking about resisting that sort of scenario. Because, in the end, -->when all else fails--, when your peaceful resistance fails, it *would* come down to armed resistance.

And no, again, I'm not talking about shooting cops at random. Your idea of 'authorities' obviously stops at the corner PD. It's a little bit bigger concept than that. If you can't see that, then you've got some things to learn about world history.

But thanks for overreacting and getting hysterical anyway. It was a fun read.

Re:Since..

[susano_otter]

You have a valid point. I didn't mean to imply that "enemy soldiers are people, too, so don't shoot them, talk to them".

Being willing to fight for my principles is a laudable thing. Being willing to fight a losting battle against overwhelming odds, for my principles, is both laudable and courageous, I think.

But claiming that my personal firearms will make any sort of difference at all in an armed rebellion against the U.S. government is foolishness. The only difference they'll make is on the personal level. They'll make a personal difference to the SWAT team member I shoot, and a personal difference to his family. They'll make a personal difference to me, too: I'll derive personal satisfaction from sticking it to The Man (by shooting some SWAT guy), and I'll experience personal pain (and probably personal death) once the return fire starts coming in.

My personal firearms won't make an institutional difference of any kind. Maybe, if there were thousands like me... but like I said, if there were thousands like me, we could probably get better results by nonviolent means.

I think that it's somewhat different for soldiers: they're agents of the State, which is an institution. Individually, they only have personal effects, but in aggregate they're a tool of the State to further the State's policies. If I agree that the State must sometimes use force to protect its interests, and if I trust the State to use its force wisely, then I might join the army and support my State as a soldier. And I'd go to battle not as an individual, but as one of thousands, all agreed upon the necessity of this course of action.

If we were to raise a rebel army in this country though, by the time it got big enough to make an institutional difference, it would be big enough to make that difference without resorting to violence.

Thus, personal firearms do not appear to be at all useful as tools for fighting oppression in modern, civilized nations. Because of this, I have little patience for 2nd-amendment apologies that assume that personal firearms are useful in this way.

I say that if you're serious about fighting the regime, you should be looking at the constitutional clause about abolishing the current government and replacing it with something new. Think of what change--real change--might come about if the NRA put all its lobbying power behind that idea!

All this ranting about "right to bear arms" is a distraction, a folly. Defending an expensive and dangerous leisure activity with patriotic rhetoric and lofty speeches about principles and rights is naive at best, and willfully misleading at worst. Owning and operating firearms is a privilege and a luxury. If you really care about personal freedoms and undermining an authoritarian State, there's more honest, less violent, better ways to go about it.

Re:Since..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot that Germany and the Soviet Union simultaneously invaded Poland. The Soviet Union had been Poland's ally.
Just imagine Mexico trying to defend against an invasion by Brazil, and then suddenly the USA, Mexico's ally, stabs them in the back and takes half their country. How well will Mexico defend against Brazil?

Typical American stereotypes that Poland was incompetent and France was cowardly, but you don't know the subterfuge and trickery used by Germany to defeat their victims.

Re:Since..

[susano_otter]

Fair enough.

But--

I'm not one of those squeamish 1984 wankers you mentioned. So it's not like I'm being hypocritical here. Also, I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in abhorring tyranny and being squeamish about armed resistance. Certainly men like Ghandi and Mandela have demonstrated that it's possible to do both at the same time, effectively.

Also, it's not "when" my peaceful resistance fails, it's "if". And it's a pretty big "if", too. Perhaps we should both do some research on the subject: how many peaceful resistances have failed, in the past 100 years? In the failure cases, how many of them would have succeeded if the resisters had been armed? We know Ghandi succeeded. We know Mandela succeeded. We know the Chinese students in Tiananmen Square failed. We also know that they were up against the Chinese Army, so it's pretty obvious that personal firearms wouldn't have helped much. I guess it's debateable whether or not a sufficiently large percentage of the Chinese population would have had better luck armed, as opposed to not armed. We can debate that, if you like.

My idea of "authorities" does not stop at the local PD. I agree completely with the idea that it's much bigger than that. Which is exactly why your personal firearms seem so pointless in this context.

This isn't the Wild West, where "authority" is the local Sherriff, and once you take him out you're free to make your own rules. You've got a much bigger battle to fight nowadays, one you won't be able to win by shooting people.

Sure, the decisions are being made by a faceless conspiracy, but who do you think is going to come and get you? Spooky mind-control men in black trench coats? Policy-makers? No, it's going to be local PD, or a SWAT team, or National Guard troops, or U.S. Army troops, or whatever. Real people, with real lives, just like yours. If killing any of them would make an institutional difference, then maybe killing them would be justified--it would certainly be effective, anyway. But killing grunts won't make a difference. Not in this kind of war, anyway. So why do it?

And what if nobody comes for you? What if they just keep eroding your freedoms little by little, until it's far too late to fight back? What if things just keep going on the way they are today, only always getting just a little bit worse? Then who are you going to shoot? Who would you shoot, today, this minute, to safeguard your freedoms?

Your guns are tools for killing people, not tools for effecting social change. If you can give some reasonable scenario in our nation's future where the two not only overlap, but where bringing social change by killing people is the most effective and humane solution, please let me know. My arguments are based on the assumption that such a scenario does not exist (though it has in the past). If you could show that it does, then I'd probably reconsider my position on personal firearms.

Enthusiastic, maybe. Hysterical, not so much. But I'm glad you're having fun.

Here's A Start To Protesting: Read MNFTIU.CC

[Anonymous Coward]

that's entertaining: My New Fighting Technique Is Undefeatable

Peace,

W00t

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[Anonymous Coward]

Off-topic? Technology and terrorism... can't get more on-topic, can you?

who would really have the time?

[Hubert_Shrump]

Detectives will tell you the reason a lot of criminals get caught is because they have this attitude. Or they think they're too smart - that no one would ever bother to Luminol the inside of their car...

So what happens when something you've done, something you thought - becomes illegal? And what happens when they do have the time and the means? Will you just hand it to them?

Call me paranoid, fearful, whatever - but I'd rather put up a fight.

Re:who would really have the time?

[jonadab]

> Detectives will tell you the reason a lot of criminals get
> caught is because they have this attitude.

I think the main reason a lot of criminals get caught committing
crimes is because they commit crimes. Yes, they also fail to
cover their tracks, but if your tracks are clean, there's nothing
to cover.

Now, I'm not saying I'm all gung-ho about giving up all pretenses
of privacy, but the extreme privacy nuts are being silly. I don't
particularly want any store I walk into to know my complete lifetime
purchase history at other stores, but I sure don't have any objection
to the government's knowing when and where I was born and how much
money I made last year; that information is... harmless.

As far as aggregating information various branches of the same
goverment already had into one large database... I don't see
why this is objectionable; if some of that information is too
sensitive, then why did they have it in the first place? The
objections should have been raised long ago, then. If not,
then what's the problem? Save your protests for when something
happens that creates a new invasion of your privacy. If you
whine continually about stupid things ("oh, no, the government
will know about my gun if it has to be registered!"), nobody is
going to listen when you object to having a radio-freqency ID
tag and GPS locator inside your body, or whatever. Pick your
battles. Speak up when it _matters_.

Re:who would really have the time?

[Catbeller]

I think the main reason a lot of criminals get caught committing
crimes is because they commit crimes. Yes, they also fail to
cover their tracks, but if your tracks are clean, there's nothing
to cover.

An act can be retroactively be declared criminal. For instance, the put-evil-hackers-away-for-life law that was passed this year declared not only that there is no statute of limitations on "hacking" as a crime, the new "crimes" are now infinitely retroactive! That is to say, if you used a Captain Crunch whistle in 1977 to get yourself a free long distance call, you can be prosecuted today as a felon with a prison term up to life.

So don't say "you're clean if you don't commit crimes". Something you do today can be declared illegal and heinous ten years from now. It depends on the evil men are capable of... and I guess the profitablity of prisons, combined with that wonder free labor for business created by that large incarecerated population.

Re:who would really have the time?

[curril]

> if your tracks are clean, there's nothing to cover.

A few counter-points:
Profiling
Yeah, maybe you haven't done anything wrong, but few months ago you bought a Teletubby video for your nephew, and statistics show that within your demographic, child molesters also tend to buy Teletubby videos. So the next time a kid gets molested in your neighborhood, the cops come knocking on your door looking for suspects. But hey, you're innocent, so no big deal right? As long it doesn't happen every time, and as long as you have a good alibi, and as long as some detective doesn't get it in his head that you are the guilty one and plants some evidence to make a conviction easier.

Myth of Infallability
Data gets corrupted, errors get made during entry, records get crossed, identities get swiped. What do you do when a computer glitch mixes your data with that of a serial killer?

>The objections should have been raised long ago, then. If not, then what's the problem?....Speak up when it _matters_.
Bit of a contradiction there, which illustrates why it is so important to speak up now. Otherwise the slippery slope will eat up our rights with no definite point at which to complain. GPS locator planted in your body sounds bad, right? Well, what about criminals on parole? - there are some places where they have ankle straps that do exactly that. So maybe we should do it for people who are charged but out on bail as well. And surely it would be OK for parents to do that in order to keep track of their kids. And by extension, we should do the same for mentally ill patients and other wards of the state. And speaking of such things, there is no reason why your employer shouldn't be able to require you to wear one on the job to make sure you aren't slacking off. After all, trucking companies already have something like that in place. And don't forget that they can keep track of you pretty well right now pretty well using your cell phone anyway. The point being, the government isn't going to stupidly cause a mass uprising by forcing this down our throats in one big dose, it will break it down into smaller ones that few people will get worked up about until you have an entire generation used to the fact that their entire personal life is on the government record. Heck, people will begin to feel frightened and vulnerable if they aren't constantly tracked.

Re:who would really have the time?

[uptownguy]

The point being, the government isn't going to stupidly cause a mass uprising by forcing this down our throats in one big dose, it will break it down into smaller ones that few people will get worked up about until you have an entire generation used to the fact that their entire personal life is on the government record

The point that the privacy nuts come so close to getting so right and then end up getting so wrong is this:

The reason why these little forms of monitoring and tracking will be odious and everywhere isn't because of the government imposing draconian laws or trying to track everybody. Sorry, folks, but last time I checked most of us live in fairly healthy democracies and if a groudswell of people take the time to voice their opinions, that opinion carries the day... No, the reason to be scared -- the face that this sort of omnipresent monitoring will take -- will be in the forms mentioned in the curril's post just above:

So maybe we should do it for people who are charged but out on bail as well.
And surely it would be OK for parents to do that in order to keep track of their kids.
And by extension, we should do the same for mentally ill patients and other wards of the state.
And speaking of such things, there is no reason why your employer shouldn't be able to require you to wear one on the job to make sure you aren't slacking off. After all, trucking companies already have something like that in place.

Yup and yup -- the thing is, we will let it go as far as we, as a society let it go. But don't confuse this with "the government" being out to do something. It is we, as a society, making the trade-off and giving up this privacy. No need to ascribe nefarious intentions ("the government" oooo) where there may be none but the end result is still nasty... Is it really any less offensive to have AOLTimeWarner/CocaCola/Barnes and Noble/Starbucks/Merck tracking your every move and using this to build a profile on you?

Re:who would really have the time?

[unitron]

"An act can be retroactively be declared criminal."

Did someone white-out the part of the Constitution that prohibits ex post facto laws?

In Soviet USA...

[Anonymous Coward]

terrorists sue YOU!

This thing is such a load of BS

[I am Emmitt Smith]

Seriously, does the government not think that terrorists are smart enough to pay with cash whenever they are doing anything that might get them caught? Or does it expect us to believe that the real reason for building the database is to catch terrorists? Either our government is retarded or it thinks we are. And I'm pretty sure I know the correct answer.

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that those are mutually exclusive. I think the correct answer is both.

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Think, dude, 6 years from now paying cash for anything will be 'proof' that one is 'terrorist',
. . and only ones with a smartcard in one's hand and a PIN in one's head will be permitted to engage in any purchase...

Or, one could go for the embedded-in-hand or embedded-in-neck chips, I suppose...

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[kedi]

Think again. The idea is to locate suspicious activity. Not using credit card is the first trigger to show that you are a potential terrorist, - other triggers follow.

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[I am Emmitt Smith]

How can it trigger anything when they have no way of identifying who paid with the cash?

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[kedi]

Emmitt Smith asked:
"How can it trigger anything when they have no way of identifying who paid with the cash?"

for example by crosschecking individuals (social security numbers) who are alive and yet make no purchases using credit cards, bank cards or checks.

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[I am Emmitt Smith]

Half the people I know don't use credit cards or checks when they buy stuff. And probably half of those people use money orders to pay their bills. I guess 25% of the people I know are suspicious. Maybe I should start watching my back. And if we were to only check the people that never use those things, don't you think that terrorists (or anyone else that cared to) would realize that and start using them for most transactions?

Re:This thing is such a load of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

so the terrorists do their normal shopping with credit cards, bank cards and checks, but buy their terrorist tools with cash (as you would expect)...

I guess we're safe, then.

[Satoshi Harada]

From the article:
Limited disclosure certificates solve that centralization problem. They use a clever bit of mathematics to protect the identity of honest people, but reveal the identity of people who attempt to commit fraud. As soon as you try to cheat someone, the privacy protection evaporates.

And it's the *politicians* who are deciding when someone cheats?

Re: Algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

if (!terrorist);
collect_data();

If you think...

[NilObject]

If you think this is our biggest problem, you should check out: http://www.orwelltoday.com

You'd be surprised what goes under even our meticulous radar of freedom infringement...

Re:If you think...

[dubbreak]

for the lazy: click here

cuttng and pasting yeck

It can't happen here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the software that TIA needs already exists -- PROMIS!

And it has the seal of approval from the earlier Reagan/Bush constitutional scofflaws!

Total my arse

[Anonymous Coward]

TIA only serves to demonstrate the supreme arrogance of the US govt - quick! search the big database for "white van"

Re:Total my arse

[JWSmythe]

---
SELECT * FROM big_brother_profiles
WHERE
(
residence_location = 'Washington'
OR
residence_location = 'Virginia'
OR
residence_location = 'Maryland'
)
AND
(vehicle LIKE '%white%' AND vehicle LIKE '%van%')
AND
military_trained = 1
AND
(gun_owned = 'M16' OR gun_owned = 'AR15')
AND
violent_history = 1
AND
previous_matches > 1
---

Unfortunately, that now leads to the question, is this person the correct one because he matched, or is he now the convicted person because he was the only one to match the profile?

It's easy enough to find someone who could do something, and based on their profile and history convict them. That's what makes this whole idea so scary. I don't want to go to jail because someone plays out the scenerio of the Swordfish movie. As cheesy as the movie was, it could be conceivable that someone would rob a bank, and do electronic transfers while they're there.. What's better, robbing a bank for a few thousand in cash, or robbing a bank and transfering cash out of large account's into your own at another bank. Don't think individuals, think Microsoft, HP, or even the local utilities ($100/mo * 1 millon customers).

Boom. For saying this, I'm profiled. BTW, any Federal agents reading this, I recently moved to Mars, so I wasn't on the planet if it happens. :)

Re:Total my arse

[Handpaper]

Damn right. This case [bbc.co.uk] is one in which it has been widely asserted that the man eventually convicted was only arrested because he 'fitted the profile'

Why would anyone do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although corporate databases CAN be made to hinder or thwart gathering personal information, WHY would said corporations bother to implement this?

Here are just three reasons it won't happen:

1) Purposely hiding customer transactions and data may draw unwanted attention of the feds. Not officially, of course (or maybe...). But lots of "unofficial" attention by federal agents and agnecies can be a real headache. Maybe the company finds itself the target of yearly IRS audits, for instance.

2) As explained 14,000 times a day on Slashdot, corporations don't care about us except as a source of revenue. Their declared objective is to make as much money as possible. So why go to any extra effort unless it results in higher profits?

3) Even if a company did bother how can you, as a consumer, ever be certain it even works? Maybe it's just a PR campaign (i.e. lying) in an attempt to increase revenue (see #2 above). Without detailed insider knowledge about the methods used, there is no way to ensure that any database privacy measuses exist or work even if they do exist.

You want some privacy, make small transactions and pay for everything in cash.

Re:Why would anyone do this?

[Deven]

Although corporate databases CAN be made to hinder or thwart gathering personal information, WHY would said corporations bother to implement this?

To reduce liability and to avoid adverse publicity, in the event the database is compromised. Sensitive databases have been compromised before, and will be again. The potential damage is limited if the data is encrypted in the database. Corporations don't care about our privacy, but they certainly do care about liability and adverse publicity! (A PR campaign doesn't provide those benefits, only the illusion of them...)

Re:Why would anyone do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

An eternal optimist. Refreshing. If customers won't be able tofigure this stuff out, why would a copy be worried about liability or bad publicity?

Re:Why would anyone do this?

[Deven]

By and large, customers only figure this stuff out after the fact. They learn that the online store they trusted with their credit card number had lax security, and a thief now has their credit card number, along with thousands of others. Does the customer shop at that online store again? Probably not. Do others who've never shopped there avoid it? Probably. Is the business damaged by such an incident? Obviously -- it scares away existing and potential customers!

Smarter corporations may learn this lesson the easy way, by observing the damage to other businesses from security incidents. Those companies may manage to avoid an embarassing incident. Dumb or callous corporations will learn the hard way -- by having their own business damaged by a security incident, sooner or later.

Security is a cost center. Companies don't like to spend money on things that don't make money. Nevertheless, the potential cost of a lapse in security can far outweigh the cost of providing security. Thus, it makes good business sense to be concerned about security. (At least for those few corporations smart enough to be concerned with long-term viability of the business, and not only short-term profitability...)

Interesting-- the "re-education" of America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's something interesting ---

I wonder what will happen in schools in a few years? When we were all kids growing up, we were taught that we were the greatest nation because we had certain freedoms, that the government had limited power over watching us etc, instead of places like soviet Russia (where the CD players listen to YOU--- woops, wrong post) that watch and control their citizens.

What is probably going to happen is that kids in schools today will be taught (slowly as not to draw attention to it) that it is good and proper for the government to watch its citizens, that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy" etc... and kids being kids will dismiss our ideas of personal liberty, privacy, etc as old fasioned - or worse, that they see mommy or daddy using PGP or linux, or planting a tree in front of the security camera in their house, and thinking that mommy or daddy must be terrorists...

Just my 2 cents' worth...

Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America?

[asteinberg]

Hmm...why do I get the feeling that I've read something like this before?

Two identical score 5's in one day? I call dibs on this post next time this subject comes up.

Oh well, the editors make reposts all the time, why not let the users do it too, I guess. And at least this was was an AC so it's no karma whore.

Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America?

[rickthewizkid]

Heh - considering I was the one who posted it... :)
The AC owes me 2 cents...
-RickTheWizKid

Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America?

[djmitche]

What is probably going to happen is that kids in schools today will be taught (slowly as not to draw attention to it) that it is good and proper for the government to watch its citizens, that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy" etc...

This is the unfortunate consequence of a completely docile population. Which a consequence of the unavoidable goal of a government-run educational institution: to create and maintain a docile population. Think about it: (US) schools do not exist to produce optimal democratic citizens; they exist to teach unquestioning adherence to rules and regulations, and bureaucratic mechanisms for trying to effect change (student government).

Yes, that is to say that my job is, in as many words, to keep the man down. That's probably why I'm no good at it.

Dustin

Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America?

[Reziac]

It's propaganda. It's *supposed* to be repetitious! ;)

ha ha, indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Martial law. Martial. Not 'Marshall', dumbfuck.

And if Klinton hadn't gutted the CIA and FBI and turned them into limpwristed shadows of usefulness, we might not be having this problem, eh?

Re:ha ha, indeed.

[CommieOverlord]

And if Klinton hadn't gutted the CIA and FBI and turned them into limpwristed shadows of usefulness, we might not be having this problem, eh?

And if the previous 30 years of Presidents hadn't gone out of their way to piss off people in the middle east, then we might not be having this problem.

Re:ha ha, indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims of extended conspiracy and other senseless things won't get you even a shred of respect.

Put your tinfoil hat back on, little child.

Re:ha ha, indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And if Klinton hadn't gutted the CIA and FBI

You think the Shrub invented Homeland Defense? That was coming WAY before he stole the election. "Klinton," as you so eloquently and humorously put it, started the ball rolling on a national defense department.

Only Monkeyboy and his minions have turned these ideas into the rights erasers they have become.

Impeach the shrub.

Re:ha ha, indeed.

[CommieOverlord]

I didn't claim it was a conspiracy, just a long series of bad decisions by foreign policy makers.

don't worry about Adm P & BigBro

[727scotty]

If the Admiral gets the US into the "big brother" mode, other countries will nonetheless adopt this new, more enlightened mode. I can't imagine Germany going back to the nazi mode. Their law doesn't even allow phone companies to keep records of what number called what other number. Back when, the Nazi's used that kind of records to clamp down on dissent. And how about the Dutch, Danes, Sweeds, etc? Or the Lithuanians: their experience with Stalin would probably give them pause for thought....

Sometimes the US (as all other orgs) overdoes this or that. But the point of democracy was never to get the best possible laws at all times. It's really just that we get a collective, periodic chance to correct excesses by dumping the bozos who get it wrong.

Just look at Trent Lott... "you can't fool all the people all the time" - P.T.Barnum

The problem with this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the methods outlined in the article, the buisnesses involved would have to retool their entire transaction handling infrastructure, That's a lot of things they would have to rewrite. Also this would mean if their servers went down, they should not take an imprint of a credit card, so there is also a policy change which would need to be instated.

All of these things would cost a retail establishment money, in expenditure for a new system, or lost sales to cover a policy change.

The only way I could see such a system being implemented was if the credit card companies got behind it and forceds retailers to comply. I can not off hand think of how this would be beneficial to credit companies, so unkfortunatly I don't think that this will have a chance.

Re:Poindexter is another typical American bum

[cheeseSource]

Poindexter was indeed found Guilty. His charges were overturned months later on a technicality. You scratch the governments back they scratch yours, which is why he is back. The only reason communism is a bad idea is because it goes against human nature, i.e. humans are naturally too greedy and stuck in a haze of self interest for it to work. You should also note that the USA is not a Capitalistic society. Let's not embark on the idiocy of North and Reagan. Hello Iran-Contra, but then again I am just feeding the trolls....

The root of today's doublethink is...

[lildogie]

...governments terrorizing citizens in the name of the war on terrorism.

Don't complain too much, people...

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, you voted these jackasses in when you voted for a democan 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.

Am I being thick, or what?

[garyok]

It strikes me that another agency wouldn't be able to access your data in a usable form either: the company holding it. They'd need your permission every time they wanted to compile a management report, or research sales trends, or whatever, so the cost of this sort of activity would be so high there'd be no point in them developing IT solutions for these tasks at all. This would adversely impact on corporate efficiency and profitability (also, other projects with interdependencies on these tasks would probably find it harder to justify claims for funding with the board - i.e. no jobs for us).

Any company that implemented a solution like this for its sales data would probably be cutting it's own throat.

Or, if they had a key to unlock the database, then the spooks could just take that too. And you're right back to where you started.

Re:Am I being thick, or what?

[K-Man]

The general idea is that the identifiers are one-way hashed using a public algorithm, so that the same ID will be encrypted to the same value on all systems that use the method.

Aggregation by customer ID, or into different customer segments, is no different than with unencrypted ID's, except that the ID doesn't trace back to a known person.

Whether this method is immune to brute-force attacks is another matter.

It's "Operation Enduring Freedom"...

[Alethes]

that does nothing but erode Freedom.

Feingold for President

[Anonymous Coward]

The article points out that only one senator voted against the Bush Administration's "Patriot Act" that shelves the privacy of law-abiding citizens in the name of preventing terrorism.

The Democratic party is going to need a presidential candidate, and senator Russ Feingold might be a good man for the job. He's got a track record of supporting civil liberties, pushing for campaign finance reform, and seems to have an above-average grasp of technology. I don't put much faith in politicians of any stripe, but we're going to need someone to start undoing Bush's damage once he's ousted...

Right wing logic

[DonFinch]

Ok...and Clinton is the root of all evil because of a blowjob?

Re:Right wing logic

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit much. I'd say you were trolling, but I'm gonna feed this some anyway...

The blow was not the thing. It may have been disgusting, it may have been immoral, it may have been unethical... but that's not the thing.

Lying under oath, THAT was the thing.

If you lied under oath, would you stay out of jail? And keep your job?

Re:Right wing logic

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Clinton is evil because he is a murdering traitor. He sold classified satellite information in return for campaign funding. He also murdered friend, colleagues and anyone else that had dirt on him. The blowjob was the best way to cover up these facts, because unfortunately, our nation thinks sex scandels are more important than real news.

Take off the tin hat. The only people who think that Clinton "murdered" anyone (I assume you're referring to Vince Foster) are psycho fascists.

The blow was not the thing. It may have been disgusting, it may have been immoral, it may have been unethical... but that's not the thing. Lying under oath, THAT was the thing.

Problem is, they were after him before he lied under oath, trying to find out who he was having his little flings with. So the lying under oath bit was borderline entrapment.

Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED in any way , shape or form. Here in the US, every little flimsy excuse is used to author laws that are directly contrary to our Constitution. The real problem is that most of our polititians are lawyers, and sworn to uphold the Constitution. Yet they think they can bend the words to mean something that no rational human would ever interpret that way. Secret government groups are the main reason for the people not trusting the government. Look at Oliver North, educated Marine officer, breaking the law. There are hundreds standing beside and behind him. The average knee-jerk American citizen asks NO questions about what their government is actually doing. Radical reform is needed to prevent this stuff from happening. I propose:

1) No relative of ANY person holding ANY public office, be able to run for public office within TEN generations of any other family member. (keep the family dynasties out of the picture)
2) Only a single term for any politician. (prevents power base building)
3) Require a quorum for any vote to be valid
4) Allow the people to be the final say in any law's passage. Make the people read and vote upon the law to get it passed, require a quorum of at least 70 percent to be present during the vote, failing a quorum, the law gets shelved for a 20 year period.
5) Hols our Representatives(Not leaders as they like o think of themselves) totally accountable for their votes in the Senate and House. Require responsibility and back it up with the death penalty. Make the family's of the politicians reaponsible too, give them incentive to question where all those extra perks that are not in the job description come from. Graft? Make the families responsible for their own welfare. It would reduce cheating.(My Dad the Senator has a new car that was given to him. Did he earn it or is this a bribe? Asks little Suzie daughter, not wishing to die due to Dad's lack of morals.)

These simple modifications to our Constitution would go a long way to curb the Good Old Boy syndrome. If politicians had one chance to do public service, and no chance to suck on the public teat for life, they my be more responsible.

Voter ratification would give control to the people, who should have the control, but have been usurped by clever rhetoric of lawmakers and representatives from the past.

Re:Governments

[iwnbs]

Well...I don't think everyone is educated enough to make responsible decisions about voting for each and every law. Would you want some 18-year-old high school dropout voting about whether or not to increase taxes to curb inflation in a rapidly expanding national economy? I wouldn't want someone who doesn't understand economics making that decision. That's why I elect representatives who do. And seriously...a death penalty for not being your idea of a perfect politician? I say that when you make a single mistake at your job we kill you!

Re:Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, and thanks to Slashdot's pitiful service, nu lengthy rebuttal of your obvious Democratic bent was lost in the bit bucket! Learn history or be forced to repeat it.

Re:Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on. And I would add the following:

6.) Abolish Flouride in municipal drinking water, remove it and substitute with appropriate quantity of colloidal silver.
7.) Force airlines to cease dumping chemicals in the air behind their planes for the government in the jets contrails ('chemtrails').
8.) Make the Jewish Illumati accountable to popular vote by all arms-bearing land owners.

I feel you should move into the wilderness to a protected compound to further work out this plan, and when ready, send a lengthy email to the FBI announcing your plans. Remember to stop taking all the pill the doctors gave you, because they'll only broadcast your thoughts to NSA androids orbiting the earth in alien/soviet spy satellites.

Re:Governments

[idiot900]

> Would you want some 18-year-old high school dropout voting about whether or not to increase taxes to curb inflation in a rapidly expanding national economy?

Are you willing to give him a gun and send him off to war so he can get shot defending your society? I think that is damn well worth the right to vote.

Re:Governments

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who put thier lives in danger every day at work. Why shouldn't an elected official who protects our country, be held to the same standard>?

Re:Governments

[iwnbs]

I whole-heartedly agree with you in that. I just don't believe (as the parent was suggesting) that everyone should be voting on every single issue. Aside from lack of expertise in the given fields, that's just way too much to be voting on. Voting would take months to complete for each individual.

sure Trent

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah -- if Strom Thurmond was president, then we
wouldn't be having all these problems.

MOD PARENT ...

[DavyByrne]

DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD! CRIMETHINK!

We shouldn't HAVE to take these precautions

[AugstWest]

The whole concept ITSELF is out of line. The TIA database isn't just for your financial transactions -- it will also be storing biometric information about you, along with facial recognition images that will be put together when you get your drivers license.

Articles like this are giving people false hope that they will be able to circumvent the system without mentioning the whole camera/surveillance/REAL big brother part of the equation. They won't need your credit card number if they have a positive visual ID of you purchasing something that may be considered threatening.

The fact of the matter here is that the whole TIA database idea must be scrapped, and no more federal funding should be granted. It has already sucked up well over $100million of our tax dollars.

Please write to your representatives and let them know how abhorrent this whole program is. It is an unprecedented invasion of our privacy, and it should be stopped dead right now.

Sending email to your elected officials is pretty much copying it to /dev/null. Noone reads their email, not even their interns most of the time. Either snail mail the letter or, if you're in a hurry, fax it to them.

At any rate, LET THEM KNOW. People made enough noise to force Kissinger to resign, people made enough noise to get Trent Lott in some serious hot water, people made enough noise to stop the exploratory oil drilling off the coast of California...

The point is clear -- make A LOT of noise to support your cause, and chances are you will be heard.

Re:We shouldn't HAVE to take these precautions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sold...but what's a good way to say it?

Saying I think the TIA is bad doesn't carry enough weight in my mind. I'm looking for more background info. What groups or influential parties directly oppose the TIA and other things? Are there any good sources for info about blatently wrong ills the TIA will commit?

Of course, after it's functional...sending a letter to your representatives will immediately flag you in the exact database you're against.

Re:We shouldn't HAVE to take these precautions

[AugstWest]

The database doesn't exist yet. They're still using test data.

You can find lots of arguments against it if you do a google search for TIA database, or you can visit www.aclu.org, and they've got some good info on it. I believe that truthout.org also has some good articles on the issue as well.

Why it won't work

[nuggz]

Yes one way databases could work. They can be fast, accurate, reliable and secure.
But there are a few reasons why I don't see it happening.

1. Linking transactions together is seen as valuable to those tracking data. The grocery store would love to know that I buy Doritos every day, and that I just moved so they should order fewer Doritos.

2. People don't understand this technology. Since we can't read who did what, how can we really track what is going on, how can we be sure that only paying customers get service. They don't understand so they don't trust. Complicated solutions like this are new, and implementations are seen as generally troublesome. I wouldn't bet my company on it, and the current crop of mangers won't either.

3. Not enough pressure from customers. Why go for this complicated, expensive risky new technology that is less useful to us when our customers don't even care about it.

I think it is mostly a perception and Cost/Benefit problem.

One of us is missing the point...

[RalphTWaP]

*throwing hands into the air*

I have to admit, it's probably me. As I understand it, the article points out that there exist designs for data-collection and data-mining that would allow non-disclosure of personal information. True, the public/business could use these designs when constructing data-collection systems.

However, posters have rightly pointed out that mandates to "all your data belong to us" by the Gvt will probably either explicitly cover the case "you must be able to turn over all your data, don't design it otherwise", or they will implicitly cover the case "failure turn over all the data will result in a fine". Almost certainly, the second statement is easier for the voting public to accept than the first. In either case, the same result obtains: The designs utilized will be the easiest ones, the ones in use today, and those are the ones that provide simple, bi-directional links between John Doe and his pr0n/weapons/libertarian-prose purchasing behavior.

Surely, it is in some sense more seemly to collect the minimal data required, and to store it in such a way that the system itself maintains user privacy quite aside from the database's access permissions; however, in light of the technology barriers (it's _harder_ to implement such a system, and harder during the classically shorted design phase), and the possible future legislative barriers, it seems unlikely in the extreme that these protections will make it into most systems of this kind.

At the root, our loss of privacy protections is a societal/legal matter. Slashdot maintains firmly that piracy issues (societal/behavioral matter) can't be solved by technology (DRM), don't be so quick to embrace the thought that privacy protection could possibly be so solved.

I'm PROACTIVE!

[Anonymous Coward]

My cat has a chip in his neck!

errr.... something something BOOK of REVELATION something MARK OF THE BEATS babble, rant, foam

Re:I'm PROACTIVE!

[Atsjoo]

I have a chip on my sholder. *rimshot*

It's Clinton's fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush had all of the information right in his hot little hands - public record now - and chose to do nothing. Israel warned us, France warned us, Britain warned us.

Protecting us from terrorism? Bush FAILED IT.

Now what about Clinton? How much money and people did he "gut" from the CIA and FBI?

Liar liar liar.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[swb]

1) You can't have the widget
2) You WILL PAY FOR THE WIDGET
3) Profit!!!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, The customer pays me an untraceable transaction with a widget!

No problem

[Publicus]

Mom will understand how to use this, I guess I have nothing to worry about.

Really, one way hashes are a good idea -- obviously the best of us probably use them every day when we log into our *nix boxes, but I can't see this becoming the standard for all identification applications -- consumers just won't get it and therefore won't choose it over less secure methods.

Let's say Citibank begins to offer this for credit cards. Would your average consumer be able to glean from a 30 second commercial what a significant difference this would make for their privacy? I don't think so. Citibank may get a few extra customers, but not enough to cover the cost of implementing such a system. I certainly don't think they'd do it on general principle.

Maybe it will happen. But I would be surprised.

If it's good enough they'll ban it

[RealSurreal]

If there's a technology that stops the govt doing what they like with the data you can be sure they'll just ban it or make it an offence not to hand over the decryption keys.

Why should we care about privacy?

[Confused]

In the past years, technocrats, maketroids and burocrats of all kinds have had their wet dreams about the global database and total information about their victims.

In the beginning, those databases will probably work and be a menace to our privacy, but as they're fed on a constant stream of uncaring data input, random garbage, errors, the quality of the data will deteriorate quickly. Just have a look at the Times registration database (are there really that many Mr. Goatse?) or the mailing list from the wonderful Real-Media Player download page.

Once this stage is reached, the conclusions of those databases will get discounted more and more, and transparent anonymity will be reached. People will simple learn how to feed the system on the crap it likes best. We have that already today in accounting (just keep below the radar of the IRS) and other offical reporting duties. The trend will just continue.

In the end, any query will produce a lot of chaff while missing much important data that they won't be worth the the processing time.

The idea that those databases can be used to combat Terrorism and crime is quite ludicrous. I'm certain Mss. Nasty and Dr. Evil will manage to have completely harmless profiles in all of those databases. At worst, it will just give those criminals with access to power an additional leverage (see current Mafia-trials in Italy).

At the moment we're in atransitional phase, where people still believe in Big Brother, and those poor sods having their data in the wrong place will suffer most. Anybody who got associated with somebody else's credit record can attest that.

But once enough people are made to suffer from the garbage produced by those databases, things will normalise again.

We just need more databases, more agressive datamining, leading to more mistakes. The bigger the mistakes, the merrier. If those reports hit the evening news often enough, the systems will find their rightful destiny:

A big garbage dump for burocraties to wank over.

What happens when the database get hacked?

[missing_boy]

I'll bet my shorts that *Alan M Ralsky* will have FBI's database hacked within a week.

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot something in your where clause:

"body_odor=intolerable"

You are a pussy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pussy. Shut the fuck up. You will be the first one to turn tail and take it up the ass when the socialists try to take over this country. Pussy.

All your botched references are belong to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, see......you're butchering TWO stupid running gags. Yakov Smirnoff AND the Underpants Gnomes. People like you are like animals. You should not be allowed on the internet if you can't even get two simple played out references straight.

Here's a primer, so that even somebody such as yourself may use cliched references with a modicum of success.

Yakov Smirnoff:
Mr. Smirnoff was a comedian in the 80s. He did a pretty much formulated word swap. "In the United States, you drive a car. In Soviet Russia car drives YOU. What a country." That's how that works. When I clicked on the link to your so-called 'post' (if it CAN so be called), I was expecting something along the lines of "Widget ships YOU". I had to go back and see what exactly this was referring to. Please be a hunny and forward this to your parent post, too. So that's how that works.

The Underpants Gnomes.

The Underpants Gnomes were little gnomes who stole the underpants of the good people of South Park, Colorado. When some children stumbled on the plot, the gnomes set up a Powerpoint to explain what they were doing. Phase One was "collect underpants". Phase two was. And Phase Three was Profit. See?

Re:All your botched references are belong to me.

[Rick the Red]

If you have to explain the joke, it wasn't funny.

If you have to explain the joke to the guy who told it, it really wasn't funny.

If you have to explain to the guy who told it why it wasn't funny, you have problems beyond Slashdot's ability to help you; at least you posted as an AC, so there's still hope...

Top ten TIA changes

[K-Man]

10. Lose your keys, Poindexter brings them back the next day.
9. To stop brute-force attacks, first names like "John0xF8A94388xyzzytangoalpha" become common.
8. Get a free battery after ten trips abroad.
7. World's richest man, John Doe, sets world record for simultaneous grocery transactions.
6. To avoid long check-in lines, precision guided smart luggage becomes popular.
5. Free CueCat with every truckload of fertilizer.
4. Oliver North's credit cards cancelled.
3. Radio Shack wins contract for immigration.
2. Missiles 30% cheaper with frequent-shopper card.
1. Terrorist operations disrupted by flood of Penis Enlargement spam.

Re:Top ten TIA changes

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Oliver North's credit cards cancelled

Poindexter would make sure his former cell mate wouldn't lose his mastercard...

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[kawaldeep]

muslim is not an ethnicity.

Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[CormacJ]

This database thats been proposed relies on certain common identifers to be able to track people. Ask anyone who has ever worked on a large database - with out a common id tracking system, you can never find anything.

I'm guessing that there will be two different id tracking methods: Social Security Number and Alien Registration ID.

This is why this database is not about tracking terrorists. Terrorists, you see, don't like to be tracked. They can sneak into the country off a container ship thats passing near the coast. They can sneak in via the Mexico or Canada borders.

Terrorists don't like leaving paper trails especially if something they are planning will take an age to achieve, so they pay with everything in cash (either stolen or given to them by fine upstanding, but sympathetic citizens).

ID theft is so easy in the US these days it's not even funny, and nobody has taken any steps to correct it. If the current administration was serious about clamping down on terrorists they would first make the current system so foolproof that ID theft was impossible - then track people.

Take this example:

John Q Nobody is a foreign terrorist whose goal is to attack the US Capitol Building

He sneaks off a ship somewhere off the coast of California and meets up on shore with Peter D Alias, second generation immigrant who feels strongly about US intrests. He'd recieved a call from a mentor to meet someone on the beach, and give him a package because he had to be out of town that weekend. Peter meets him and gives him package containing a stolen SSN and papers that identify John as Jack Y American. Peter also gives him a large sum of cash and a legally registered car to use.

John/Jack uses the money to buy several batches of chemicals in different states. After 2 weeks he meets up with Joe P Somebody, a disaffected American who one vistied the country that John/Jack comes from and hates the fact that the US bombed it into the stoneage several years ago. He's been talking with a friend from that country who sends him a parcel that another friend will pick up. He meets John/Jack and given him the parcel containing the stolen SSN and a birth certificate of a dead infant. John/Jack assumes the identity of the dead infant and is becomes William Stonewall of Minnesota.

As John/William he now buys several more batches of chemicals in a few more states, and drives to DC. There he combines the chemicals sticks it in some plumbing supplies bought at Lowes and mortars the US Capitol building.

He then meets up in DC with a contact from an embassy and recieves a passport made up with a valid identity. He drives to Canada and flies off to his home country.

The OHS starts investigating, and finds that a gang of 3-4 people were involved and worked as a team to do this, little realising it was one guy and he's long since left. After several months they find that the ID's were stolen.

All that will be left is some grainy security tape footage of some guy that was never in the system in the first place.

Whats sad is that because ID's were stolen it was never flagged that this attack was being planned...

Re:Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats interesting. So large databases actually make it *easier* for terrorists to get in, because it is so easy to steal someone else's identity? Let's try pitching that...

Re:Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[infolib]

Vveerrrii cleverrr skeeem!!

However, if you really have to go to such great lengths "just" to mortar the Capitol I think it's actually a lot less probable that somebody's gonna do it. The system works.

The problem is that a lot of innocent civillians are also monitored, and that this will give their powerful enemies so many more ways to make their lives miserable if they happen to cross their way. This will mean that no one dares challenge the ones in power, and corruption, nepotism and neglect runs rampant.

The system would really scare me if it wasn't run by a man of such great personal integrity as John Pointdexter

Re:Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[CormacJ]

Exactly. Think Fed-Ex. They know where every package is in thier system. If a package ever go into thier system without being tagged, it would never be found.

Once the government believes it has Total Information Awareness they will start using it in lieu of actual fieldwork. Where was John Doe last week (lets look up the database - emailed Jane Smith to say he was going to meet her at the bar, credit card bill showing he spend $67.34 at the bar. Phone call from his cell saying he would be late home (had car trouble). Next day he has a mechanics bill for a bashed up fender. Lets pick him up on DUI - database says so)

If you are not in the system it will actually be easier to move around because you are not being tracked.

Re:Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[CormacJ]

Look at the lengths they went to on 9/11 - Getting into the country, learning to fly 747's, checking out security at airports, dry runs, co-ordinating the simultaneous hijacking of planes. It's much easier to mortar somewhere. The IRA mortared 10 Downing Street in London in the middle of the day during the last Gulf war, using home made mortars. Later they mortared Heathrow airport. Twice. And then had to phone the police to tell them that the police had missed a third set of mortars that didn't go off.

If someone is determined enough, they will find a way to commit acts of terrorism.

My problem with this system is that it not addressing the problem. It will gather information on people who don't even matter, and the people that DO matter won't be flagged because the system cannot recognise them.

The whole TIA is a way to give money to GOP friendly businesses while making the public think that Bush is hard on terrorism. The system itself is a distraction from the fact that regular people no longer have any civil rights.

Also as far as I can make out there are no checks and balances to ensure that the system will not be abused.

Re:Know what the problem really is: Identity Theft

[infolib]

Look at the lengths they went to on 9/11 - Getting into the country, learning to fly 747's, checking out security at airports, dry runs, co-ordinating the simultaneous hijacking of planes. It's much easier to mortar somewhere. The IRA mortared 10 Downing Street in London in the middle of the day during the last Gulf war, using home made mortars. Later they mortared Heathrow airport. Twice. And then had to phone the police to tell them that the police had missed a third set of mortars that didn't go off.

Sure, but 9/11 would have been a lot harder under the TIA-style system you describe. I think it would in general tend to lessen the scale of terrorist attacks.

If someone is determined enough, they will find a way to commit acts of terrorism.

Yeah, but again it's a question of scale.
As to the rest of your comment, i share your concerns.

Re:uhh

[Anonymous Coward]

so if my wife's wedding ring costs $2600 I have to leave her behind when I go party in Mexico? Fine by me, I hope she won't take it off and stay faithful.. cause I sure.. will?

sure, just don't be surprised if you come back and find someone doing a "stripe search" on her...

Representative government -- YOU JACKASS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks a lot, Uncle Sam.

The quiet irony of this article is that we live under a representative government -- in other words, YOU ELECTED THESE FOOLS, YOU JACKASS.

John Poindexter was involved in Iran-Contra

[Anonymous Coward]

Has everyone forgotten the role this guy played in Iran-Contra? Is it me or is it spooky all the crooks and cronies that are surfacing again?

Interesting? Informative? Not "funny"?

[schlach]

this is obviously a joke, folks...

a funny joke, too =)

The article title is sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they implying women don't spy? What a moronic sexist stereotype! If this kind of sexist thinking don't stop, next time the guilty parties will just hire exclusively women to spy on EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING in order to escape the critisism of 'Big Brother', instead of stopping aggressive data gathering, the activity that matters.

Re:The article title is sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why RIAA never get Big Brother Awards!

Re:First Mutha Fuckin Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Better a world ruled by transsexuals than one ruled by bigot assholes!

Merkac Dot - Google Links, Slashdot Summary

[mikecheng]

Merkac Dot : 48153

Links to Google Cache(N.B. Not always cached.)

C|Net has an interesting editorial cache [Link not cached at time of posting]
Declan McCullagh cache [Cache link active]
Digital Cash. cache [Link not cached at time of posting]

Mirrored Text (for posterity, not karma): Digital Cash.

Implementations of various electronic cash protocols. Digital Cash Implementations of various electronic cash protocols.

magicmoney 1.0 Magic Money is a digital cash system designed for use over electronic mail. Magic Money is a digital cash system designed for use over electronic mail.The system is online and untraceable. Online means that each transactioninvolves an exchange with a server, to prevent double-spending. Untraceablemeans that it is impossible for anyone to trace transactions, or to match awithdrawal with a deposit, or to match two coins in any way. The systemconsists of two modules, the server and the client. Magic Money uses the PGPascii-armored message format for all communication between the server andclient. All traffic is encrypted, and messages from the server to the clientare signed. Untraceability is provided by a Chaum-style blind signature.Note that the blind signature is patented, as is RSA. Using it forexperimental purposes only shouldn't get you in trouble. Digicash isrepresented by discrete coins, the denominations of which are chosen by theserver operator. Coins are RSA-signed, with a different e/d pair for eachdenomination. The server does not store any money. All coins are stored bythe client module. The server accepts old coins and blind- signs new coins,and checks off the old ones on a spent list. sources MagicMoney.tar.gz author Pr0duct Cypher edit application object

-lucre 0.9.0 Unofficial Cypherpunks Release of Chaum's ecash. -lucre is a C library that implements the protocols of DigiCash's ecash.-lucre provides all of the basic things you would like (payment requests,payments, deposits, withdrawals, opening accounts), as well as a fewadvanced features (like the ability to use the same account on multiplemachines, and the ability to use ecash without having a bank account atall). The format of the wallet is somewhat different from that of DigiCash'sstandard client, so you have to be careful if you want to use use both thatand -lucre with the same bank account. It does seem to work, though. sources lucre-0.9.0.tar.gz author Anonymous edit application object

ncash 19971216 An efficient off-line electronic cash system based on the representation problem. Experimental implementation of an off-line electronic cash system based onthe representation problem. From the documentation, "Our system is the firstto be based entirely on descrete logarithms. Using the representationproblem as a basic concept, some techniques are introduced that enable us toconstruct protocols for withdrawl and payment that do not use the cut andchoose methodology of earlier systems. As a concequence, our cash system ismuch more efficient in both computation and communication complexity thanpreviously proposed systems.". The technical paper is mirroredhere. sources snapshot.tar.gz author Niels Möller homepage http://www.lysator.liu.se/~nisse/NCash/NCash.html edit application object

$Id: application-index.html,v 0.24 1999/09/16 14:13:43 root Exp $ munitions.vipul.net Amsterdam, Netherlands mirror &copy 1999-2001, Vipul Ved Prakash. Thanks to xs4all for providing the resoruces to host this site.

Mirrored Text (for posterity, not karma): C|Net has an interesting editorial

Perspective: Tech's answer to Big Brother - Tech News - CNET.com CNET tech sites: Price comparisons | Product reviews | Tech news | Downloads | Site map News.context: Special Reports | Newsmakers | Perspectives Perspective: Tech's answer to Big Brother By Declan McCullagh December 16, 2002, 4:00 AM PT WASHINGTON-Why is everyone so surprised that the U.S. government wants to create a Total Information Awareness database with details about everything you do?

This is an unsurprising result of having so much information about our lives archived on the computers of our credit card companies, our banks, our health insurance companies and government agencies.

Now a Defense Department agency is devising a way to link these different systems together to create a kind of digital alter ego of each of us. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this proposed centralization was inevitable-and it's only going to get worse.

Blame retired Admiral John Poindexter, national security adviser for former President Ronald Reagan, who returned to the Pentagon in February to run a creepy new agency that's trying to create this mammoth surveillance and information-analysis system. It's called Total Information Awareness, and it's funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that it's consistent with the traditional American values of limited government and a sharp demarcation between the private and the public sector. I'm not even sure if Poindexter's brainchild could ever work.

What I am saying is that if our personal information-some of it extraordinarily sensitive-is archived in corporate or government databases and protected only by the weak shield of the law, it's vulnerable to federal snoops.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this proposed centralization was inevitable-and it's only going to get worse. When a nation is responding to perilous threats, politicians tend to repeal privacy laws in a femtosecond. The current process started with overwhelming votes for the USA Patriot Act last year. (It cleared the Senate with only one "nay" vote, from the courageous Russ Feingold, D-Wisc.) And if another terrorist attack happens, all bets are off.

That's why simply enacting laws and trusting to the government to protect our privacy can be a very dangerous thing. Just ask the Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during World War II. New research says they were selected using Census Bureau data-data that was handed over to the government in strict confidence. Or ask the people who were robbed by the former chief of detectives for the Chicago Police Department, who pleaded guilty last year to using law enforcement databases to plot crimes.

Technology offers a better way to preserve our rights against government overreaching. New crises may prompt Congress to vote unanimously to skewer the Bill of Rights. But technological protections don't vary with the whims of politicians or shifts in Supreme Court majorities.

The sad thing is that for years we've known about technology that can slow down this mass "databasification" of American society. We just haven't used it.

One approach is outlined in Peter Wayner's useful book, "Translucent Databases." It describes methods-complete with Java code that produces standard SQL (Structured Query Language)-to construct databases that use one-way functions to scramble data and shield it from prying eyes.

New crises may prompt Congress to vote unanimously to skewer the Bill of Rights. But technological protections don't vary with the whims of politicians or shifts in Supreme Court majorities. "The main goal I had with writing the book is to show it is possible to build a database that does useful work and solves problems without keeping personal information," Wayner said. "At first it seems counterintuitive. You figure that if you're going to arrange appointments and keep track of what customers bought in the past, you need the information there. But it turns out it's possible (to scramble it), and it can make the database smaller and faster, too."

A basic example is the venerable Unix password file, which doesn't store any actual passwords. Instead, the operating system scrambles a user's password using a one-way hash function and saves the scrambled version to the file. Because the function cannot be reversed, the database is secure if viewed by a malicious hacker, but users can still log in.

More importantly, even if Poindexter obtained that file through a court order or some more surreptitious method, assuming the encryption algorithm worked properly, he wouldn't be able to extract anyone's actual passwords from it.

Wayner's book provides tips that more programmers should follow. He shows how to build an encrypted department store database using a one-way function that can't divulge personal information unless a customer's full name is supplied. Other examples include encrypted car rental databases and lotteries.

A second approach was invented by Stefan Brands, previously a scientist at Zero Knowledge Systems, who outlined it in a book titled "Rethinking Public Key Infrastructures and Digital Certificates: Building in Privacy."

Brands describes a remarkable technology called limited disclosure certificates. It's a pre-emptive response to current trends in authentication, where you might end up using one digital ID certificate for everything from driving to shopping to health care-and all your information and transactions would instantly appear in Poindexter's database.

Limited disclosure certificates solve that centralization problem. They use a clever bit of mathematics to protect the identity of honest people, but reveal the identity of people who attempt to commit fraud. As soon as you try to cheat someone, the privacy protection evaporates.

Brands predicts in his book how a limited disclosure certificate would work on a smart card: "Any data leakage from and to the smart card can be blocked. The cardholder can even prevent his or her smart card from developing information that would help the card issuer to trade the cardholders' transactions, should the card contents become available to the card issuer. Transactions can be completed within as little as 1/20th of a second, so that road-toll and public transport applications are entirely feasible."

In an interview, Brands added that "instead of all this information about you being managed in central databases, you could manage it yourself. In theory, all the data that organizations hold about you and need to make decisions about you could be distributed to you.

"If you use good cryptography, the organizations' information is protected: You can't modify the information. At the same time, you would then be able to disclose whatever you need for a particular purpose."

MIT professor Ron Rivest described Brands' work as imparting a way for people to remain anonymous and yet convince an Internet service provider that they are a paid subscriber. The beauty is that the user's sessions are unlinkable-the ISP can't even tell if an user currently logged in is the same as the user who used the service at a previous time.

It's true that Congress could outlaw Wayner's and Brands' techniques and force all information to be stored in a surveillance-enabled way. But until that happens, we don't have to make it any easier for Poindexter and his snoops.

More Perspectives

biography Declan McCullagh is the Washington correspondent for CNET News.com, chronicling the ever-busier intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired. Search News.com All CNET The Web

I'll continue ranting for you....

[mindstrm]

You are absolutley right.
And I think educating people on what to demand from their bank would go a long way towards solving things.

If you walk into a bank knowing the rules of the game, and how things work, you can usually get things done quickly.. even if you have to be a bit forthright to cut through their scripted crap.

I found my bank account empty one day.. I asked at the bank, they told me it was a cheque that had been cashed. Sure enough, account activity shoed a check of some strange amount (not a roun dfigure) being withdrawn.. coincidentally, the time on the transaction was the same as the time on the previos trnasaction, which was me depositing a cheque for the exact same amount.
Now, I made that deposit. but I certainly didn't cash a cheque for the same amount at the same time.

So.. I asked the lady "Okay... two points. Firstly, you must agree it looks a bit strange. Secondly, I didn't write a cheque; every single cheque I have is in my briefcase, right here (I showed her). She continued to insist.
I asked "Okay, can I see the cheque then, please? Where was it cashed, who's signature is on it? A faxed copy will be sufficient.. just show me this cheque that I know doesn't exist."
"No sir, we don't have those, those are in another city, where things are processed."
Eventually she got the branch manager. I explained simply "I *know* I didn't write this cheque, I have all my cheques. I am now broke because your bank made an error. You can't show me the cheque, and you aren't helping me. I want you to either show me a copy of the cheque that supposedly was written, or put the money back in my account & reverse all the overdraft charges by the end of the day"
"Of course sir, that's completely reasonable. I'll call you at your office before we close"

Just when I thought the bank had forgotten, it was a half hour since they closed, my phone rang, it was the branch manager. He apologized, said everything had been reversed and credited, and that their clerk had made an entry error when depositing my cheque a few days ago.

Now.. it struck me as odd. This isn't a lot of money.. they weren't overly evil.. but the clerk definately wanted me to go away because it was *obviously* my fault, and the bank couldn't have made an error. There's no reason for this hostility.. or wanting me to leave.. just give me straight, polite answers.

I think if the average person understood a bit more about what a bank is, how it operates, and what services it should be providing, banks would quickly get better.

The thing about cashing cheques really amazes me.. I had the same thing happen at HKBC... payroll cheques, issued from that branch. They would actually ask me rudely if I hda an account, glare at me, etcetera... they really acted like they did not want to honor the cheque.

You have to understand how bank employees work... they ask you if you want ot open an account because they have to. If they don't do enough sales, they get reprimanded.. they have quotas. Those tellers have all kinds of things they have to do other than service the customer.. and all of them are subversive.

Dreadful revealation about this issue

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to have a really hard time understanding threats which aren't immedietly in their midst.

This database thing for example. Try to warn people about the threat and you get answers like the poster you responded to:

I've nothing to hide
They're not looking for me
I don't act in a way that would affect me

And so on. The problem with such a mindset is it involves a perspective that is locked into the here and now. Understanding the threat comes about when one takes some time to consider how events will unroll into the future with the new laws.

I really do try not to be a person that blames things on other people being stupid but in this case, I'm at a loss for alternatives. The logic required to extrapolate the current situation into the future is not overly complex. The history, of what governments do when allowed to snoop deeply into citizens lifes, is readily available. Even within the history of the US. Aka the Mcarthy era, the Hoover era, and so on.

There is no excuse for not being afraid of the likely outcomes of the Total Information Awareness program. No excuse other than being unwilling or unable to look at the situation and then use logic to extrapolate potential future outcomes.

I do not accept appeals to authority. or appeals to ones own personal virtue as logical methods of evaluating the current situation. The former is illogical, the latter a, very childish excuse. Childish as in the type of thought children have because they simply cannot see the world through their natural and extreme state of self-centeredness. The mentality of a ten year old is where such thoughts stem from.

If if you think I'm not dead serious about this, do a web search on "stages of intellectual development" and "stages of moral development". This is why seeing answers along the lines of "If I'm not doing anything wrong", is such a scary thing to see.

Here's what I'm trying to say: If you can't see the danger of the Total Information Awareness Program There is something wrong with you. It means you have a deficit somewhere in your life that needs addressing. Much like the deficit a person standing in the road has for undersdtanding roads, vehicles, momentum, and squishy body parts. This is reality people. This is the road, this is your life.

Re:If this isn't a first post...

[Anonymous Coward]

um...since it was first post, he won't be needing your priceless advice.

Re:In Soveit Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think spelling it wrong is part of the criteria.

Re:We need Bayesian Terrorist Filters

[Anonymous Coward]

and "thought=independent"

No way

[K-Man]

Ollie deals strictly in cash from here on out.

Declan's arrest records

[Ellen Spertus]

Ironically, Declan McCullagh's arrest records are online. He plead guilty to a charge of domestic violence:

• http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts /mosaic/JOKE/report1.jpg
• http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts /mosaic/JOKE/report2.jpg
• http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts /mosaic/JOKE/report3.jpg
• http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts /mosaic/JOKE/judgement.jpg

(Despite the URL, these are no joke.)

Freedom=Slavery; Ignorance=Strength;War=Peace

[quintessent]

Here are just a few passages from chapter 1. It's worth going back and reading.

"How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

"The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons."

"The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp."

"It was curious that he seemed not merely to have lost the power of expressing himself, but even to have forgotten what it was that he had originally intended to say."

"Once when they passed in the corridor she gave him a quick sidelong glance which seemed to pierce right into him and for a moment had filled him with black terror. The idea had even crossed his mind that she might be an agent of the Thought Police. That, it was true, was very unlikely. Still, he continued to feel a peculiar uneasiness, which had fear mixed up in it as well as hostility, whenever she was anywhere near him."

"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even -- so it was occasionally rumoured -- in some hiding-place in Oceania itself."

"He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirators dedicated to the overthrow of the State. The Brotherhood, its name was supposed to be."

"At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization."

Re:First Mutha Fuckin Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup yup. This is a reply by the root poster. Transexuals who will rule slashdot will be male to female transexuals. This is the majority group, and as such will rule slashdot.

There will be a lot of things to come in the future regarding slashdot and transexuals. Programs will be written, and spread through the file sharing systems. The programs will help spread the transgendered word.

People will be aware of another world of gender identity, and slashdot will be the root carrier of these messages.

Some people choose to surgically change their sex, others choose not to but live their lives as the xor of their born, genetic sex. Still others feel as if their gender identities switch back and forth from male to female from day to day, week to week or month to month, depending on their mood of the day.

We are a force many do not understand or are willing to understand. We will turn an innocent media icon into a tool of public education if me must.

You must be fearful of us, as will will rise and overcome.

Be patient with us as we only wish to be accepted by the majority population...

Tangent Idea

[serutan]

Reading this story I had two thoughts.

1: why couldn't terrorists etc use these same one-way ciphering techniques to hide their plans and schemes from the FBI?

2: regarding the smart cards etc. with fast transaction times for tollbooths, mass transit etc, here's the tangent idea: when you walk by a scanner and it charges your bank account for some purchase, how about if the card gives the scanner the bank's id in the clear, but gives your customer info in an encrypted form that only the bank can decrypt? Then once the bank validates the transaction, it could transfer the money to the vendor without saying whose account it came from.

Funny abbreviation, "TIA"

[KlausBreuer]

Heh. I find it highly amusing that the USA named it's moronic data-collection program "TIA".

See, I lived a couple of years in South Africa, which (while a beautiful country with friendly people) is a hugely bureaucratic, corrupt mess.
And the phrase "TIA" is very common lament when, once again, the gouverment is messing up: "That Is Africa".

Ciao,
Klaus

Good points!

[ratamacue]

For the apologists of prohibition, however, conformity has more value than freedom. Never mind the incredibly destructive effects of prohibition, measured primarily in freedom and violent crime; in the mind of the prohibitionist, conformity represents the pinnicle of social advancement.

Re:First Mutha Fuckin Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know? I actually agree with that! Contrary to the bulk of the unenlightened population, i.e. those that have WAAAAY too many hangups or insecurities about their sexuality, I've never had a problem with anything GLBT. People should realize that something as drastic as SRS and gender reassignment is a helluva lot more than just cosmetic surgery, and should not comment unless they have been there, otherwise they haven't a fucking clue!

*Sigh.*

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, both you and JPelorat seem to be missing one important point: if people remain as apathetic and cynical as they are today, they won't even be willing to go out and vote, much less engage in some non-violent campaign or fighting back with guns. How many people even bothered to vote in the last 2, 3, 5 elections? How many people believe that their vote doesn't matter, that there are no honest political leaders, that nothing is worth fighting for so you may as well just stay at home with your PS2? What is the point of everyone having guns or knowing about the non-violent struggles of Ghandi and King when they can't even be bothered to find out who their local state/provincial/whatever representative is?

I do believe that it was Steven Biko who said: "The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." A people with a defeatist attitude don't need to be imprisoned; they've already imprisoned themselves.