Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Soft-Pedals Total Information Awareness

PizzaFace writes "Congress was concerned that the Pentagon's 'Total Information Awareness' program would invade citizens' privacy, so it gave the program the red light until the Pentagon addressed Congress's privacy concerns. DARPA, the Pentagon technology agency that brought us the Internet in more innocent times, showed its Total Marketing Awareness by renaming the TIA program, 'Terrorism Information Awareness.' The gist of its report seems to be that data may be collected from everyone, but it will only be used against evildoers. You can read DARPA's report and a background story from the Washington Post."

6 of 632 comments (clear)

  1. So basically... by k03+kalle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What they are trying to do is make us believe that this is a feature, and not a bug? Are members of our government actually human? Or is this a ploy to steal all of our freedoms right out from under us. Next thing I know I'll be sitting alone in my room afraid to say anything because they might be listening. My TV will always be on because there will be no way to ever turn it off, and my name will be changed to something lame like Winston.

  2. Promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it will only be used against evildoers

    You don't say. Whom did they intend to use it against if congress hadn't stopped them? Anyone who changes sides because of an argument like that deserves to be deported to a police state where, of course, all laws are for the good of the people, too.

  3. We're all "evildoers" by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 5, Insightful
    and of course the problems arise when the government gets to decide who the "evildoers" are and who are regular Joes. Once the hackers start getting jailed, we will suddenly find ourselves in a situation where protestors and dissident voices are "evildoers." Amazon.com collecting my personal information for better selling me goods is one thing, the government collecting that same information towards my eventual arrest is another.

    oh yeah, that whole arresting thing is going out the window too. It's become unfashionable to arrest people, now you just throw them in a cell forever in connection with another case, one which you are not required to mention.

    The phrase, "May you live in interesting times" never sounded so scary...

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
  4. In other words... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DARPA isn't doing a damned thing to address Congress' concerns.

    Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if, behind the scenes, DARPA says something like "well, members of Congress will, of course, be exempt!", at which point Congress will immediately approve it.

    I really wish, in this race to the bottom, some country would get there first in time to allow other countries to finally figure out that shit like this is really a very bad thing. But it looks to me like all of the countries are more or less operating in lockstep with each other, so they'll all hit bottom at about the same time.

    Still think I'm full of shit when I say that the world is going to turn itself into a police state and that the end result will be a stable form of government capable of lasting thousands of years?

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  5. Re:The State.. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also remember that the State once considered Martin Luther King, Jr. an "evildoer".

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  6. Re:Innocent times? by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ah, I see. "Everybody else does it," so that makes it Ok for the US.

    Yes, I'm well aware the US is and historically has often been far better than many other nations in its treatment of people. That still doesn't make it exactly exemplary. Perhaps you think when it comes to mistreating its citizens, anything the US does is Ok as long as it doesn't exceed that done by some other nation, but some of us envision a somewhat higher standard.

    BTW, the hair-splitting over the definition of "native Americans" is a crock. Like it or not, there were non-European peoples here thousands of years before Europeans arrived, and attempts to downplay that fact by saying they weren't "native" (only in the sense that human beings as a biological species didn't evolve here; their cultures and languages did) smack of an intent to reduce or dismiss the legitimacy of their claims. And what else should one call them? If mere accuracy is your goal, you should note "Indians" is profoundly less accurate than "native Americans."