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."
What more innocent times were these, exactly?
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.
Remember that it's the State who will define who an "evildoer" is, and what constitutes "evildoing".
Doesn't matter what it's called, Orwellian surveillance systems will always be a gross breach of a citizen's right to privacy, and will always be open to abuse by those in power.
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.
While they're at it, maybe they should change the logo as well to something less sinister, and appoint someone who is not a convicted criminal to run it.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Darpa-"Hey were going to collect all your data so we can know everything about you" :-(
Congress-"Hmm that sounds like it could invade peoples privacy"
Darpa"Ok - well err hmm its for terrorism"
Congress-"Well why didnt you say so , do whatever you want"
i wonder if the riaa will try this to get their anti piracy laws through- they probly already are
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
but it will only be used against evildoers
Should the government be trusted ? I don't think so, given this and this I don't think their history is so clean.
You in the US have been and always will be circling the same issues about security and rights of freedom etc. You need to feel hugely secure about yourselves, and still cling to your freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms. Would you feel lot safer with modified laws about all of those? Neither one cannot be compromised. Make an omelette without violating the rights of the egg.
Well, I find it merely amusing. That's all.
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
I like how they changed nothing about this plan exept for the name, Do they really think we're all that stupid?!
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?
Changing that T to Terrorism was brilliant. I'd forgotten for a minute that they were about to totally invade privacy. Cuz we gotta fight terrorism right, and anyone who opposes is probably a terrorist and all. They could do better though, and change it to Patriot Information Awareness, or Patriot Act II. That has a nice ring doesn't it.
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
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.
Sometime back, MS dropped the name Palladium and called it Next Generation Secure Computing Base, or some such silly name. The trick is to give a bad name to a bad project and then all of a sudden change the name to something else - problem solved.
It happened with Trustworthy Computing Platform Alliance as well - TCPA is now TCG.
Since TIA has been extensively criticized, especially at Slashdot, why not give it a very bad name indeed - Terrorist Information Awareness, and get away with it! Bright idea. The magic word terrorist seems to open all locks.
When I get my hands on LongHorn, I'm gonna try username terrorist and password Billyboy. Should be interesting to see what happens.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is 1984 coming 20 years later than planned. What a horrible, horrible government.
An editorial in today's NY Times notes that one of the ways the TIA will track people is by their walk. Observantly, Dowd parallels this to Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks. Apparently, this method of detection can be overridden by wearing a long coat.
I feel safer already.
It appears more than a few people are concerned about total information awareness (that's what it is, and that's what I will continue to call it) and losing their basic rights. With bullsh!t like this, the US is no longer the land of the free. Police state, here we come. *starts writing futile letters to greedy representatives*
Oh well. I wasn't using my Civil Liberties anyway.
Personally, the following bugs me a little bit:
*snip*
oversight board composed of senior representatives from DoD and the Intelligence Community, and chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
*/snip*
How about some civilians or "average joe" types to be appointed to that oversight board? The composition of this "oversight" board seems to be all intel and DoD guys... a bit too much agency inbreeding there. How about a joe citizen to give some civilian "little guy" perspective?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
You know, shortly after the main conflict in Iraq recently resided, there were lots of news reports stating just how much information Saddam Hussein's regime kept on the populace. One of the soldiers was quoted as saying, "Jesus, they've got files on everybody! The whole freakin' country is in here!"
Do we really want to be like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia for that matter? Subtracting privacy almost never adds security. Even if you watched everyone, all day, everyday, there'd be shit that slips through the cracks. Just look at how often Palestinians suicide bomb Israelis...and Israel brags it has the most stringent security in the world.
The best repsonse to this is to demand the database be 100% realtime public-access (r, not rw) over the internet.
It's asymmetric information avialability that is the problem - a system where all the data is only available to a control-freak elite is terrible, but if everyone has access to the information, the playing field is kept level.
No, it's not nice the database exists. No, it's not going to go away. Better that it be open to all then in the hands of a secret few.
Freedom should always trump Privacy.
dont get me wrong, im far from the ancient european critising the USA.
But there are times when living in the UK is sooo much more attractive than living in the US, at least we have a strong Data protection Act that gives us access to any information gathered by us.
And shamefully (being a privacy crusader myself) have even been put off travelling to the USA now as my information is already passed to airport security (my name, visa card number, what meal i had on the plane (true) etcetc) before the place has even had time to taxi down the runway.
I know that this will be flamed or trolled out becuase of the patriots within the slashdot crowd or i will have many responses based on the, but we are America and better, but bear in mind this is not supposed to reflect on the nation as a whole (paranoid although it is) or the poeple just a simple statement based on the privacy of the people.
A
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
Right....
I don't suppose anyone's heard of the events this week surrounding Texas Democrats and the Department of Homeland Security, eh?
Long story short: all 51 Democrats from the Texas State Legislature ran to Oklahoma for 4 days to prevent the State from addressing some redistricting issue (there wouldn't be a quorum of legislators, and thus nothing could be voted on). Anyway, pretty much all the Republican legislators shit a brick, and somehow it seems the Department of Homeland Security got dragged into the search for the missing Democrats (yes, the same federal agency supposed purpose is to protect the entire U.S.A. from terrorists). Oh, and if that isn't enough, it seems that all Texas Department of Public Safety documents regarding the Department of Homeland Security's involvement in this fiasco were ordered destroyed.
So, forgive me if I take a wee bit of convincing on this whole "TIA will only be used on foreigners" thing...
P.S.: Seriously, folks, it scares the shit out of me that the big news organizations aren't picking this story up and running with it.
Something is horribly wrong in this Nation; not in the usual
"corruption and racism" way, but far far worse in the "fascism and rogue
police state" way.
I now know how the Jews of Germany felt as they saw the vise-grip of
Nazism clamp down. Insiduously and calculatingly, the Nazi party coopted
and overran the legitimate elements of Germany's government. Nazism
failed only by the grace of God and because Hitler overreached, and
through sheer sacrifice by free people.
Tomorrow the world may not get off so easy.
Bush did not win the election. He remains the commander in chief
because his family and party connections illegally scuttled Gore's
contestation of the ballot-count. That illegal manoeuvering was effectively
cloaked in false legitimacy and hidden from public view, and amounts to a
successful coup de'tat against the legitimate government and sovereign
power of the United States of America.
These are dark times for the land of the free, the home of the brave.
As grave as that one issue is, I am not writing this letter in
condemnation of it alone nor is it the only Hitler-order threat to Freedom and
Democracy.
September Eleventh, 2001 has left a trail of unanswered questions and
betrayed trusts. The act of terrorism which took thousands of American
and foreign Human lives has been followed by events which to say the
least threaten the continued functioning and existence of our Democracy,
and point to a threat, possibly internal, which must be investigated.
These investigations have been called for and they have been impeded and thwarted
by the very entities which have fallen under suspicion.
These facts in themselves warrant a total investigation with all
urgency and priority as this Nation can muster. My belief in the just nature
and effective coordination of my Country, the United States, would
allay my suspicions and I would stand observant as established processes
assessed the facts and derived the truth, except this:
Bush has quietly gutted the very laws which make this nation Free and
Just, and openly pushed bills like the Patriot act I & II which put any
dissent into deep freeze or worse.
All these problems are beyond unnacceptable and it is in the character
and interest of the United States to meet them openly and with vigor.
The reality that our supposedly "liberal" media quietly ignore these
facts when they should be shouting them from every rooftop, lends ultimate
urgency to our problem: Our Nation, the torchbearer of humanity, is
under assault AND WE THE PEOPLE ARE LOSING.
The assault must be halted and routed if we are to prevent this
government and its' sacred values of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all are
not to perish from this earth. The defilers have craftily and
skillfully put up strong barriers to their prosecution but as a Nation WE CAN
defeat those barriers IF DARE. The mechanisms of our government are
being dismantled but the Nation is still fundamentally free; a well
performed campaign to bring the truth into the mind of every man and woman
must not fail, can not fail. The only failure is in not trying! And it is
our duty to those who died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War,
every foreign war and to the victims of September Eleventh 2001 to Stand
UP for the Truth!
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We have nothing to lose that
we will not lose if we do not Speak Out. We must marshal every resoure
at our disposal and launch the counteroffensive now; we have already
waited too long. The threat to our way of life, indeed to our lives
themselves, grows with each day. The threat fouled one election without
control of the White House -- in 2004, the adversary will not even need to
rig a single ballot. A second victory will cement their control. The
fall of the nation has begun and it wil
Could someone please tell me what Americans are so afraid of? Why do you put up with the government invading your privacy? The US have gone to war to liberate other nations from government which have done similar thing (Not on the same level of cause and with less advanced tecnologies). Why are you letting them do this to you?
I don't get it, the US is suppose to be the land of the free, isn't it ?
Many of you will probably be aware that in Spain there is a terrorist group called "ETA", that wants the Basque country (a bit in the North-West of Spain) to be independant. They are terrorists, no question, and they should be stopped. However, the current president of Spain (Aznar) hates that any of the regions of Spain wants independence, and is tending to brand anyone who wants independence as supporting terrorism. Political parties are being banned if they have members which are on a list of (several hundred) individuals which the state has decided are supporting terrorism. This means that practically any political party that is pro-independance for the Basque country is now banned. I believe this is obviously a real blow for democracy in Spain, and highlights the fact that a few terrorists can reduce the freedoms of a huge number of people if the government reacts in the wrong way.
Just my thoughts.
Today I watched Michael Ruppert defending his theory regarding massive government collusion in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The other panelists, predictably, were not convinced, and the arguments they used to refute Mr. Ruppert were the same ones we have heard repeatedly every time this particular "conspiracy theory" starts to see daylight. Why were military jets not scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes? Human error. Why did American intelligence ignore the warnings from foreign sources regarding the impending attacks? Outdated and bureaucratic organizations that don't talk to each other. How did a rag-tag bunch of known troublemakers manage to board the doomed flights in the first place? Lax airport security.
A point-by-point refutation of Mr. Ruppert's argument holds up well on the surface. Why? Because it is just that - a point-by-point refutation. Any one of these arguments, taken by itself, makes sense, particularly to a people who are still dumbstruck and grieving, a people who have been educated, both through the school system and through daily interaction with their friends and neighbors, to believe that the Americans are the Good Guys, decent and benevolent, right-thinking and honest.
And most Americans are just that. So facing people who are not that way sets up a clamor of cognitive dissonance that can be heard from from sea to shining sea. Into that cacophony of disbelief step the clean-up crews, the experts and pundits who emanate from government-sponsored think tanks, and participate in panel-style discussions such as the one with Mr. Ruppert. These "experts" are quick with the anecdotal counterpoints - and they seem pretty believable until - and unless - one takes the time to step back and take a longer view.
In an excellent piece entitled, "Uncle Sam's Lucky Finds," published by the Guardian Unlimited on Tuesday, March 18, 2002, Anne Karpf deftly navigates the scattered, pundit-tossed bread crumbs, and offers an extremely compelling view of American intelligence propaganda at its finest.
For while it is credible to assume that the various alphabet soup agencies that constitute our national security system might have missed India, France, and Russia chirping something about terrorist attacks as early as last spring, it is not credible to argue that these same agencies - who prior to September 11 could not find their arse with both hands - had, within weeks of the attacks, successfully identified all the hijackers. Following a trail of fortuitously placed flight manuals, Korans, "terrorist handbooks," (and please think about that one for a moment), and most amazingly of all, an unscathed fragment of Mohammed Atta's passport, the feds moved swiftly to construct a case implicating royal Saudi bad boy, Osama bin Laden.
It is possible, I suppose, that one of the hijackers would become careless and leave a flight manual lying around, or that the hand of some unseen deity would pluck Mr. Atta's smoldering passport out of the ruins of the WTC, (and then lay it gently at the feet of an FBI super-sleuth), but taken together, the improbability of such serendipity rapidly begins to become an impossibility.
Due to the enormity of the operation - and perhaps also due to the Pentagon's budgetary needs - shortly after the event, the terrorism experts began speculating about how September 11th could have been planned, financed, and perhaps even rehearsed, without arousing suspicion. They posited that underground cells of terrorists had lain hidden in sleepy suburban bedroom communities for perhaps as long as a decade, flying under the radar and waiting for their appointed hour to strike.
Again, taken by itself, this is a plausible explanation. But lay these stories next to the ones that tell us of devout Muslim suicide bombers preparing for a holy war by making a trip to Hooters, drinking heavily, and then leaving their apartments strewn with terrorist paraphernalia. That's when the official version begins to leak like a used condom. Are we to b
the more insidious Government's intentions. Whenever someting has "Security", "Peace" or "Freedom" in it you can reliably predict they are about the opposite, from an ordinary citizen's point of view.
This thing is inredible in scope! It will be limited only by the amount of data available. Of course, that's infinite. What exists to stop this program from gaining access to all records of all conduct by all people? I can easily imagine a time when all communication is monitored and probably recorded. All transactions of any type will be logged and entered into the database. All public movements will be captured by electronic eyes, analyzed and stored forever. The location of each car, phone, and every piece of currency will be tracked by satellites. Birds will have cameras implanted and flies will carry tiny microphones. There seems to be no way to stop these things from being developed. Bankers and businessmen will build bunkers below ground, eventually forming a race of subterranean rulers with absolute control of the surface dwellers. I'm sorry, it's too difficult to read about the TIA and not drift into psychotic sci-fi paranoia. /endfile
If the info is only going to be used against evildoers, then I have no problem with it.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Well, so is Kevin Mitnick but most Slashdot readers hold him in close proximity to God.
One has to assume that any politician is always seeking as much power as possible. It is not even a criticism - political systems specifically select those individuals who want power and are good at accumulating and trading it.
It's always cute to see how people are surprised when their "democratically elected leaders" turn out to have just the same tendencies as self-elected tyrants and dictators.
I believe the current tendency towards a centralization of power in the US is a self-defeating gambit, pushed by Ashcroft, but against the deeply ingrained beliefs of the political wing that put him into power, which has always distrusted big government. The attempts to turn "terrorism" into citizen control is a bit sad, really, since the minority views of the right-wing consituents in the US depend for their very existence on a open-minded and liberal democracy. Today, a register of information on everyone. Tomorrow, a national policy on morals. The next day: revolt from the conservative right-wing and fragmentation of the Republican party.
The point of democracy is not to elect the best leaders - this is a laugh - but to allow every policy, no matter how "vital to the State's interests" to be debated. Eventually such instruments will become the subject of discussion (allow 5 years for the Sept.11 trauma to wear off), and someone, somewhere, will be elected on the basis of protection of privacy. At which point we will see a swing back to smaller government and dissolution of the more blatant links between business and power.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
State Monitors War Protesters
Why not? Really? Are you serious?
Let's look at it like this. "Terror" is not a crime. "Terrorism" is not even a well defined act. When a person commits a "terrorist act," it could be a shooting, or a bombing, or a hijacking, etc. It's only someone's assessment of the motivation to commit the crime that labels that crime as "terrorism." So how is the database going to be limited to terrorists, or even potential terrorists, when all you need to have is a gun or some explosive material? That's a pretty wide group of people in the U.S.
And don't forget that drugs support terrorism. And don't forget that people with large amounts of cash are considered drug dealers. So if you carry large amounts of cash, you are supporting terrorism. So you're in the database simply because you cashed your paycheck and you don't like banks.
Terrorism can be redefined at any time. If you have private software on your machine which could have illegal uses, perhaps you're a terrorist. If you give to the wrong charity, maybe you're supporting terrorism. If you travel to a country "on the list," you're tagged as statistically more likely to commit a terrorist act. If your telephone records show calls to Colombia, you might be a terrorist. If you purchase a copy of the Koran, you are a potential terrorist. If you vote for the "wrong" party or person, you're a terrorist suspect.
THAT'S WHY NOT.
...that having even 99.999% accurate profiles gives 0% protection against 100% determination?
Really, do they not understand they need to root out the *reasons* people oppose the US politics, not just the *symptoms*?
"Terrorists" are not pissed off at the US out of envy of your economic wealth and civilian liberties, and even less so out of religious considerations -- they're pissed off because your wealth and freedom are maintained, in your name, at their expense... In this sense, the only Good Thing is Bush seems to stupid to cover it up, it's now out there or all to see. Or is it?
Curious, anxious, frightened, to see where all this will lead to..
to subsidize research - historically including automation, jet engines and of course information technology - that may be useful to the private sector.
Yes, everything I say is Chomskyist.
So - what do we have here? We have the pentagon developing an incredibly sophisticated, expensive technology. No private sector entity could ever muster the resources - I mean expertise, not just the finances - to make a comprehensive project like this work. Not even Microsoft (they'd screw it up anyway.) ONLY the defensive department can do it.
I should qualify that - Total Information Awareness could be implemented as open source, if we had motivation to do so. However, that wouldn't serve the purposes of the administration's corporate backers, who's goals do not include clarity and transparency.
Technology much like this already exists in the hands of corporations ("unaccountable private tyrannies," the man can sure turn a phrase) but it is not sophisticated enough for their needs in predicting our behavior - almost everything you do has a commercial component, and would be of interest to someone business, so saying that this is restricted to commercial activities is facetious.
If your primary objection is to the government getting it's hands on the data in the first place, keep in mind that a host of completely unaccountable private organizations - international corporations - already have it. In order for the government to develop such a technology, they need the information in question - so they need new legal powers to get it. The same is not true of corporations, who can and do simply trade the information with eachother.
Once the technology is developed, however, it absolutely will become available as a tool for use by the private sector, who already have the information needed to make it work.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
I have posted on the subject of surveillance many times before. Here is an extract regarding the psychological aspect. This particular part was wrote by another and did a better job of explaining than I could:
"Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure."
Full text is here and also on my personal website.
You could also add to that list 'suspected terrorist'.
When the Patriot Act was enacted after Sept 11, 2001, it included a provision to allow US companies to discontinue services with a suspected terrorist. At my company, a large anonymous insurance company, we are being asked (in lieu of $10,000,000 fines) to compare every claimant, vendor, and any name we come across to a database of suspected terrorists provided by the Treasury Department.
If the name matches, we are to withhold payment of the claim until we mail a form to the Treasury Dept, and they investigate the suspected terrorist.
So, if a person is injured on the job, is out of work, and wants to collect workers compensation from his employer's insurance company, he wont be able to if he has the same name as someone on the Treasury Dept's list. So, he wont be able to work because he's injured, and he wont be able to collect any insurance. Where's he going to get money to live on while the Treasury dept investigates?
Needless to say, I was appauled that we had to program these features into our claim system.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
You're only 20 years late, but that's only double-plus ungood.
Feh.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
As soon as you rock the boat to any effect, your life becomes interesting. As long as you remain "sheeple" and go along with what they say, you are not interesting. In the military, we called that being in name tag defilade, such a low profile that all that was visible of you is your name tag (below notice). But, when you start to disagree with those that know better, or argue that the Bill of Rights should not be arbritrarily suspended for the emergency du jour, they want to know who you are and start collecting against you. They need to know how to handle you and hence, need to collect information against you. After all, if you had nothing to hide, you wouldn't be raising such a stink. You must be one of them or you'd understand that REAL AMERICANS understand the need to make sacrifices.
Tip O'Neal said that all politics are local. So, all it would take to become a threat is to piss off the local town council by opposing any of their pet projects. They call the sheriff or local constabulary who look into you and/or let law enforcement highers know that you exhibit anti-American tendencies and you pop up on the screen for further investigation. In the UK they've already discovered that the people manning the local cameras spend their time following attractive women or "the wrong sort" as they walk the streets. In the U.S., many employees of the IRS were fired after it was finally made public that they were looking at the tax files of celebrities because they were curious about them. None of the cameras in the London financial district have caught any of the terrorists they were placed there to catch. None of the celebrities had any tax problems that would have necessitated the look at their records. In each case, the people with power to snoop abused their power for personal reasons. Let alone Watergate. In an administration where the President's press secretary feels that it's un-American to disagree with the President, what will it take to become interesting enough to be collected against?
Having said all that, we do need to do something to protect ourselves. The issue is to protect ourselves without compromising who we are in the process. Traditionally, insurgents have always had the advantage in this respect. They don't have to balance anything nor respect any rights. By getting the government to repress it's own people, the government will cause support for the insurgents to grow as resentment of it grows. It is an incredibly difficult position for a government to be in and easy for the government to get the responses wrong. I'm sure that the U.S. can protect itself and respect the rights of its citizenry. But we have to stand up for our rights while we do so.
If we have no privacy, we have no freedom.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
I'm sorry if this upsets some people, but I have to say it.
There are things worth sacrificing human lives for. Liberty is one of them. I know that goes against every value we Americans have developed over the last 50 years, but it's true.
Given the choice between living in a country where I have a chance of being shot, bombed, gassed, anthraxed or otherwise killed by terrorists, or a country where some government agency records my every word and deed and carries people it considers "dangerous" off in the middle of the night to secret trials and secret prisons, I'll take the terrorism. Accepting a little personal risk is the least I can do to respect the memories of people who died to establish a nation of relative freedom.
TIA may put a damper on terrorism, it may not, but either way I think the cure is worse than the disease.
0 1 - just my two bits