Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling On Total Information Awareness
securitas writes "Declan McCullagh interviews Bruce Sterling about Total Information Awareness (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness and raising concerns) or 'Poindexter's nutty scheme' as Sterling thinks of it. He predicts TIA will destabilize the government and lead to internal KGB-style coups. Whether you agree with him or not it makes for thought-provoking reading."
Gathering information on people before they have done anything wrong is always a problem, especially if these people know that it is being collected. It makes poisioning the data pool attractive, even if it's only something as stupid as magazine subscriptions, email account names, aliases (which are legal as long as they're not used to deceive for nefarious purposes), and credit transactions.
The government is most likely to be able to track transactions that occur digitally, or require storage of information on computers that are not under the control of the individual whose data is being collected. Do you think that it's likely that terrorists will use these means, now that it's been announced that the government is collecting it? I'd think that they're more likely to buy guns from someone who has switched from running drugs into the country to running guns, to contact their fellow agents through 'chance' encounters, and to transact whatever seemingly legitimate business they use either with cash or through legitimate electronic transactions, which will make them blend into the electronic noise just like everyone else. How is this going to help matters?
The government already knows when one buys a new handgun through legitimate channels, through the Brady Law. They already should know about most of those who have explosives experience, since that is usually military training based to begin with, and demolitions companies, mining companies, and anyone else legitimately using explosives has to get their employees licensed. "Cyberterrorism" is an absolute joke of a term as long as easily broken-into OSes like anything Microsoft has ever put out is still in the mainstream and is still being used as a server, and there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of other examples like these.
I don't see how collecting all of this data is going to help.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Lewinsky, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich's book deal, David Dinkins lack of tax returns.
Data Mining is here. While the Republicans are more astute in the practical applications of tech and the Democrats tend toward the hip useless gadgets, Both sides are gearing up and will be using data mining against each other.
I have always said that KGB agents must have wept when they realised the information your typical marketing or credit card company have on the american citizen.
Poindexter may be a criminal and a boob American Express isnt.
Technology has a way of making the world feel smaller: Trains, Steamships, automobiles, airplanes and now googling (ridiculously easy and efficient datat-mining).
If you live in a small enough town, everyone knows everyone elses business...
When you remove the distance that geography or caste once maintained you are left with a very small planet where everyone may not know everyone else...but if they need to they can dig up any amount of dirt on you they want.
TIA is an initial step towards a decentralized type of always on information about anyone you could ever want...
And the only people who will be safe will be those without govt assigned ID (which means no CC's no ID's no Bank statements etc..) and the insanely wealthy...those who can afford to keep their sins a secret.
Much like it would be in a small town.
I hate small towns.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
It shows that they THINK we're gullable morons.
Just by renaming it to sound anti-terrorist, are we supposed to shut up and stop questioning it?
Instead of making our government BIGGER & MORE INTRUSIVE & STRIPPING AWAY OUR RIGHTS, why don't we investigate how 9/11 was allowed to happen when we had ALL THE INFO REQUIRED to prevent it?!?!?
Oh, I forgot--the investigation into that was quietly squashed without much media attention but we got color-coded alerts to make us feel that something "real" appropriate is being done.
"Hey, lets rename this unpopular law/project/war/etc. so people think it has to do with anti-terrorism, they'll shut up for sure especially if the media makes anyone speaking against it appear stupid, weak, liberal, unpatriotic, etc. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a bunch of unpopular shit done what would've caused riots/impeachments just a few year ago! Best of all, when people start to ask questions about the Pres or VP dealings with Enron or Halliburton again, we can just change the terror alert color so the media can refocus on that without resorting another murder case in California."
"And just in case we don't have any more terrorism in the USA, lets go piss off the Palestinians and make the Middle-eastern countries think we're gonna invade them--that'll stir up enough shit to make at least another group of crazies blow something up here--and we can milk that bombing to our advantage just like 9/11! We'll be silencing our critics and getting unpopular initiatives done for the next 50 years using this strategy!"
I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point but really, don't you think there's a grain of truth to associating unpopular initiatives with anti-terrorism just to get people to stop questioning it?
It seems that they can not even perform basic background checks on their own employees: CIO of Department of Homeland Security Suspended. Seems she got her "doctorate in computer information systems" from a phony college.
Yeah, that is the type of thing that inspires confidence.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
..but this time you and I get to be in front of the cameras, unasked, and everything will be archived and indexed on permanent storage, including (especially) a complete record of your online and telecommunication activity. Scott McNealy would say "get over it", but government will use this data to protect society against potential threats - and eventually, any kind of dissent may be considered the seed of a potential serious threat to society, as Orwell predicted.
10 seconds my ass. I stick in the search terms "bruce sterling", "real name", & "fiction" (after all we need to separate BS the science fiction writer from BS the plumber), I get 390 hits. After glancing through likely pages, I get the real names to a half dozen different writers, but not Bruce! I even go to vivisimo, get some hits unique to google, but still no real name. Man, the New World Order better not depend on my lame ass skills.
Now I know I could track it down if I spent two hours going through search engines, varying search arguments, but what the hell am I doing wrong??? *sigh*
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Americans have no reason to fear their government?
You do realize this is the TIA article, right? The very point of the parent article is that we have a good reason to be worried about our government!
If the counterexamples are poor, then your original example - Germany under Hitler - was poor as well. It was just as ready to be controlled by fear as Iraq and Afghanistan were. (btw, Iraq was a very prosperous and stable country before Hussein - so they actually weren't ready to be controlled by fear) Your point remains weak.
As for the ad hominem attack, I'll just ignore it. After all, resorting to logical fallacies is a good sign one's losing an argument.
A researcher would do well to think carefully about the potential usage before taking any money to work on TIA.
The day this sucker goes live, you know its going to get the most viscous slashdotting imaginable, not to mention all the spammers, script kiddies, pro microsoft, pro linux, jehovah witnesses, jews for jesus, etc who all are going ddos, port scan, submit fraudalant information, etc etc etc.......
By the time its all over, we'll have Furher Ashcroft annoucing they are searching for a heinous terrorist known as "Heywood jablowme" aka "Al Coholic".
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Not exactly. From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a âoeshotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in lengthâ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Aymette v. State actually concerned a concealed knife, not a firearm. Interestingly enough, there was another decision about the same time from either Tennessee or Kentucky that found that a miniature shotgun was a useful weapon for a militia.
And, on top of that, Aymette v. State turned on the presence of the phrase "for the common defense" in the Tennessee Constitution at that time. That particular phrase had been proposed and explicitly rejected by the US Senate during debates on the Bill of Rights. So, even that qualifier is questionable.
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
There are two key phrases here: "not within judicial notice" and "remanded for further proceedings". The former phrase means that the Court would not conclude that a sawed-off shotgun was or was not part of the ordinary military equiopment, because no one presented evidence to support it. The reason? It's at the beginning of the decision:
No appearance for appellees.
No one showed up on behalf of the defendants, leaving the US government to present their case unopposed. Had there been even a semi-competent defense, it would have been a non-issue, because the US Army was using sawed-off shotguns as late as the Vietnam conflict. They were common in the trench warfare of WWI, which preceded this decision in 1939.
That brings us to the latter phrase: "remanded for further proceedings". The case was supposed to go back to the lower court to determine if the firearm in question did indeed meet the criteria established by the court. But by this time, Miller was dead (under suspicious circumstances) and apparently the US Attorney quickly cut a deal with his co-defendant, Frank Layton, to avoid the embarrassment of having the conviction thrown out after an evidentiary hearing.
So, while US v. Miller did indeed set the criteria for restricting ownership of certain weapons, the criteria very clearly permits the firearms that the government now prohibits.
An honest reading of US v. Miller doesn't yield the interpretation that most attribute to it.
If you accept the premise of the article, I don't think there's any doubt that we're close to fascism today. It's still early and we could reverse course in less than 18 months. But I think there's little doubt that history will observe that the US came close to losing WW-II 60 years after the fact.
I'm also sure that many of these people have no idea that they're fascist. Hitler was not Satan incarnate, Nazi Germany did not come into existence overnight, and we must always be on guard against history repeating.
As for the OP's uninformed comments, the proper description for the countries he described as "socialist" is "authoritarian" -- and there's no doubt that this country is shifting towards authoritarism in addition to fascism.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken