Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Developing 'Combat Zones That See'
t0rnt0pieces writes "DARPA is developing an urban surveillance system that would use computers and thousands of cameras to track, record and analyze the movement of every vehicle in a city. Officials claim that the project is designed to help the U.S. military protect troops and fight in cities overseas, but police, scientists and privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans. Combined with other technologies, such as software that scans databases of everyday transactions and personal records worldwide, the government would have a reasonably good idea of where everyone is most of the time. Read the news story and the contracting document."
How would including this in the cities, and even towns include most everyone. I'm prety sure that a large majority of the populations of the US and other countries don't actually live in the cities. So, it would give them an idea of what most businesspeople are doing from 7-7. Although I still do not like the idea and sounds like it may infringe seriously on some civil liberties.
Didn't DARPA invent the internet? So, let's start on IPv6 and give every object an IP address and a WiFi connectivity, and call it Secure Social Security or something like that. Problem solved!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Perhaps they'll be able to help me track those damn lost socks that keep allegedly disappearing in my dryer. Satellite tracking, cameras, computer databases - never again will I be forced to wear mismatched socks!
A network of cameras track our movements and trigger enevlopes demanding money on our doorsteps if we dare cross the red lines !
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
Time to talk to those crazy Renaissance Nanotechnologists get my car & bikes painted.
The Truman Show?
This is a step up from the idea the local police force has of tagging first their cars then pushing to haev every car tagged with wireless devices that identify the vehicels throughout the city on a wireless network. The idea being they can interface with GPS and mapping software to help them identify problems with traffic and criminal acts. They are pushing it in terms of National Securty, and claim that it will not be used as an invasion of privacy as if nothing illegal is happening, then they won't be looking.
So I guess the officials can also tell us why the hell overseas cities should provide the camera installation for US troops to fight there more easily?
To install the cameras you usually need to control the city and to control a city in a military operations requires some fighting before. Looks like a perfect Catch22 to me.
The trends in the government toward an Orwellian society sinerely worry me. Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society. They do all this under the guise of "national security" -- and yet we are not any more secure -- the non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations recently put out a report, saying that "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."
Our state of government is corrupt. Politicians are being bribed left and right in order to allow the big-media to consolidate even more, in order to pass DMCA type legislation, and in order to pass acts such as the PATRIOT Act, which should have been named the Big Brother Act. They are even creating Orwellian agencies such as the Total Information Awareness program (renamed to the Terrorism Information Awareness system, in hopes that this would help them fool the public on its purposes).
This is a farce. We need a new leader who will restore American values to this country. I personally think Howard Dean is our best chance at restoring this country to what it was (a good example of what he stands for is in his speech titled "The Great American Restoration", but in all honestly, almost anyone would be preferable to the anti-American Bush cabal.
The project's centerpiece is groundbreaking computer software that is capable of automatically identifying vehicles by size, color, shape and license tag, or drivers and passengers by face.
...
Did you recognize that guy with round sunglasses who just went by on his bicycle ? well, that software didn't either
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Home of Freedom.
So it's really as they say in France...
"it is hopeless to be a prophet in your own country" ("Nul n'est prophete en son pays")
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
That's what I refer to this as.
The following story is second hand; I make no claims as to its absolute veracity. Now, that being said:
Several years ago, it became feasible to use many, many cameras to monitor the movement of cars via their license plates. Long before the Brits deployed one of these systems to control traffic in the core of London, Burma (aka Myanmar, one of the more oppressive regimes out there) dropped a decent amount of cash to acquire a traffic management system for their own country.
Except Burma doesn't actually have traffic to manage. At least not vehicular...show up to a protest, though, and all that automatic, large scale image capture, compare...capture...becomes really interesting.
Welcome to the Burmese Traffic Problem.
--Dan
www.doxpara.com
I think I am basically screwed. It is already starting to feel like that.
I think this is going to be the real debate of the 21 st century.
where am I going to go on those occasions when I really want to crawl out of my own skin. And there are other times when I want to go where there is nobody else but me.
That is my innate desire, so the temptation will always be there ...
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.
Around the world we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on.
The actions of the Stasi and the KGB were all justified by the excuse of "National Security".
There was quite a debate on the London traffic thing - turned out most of the s/w codeing and data analysis is done in India... I suspect a huge project like this could mean lots of Indians doing the coding. Paranoid locals might consider shifting to Asia as well??
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Unless you're doing something illegal,
If you are doing something illegal you would change your plates. It is only ordinary people that cross the line that these systems penalise. They penalise enough to earn a lot of money though...
You talk like a saint but are you really trying to say that you never exceed the speed limit? even if you didn't mean to? Well now you WILL get a ticket.
But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Because of their amazingly huge butts, no doubt.
The technology employs amazingly huge butts?
Freaky.
This is a good argument, until you piss off the wrong person. What if that person decides to say, have you watched 24/7 until you screw up. You get 50 speeding tickets in the mail because the system said you were doing 2 mph over the limit, 50 different times in one day. Or 10 moving violation, because they have photo evidence that you parked 1 extra inch from the curb than you should have. Corruption of a system like this could become rampant.
I know this sounds really conspiracy like and the likelyhood of it happening is small, but are the real benefits that great.
A few radical folks decided that King George III had to go. That was treason and some of them were hanged (Nathan Hale).
At the time that the radicals decided that British rule had to go, all those radicals had to do was step out behind the barn and look around to see if they were being overheard by the King's forces. That would be impossible under this proposal.
There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse - but this proposal eliminates (chills) the right of the people to peacably assemble (even if they want to plot the overthrow of the current government - perhaps by ballot / constitutional convention / impeachment / or just running Ralph Nader again). US. Const. 1st Amend.
In his speech "The Great American Restoration", Howard Dean spoke of how he wanted to restore America's values to the government, and I'm sure his thoughts would be of interest to you:
"But there is a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine of preemptive war espoused by this administration. The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.
"This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.
"In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.
"Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world."
However, for some reason, the U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World. Why is that?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Australian police forces are developing similar technology. Soon those cameras will be able to do much more than just detect speeding and red-light running. If you're in a vehicle that's "of interest" to them (not just currently breaking the law in some way) expect a visit soon....
If we all just huddle together under the all seeing eye of the Asscroft spy machine then nothing can ever happen to us.
We trade our privacy and freedom for safety and as the quote goes we deserve neither in the end.
I am not buying it.
Just my 2 cents and all that?
What do you guys think is the balance between privacy and safety in these odd times?
ACK
I'd hope never to piss off someone who has access to that system. Or a stalker with access, that would be fun.
Patriot Act
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Do you use credit cards, debit cards, cash point card ?
Use a mobile phone, use it lots ?
Any one of the above can be used to track you.
Use store cards, reward cards (don't know if you get these in the US, but most the big supermarkets in the UK have these), combined together with you credit/debit card records a reasonable profile of you could be put together.
Technology is cool, with live by tech, we die for tech, but the same technology also traps us in an observable, trackable society.
In 1984, i believe what they did was randomly watch people, so you would have to assume you were being watched at any given moment.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
As a transplanted (25 years) Vermonter, I'll have to give Howard Dean a mixed review.
On the positive side, the guy tends to be a fiscal conservative, and can be BLUNT. I can't say if its an exact quote, but I seem to remember him using words like "irresponsible" and "idiotic" to describe members of the legislature, and those were members of his own party. It's about time we had someone in the Oval Office capable of being both direct and subtle.
On the negative side, there were some oddities about how Act 60 got through for school funding, and we're still fighting those battles. Vermont still has a lot of tension between business and environment, growth and quality-of-life.
As for Civil Unions, I guess I have to take the "so conservative I look liberal" stance and say, "My bedroom is none of your business, and your bedroom is none of mine!"
Dean is a bit of an autocrat, and has some difficulty working with a legislature. I count that as somewhat positive, because I don't like my government to do too much. As a hard line middle-of-the-roader, I tend to prefer Democrats in office because there IS more contention, and less gets done. With sufficient concentration of power, Republicans are too efficient and too much gets done. Much as they decry 'activist government', that's what we've got now.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"U.S. is still considered by many here to be the Micorsoft-of-the-World"
Britain plays the SCO Role...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
What I find more disturbing than the possibility to use this system to spy on americans, is the implied opinion that it's OK to use such a system for killing people in other countries but not to spy on US citizens.
To quote a great American patriot, Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The United States was formed in order to create a government for the people, not against them. Our people are honorable citizens, not potential terrorist suspects. This trend toward an Orwellian society goes against all American values.
Other DARPA funded projects include developing perfect humanoids that can talk, see, hear, read, touch, drive and attack when necessary.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I don't speak English very well.
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Is it not time to stop slagging off new technology for the bad things that could be done with it and rather, try to put forwards some realistic approaches to how a modern civ. is going to deal with new technology in the future
- i.e. make some laws/guidelines that are slightly more future-proof than the ones we currently have.
I would much rather see someone talking about solutions that deal with the possible creation of some extremely serious technology.
The world is getting doubleplus gooder every day!
I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
AND UK/USA. It is illegal under both our laws for the security services to spy on civilians. So we spy on yours, you spy on ours, data exchanged, all nice and legal.
And what's with this "how long until it is used on American soil?" attitude? Are you the only people on the world who are allowed to have privacy or something? Do you see a breach of someones civil liberties in some random country as "OK", provided Americans aren't affected? What's with that attitude?
Already, I am way too swamped with information I can't process it all, and many businesses I have to deal with ( insurance companies and anything to do with retirement investments ) know this and send me reams and reams of meaningless data.
Ever tried to read those phone-book prospectus they send? Or tried to understand whats really covered in that insurance policy? Or know what you should do with those proxies?
So somehow the government is going to collect and store all this data on all of us. How many of us will be needed to snoop on the rest of us? How many of us will be actually earning our keep, rather than coercing (taxing) it away from someone else? Will our economy, already crumbling from the effects of our inefficiency, absorb yet more non-productive loading? We are already running a helluva national debt. I know we think Joe Taxpayer is going to somehow foot the bill for this whole thing, but I get the idea we are kinda in for a surprise similar to the one some astronauts got when they tried to push some overstressed things beyond their limit. Once the infrastructure collapses, we may have to start off at a very low level again. What scares me is that it seems to me that technology has outpaced our means of maintaining it without a sophisticated infrastructure in place to do so. Given the resources of a machine shop, could you produce anything you needed to keep cars running?
I have large areas of my life in collapse already from not "making time" to pay due diligence to numerous busyworks. ( I put "making time" in quotes, because I really can't make time, I only can divert it from something else. ) - I simply can't see where we as a public can afford all this busywork trying to keep tabs on everybody else.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I knew as soon as I read your comment that you'd get lots of responses, and you have, but none that I've read so far have given you the correct answer, IMHO.
I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws. Within a few year, though, Hitler made sure that laws were created that the Jews, just by being Jewish, were breaking. According to Hitler, that made them a threat to his country, and they had to separated. Since some of the resisted, they had to disposed of. It's a harsh truth, but as far as Hitler was concerned, everything he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The Jews, before the late 30's, didn't think anything was wrong... obviously they were mistaken.
Just because you're not breaking any laws now doesn't mean you won't next week, next month, or next year. We have a government that has the power to create laws. The only thing the general population can do is protest, but in the end, the only way the politicians will regret what they do is if they're not re-elected, which in the worst case (Senators) can be 6 years later (I'll also mention that in the original Constitution, Senators weren't supposed to be elected, but rather chosen by the State Legislature). Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election.
The Bill of Rights was based on certain God-given (not Government-given) rights, such as the freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. One of the rights that isn't specifically mentioned is the Freedom of a certain amount of Privacy. Where I go on vacation is my choice, and I feel it's a matter of privacy. If I decide to go to Mount Rushmore alone, and not tell anybody about it, I don't want anybody else to know. That's my choice, and it's a freedom I expect from living in a country where the national anthem says "Land of the Free". Free to do what? To have the government track my movements, wherever I go? Is that what the Founding Fathers thought when they left England? "Gee, General Washington, I think we should create a government that can monitor and oppress its people whenever it wants with almost no possibility of retribution." I somehow doubt it.
The fact that we're discussing what freedoms and liberties are violated by the government tracking our movements tells me that people have forgotten why this country was founded in the first place. This country was founded so people could make lives for themselves doing whatever they chose, as long as they didn't deprive someone else of their freedoms. The government was created for the sole purpose of protecting people from deprivation of property and violence. The government was the friend of the people 200 years ago, but now is an entity to be looked upon with fear and apprehension. The "values" of "diversity" and "equal" rights are responsible. People that work for a living now have up to 40% of their earnings taken away and given to people that don't work for a living. Credit is given to people based on the color of their skins. "Equal rights" is a joke now, only funny to those that get things handed to them. To everyone else, it's a threat of violence or incarceration.
The people of this country need to seriously look at what their country has become, then we need to fix it.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
If it works, with a bit of modification, airport ground control becomes easier due to seeing aircraft and automobiles.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ok. Lets face it. Pattern recognition is improving slowly but steadily. We are now able to detect number plates at high speed. We can recognize people by their face or the way they walk. Not perfectly but every year algorithms improve a little bit.
In addition to that there are many promising algorithms out there that can for example learn what is surprising. So Pattern Recognition (parts of which where called AI some years ago) is getting there.
This will be exploited. And there is no way we can avoid that. As the technology evolves it starts to be possible to anyone to use it. Including the government. And they will use it to spy on us. Face it.
I think we will need to embrace this change. Forget privacy. That was the past. Given that the technolgy is there it will be used. The only thing we might be able to do is use the very same technology on those that use the technology on us.
So start gathering data on your MPs. Start to monitor how the data are used. Thats all we can do.
Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
20 years behind schedule and grossly over budget. This should make the list of "how NOT to manage a project"
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
Posted by an Anonymous Coward. Bwahaha! What are you trying to hide Mr. Anonymous Coward? You must be guilty of something, so we'd better monitor you!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
..privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans.
So being Enlgish I'd be like completely invisible? Cool.
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
How different this software is from the stuff deartment stores use in their security systems to identify and track shoplifers?
I have a friend who is developing software for a major chain that ties into the security cameras and looks for certain behaviors that indicate potential shoplifters. Once the software identifies an individual exhibiting this behavior, it locks on to them and tracks them through the store. He says it works quite well.
One half of me sees this as no problem. When in public, behave like you are in public and you will have no problem. Another part of me says that it is uncomfortable to be spied on for any reason whatsoever and that it is an invasion of privacy. If the object of the software is legitamate, why should it be a problem?
As a society should we not welcome things that help put criminals behind bars or help our solders stay alive? On the otherside, should we not protect our right to privacy?
These systems are tools, they are very similar to hammers, saws, and wrenches. They can be used for good or for bad. It is not the tool but their use that concerns me. Thus far, most of the applications really have been for good and I sincerely hope that it continues to be that way.
To my way of thinking, these kinds of tools can be used to build a better, safer, more efficient society just as easily as they can be used to opress. Imagine a freeway control system that is tied together with this kind of software and in-car systems that provide the driver with up-to-the-second driving directions to provide the best use of the infrastructure. Think of the kind of things that this software could do to help air traffic controllers - it could recognize patterns long before they are obvious to humans. In the same vein, perhaps it could be used to help forecast weather.
At it's most basic level, this is just pattern recognition software that is tweaked to perform a specific task.
I was waiting for the privacy bridgade to show up.
If it's used to impinge on people's privacy, then deal with it as and when it shows up. But don't bash on the tech simply because it has nasty uses.
Computers can have nasty uses - they can be used to track people in a variety of ways.
Likewise, imagine how helpful this technology could be for the troops in the US right now, trying to deal with what is in effect urban guerilla warfare.
-- james
I have a question for you that pertains to this discussiong in an indirect way. Does Howard Dean support gun control? For instance, if I, as a law-abiding citizen who's never been convicted of anything more than a single speeding ticket more than 5 years ago, wanted to purchase a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, would Howard Dean let me, without filling out a dozen forms and waiting 6 weeks (or whatever it is now)? Would he support extending those restrictions, or would he support eliminating them?
The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Another project to turn America into a police state. Just what we needed.... :-(
I just read some slashdot posts on this topic, the "Oh No, we're nearing an Orwellian society" stuff. I totally agree.
But what can we DO about it. Yes we can try to be more informed and vote better, and not vote for any of the politicians that voted for the acts/laws that have been taking away our liberties since Sept 11.
Don't you want to do something NOW? Doesn't stuff like this make you want to put a huge sign in your lawn saying "Watch the government, don't let them watch YOU!" Or go start destroying all these cameras that are there "for our safety"? Obviously destroying property isn't really an option...
Honestly, most Americans, and I ask around, it really is appalling what people are willing to put up with.. seem to not even care about this stuff, or they think it's for the best! There's got to be a way to pass around the knowledge of how we're getting screwed.
Which was precisely my point of preferring Democrats in office. Not that I necessarily prefer the Democrat agenda to the Republican agenda - I just prefer that NO agenda get too much sway. The Democrats at least tend to debate, and for a long time now, the Republicans in Congress pretty much Dance the Party Line. IMHO if Congress isn't engaging in debate, then the decision has already been made in some back-room out of public sight.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No traffic problems (if I see ten cars in a 20 mile segment of my commute it's a busy day), cheap housing (3br,2ba homes for well under US$100k), good schools with committed teachers, generally only 2 hours to a major metro area by car... the list now includes relative immunity from surveillance because population density is too low to justify the expense.
Combine this with deployment of fiber across many rural counties along with the ability to telecommute for many jobs techies do and you have an ideal living environment.
Downsides? Not a lot of parties to go to, conservative politics prevail, and if they decide they want to watch you (in particular) they don't have to weed through the crowds to find you.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Likewise, imagine how helpful this technology could be for the troops in the US right now, trying to deal with what is in effect urban guerilla warfare.
Hmmm, how about "not at all helpful". Here, I'll explain it to you.
None of the troops in the US are dealing with "urban guerilla warfare". The closest approximation is when the National Guard gets called out during a riot. And this would be useless in a riot.
Unless you meant what is happening in Iraq. I'll explain that to you also.
#1. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the pro-Saddam guys.
#2. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the street criminals.
#3. The cameras would be the FIRST targets of the smugglers.
And so on.
The ONLY use this technology has is to track the citizens.
And then it boils down to whether you believe that the majority of citizens are honest or criminal.
I could run over someone crossing the street in front of me. I might suspect that he might try to steal my car. That doesn't mean I should run him over. Same goes with the government. Just because they can do something (even if it might prevent a crime), doesn't mean that they should.
OK, I'll concede on that.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about, after all, they weren't breaking any laws.
This really is a common misconception. The Nazi party started cleaning up political dissidents and granting the police extensive powers quite soon after they got to power, Dachau was established in 1933 and the Gestapo soon after, it all went downhill from there. Incidentally Hitler was chosen the person of the year by Time magazine in 1938.
End of line
come on folks, what security and military tools -dont- have plausible uses to violate the rights of US citizens?
all intelligence gathering tools, and military technologies could be used against americans, this can't be a surprise. there are satellites that can track movement across the globe from the comfort of space - can these infringe on our rights? sure. are they being used to? i'm not so sure.
yes, yes, i know that it sounds like a bad attitude toward an erosion of our rights - but c'mon folks: the new world politics, cut defense and intelligence spending and the lack of 'cloak and dagger' type intelligence is what got us into this mess.
not to mention that urban combat, asymmetric warfare, protracted conflict after the end of 'conventional military operations', and rogue nation states are the most serious threats in this new political world climate. (see: postwar afghanistan, postwar iraq, palestine/israel).
asking the US not to continue to develop technology to protect its interests against these threats (as is the right of all nations) - is like asking it to have unilaterally stopped producing nukes during the cold war arms race. sure, maybe nothing will come of an inability to react effectively to the threat - but the risk of inaction is too great.
if you don't keep up with your enemies tactics and methods, you will invite increased pressure and cement their resolve.
historians have noted that the US won the cold war primarily by outspending the soviet union. and why back off a tried and true tactic?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
This system (or any other "panopticon" they're excited about) would be fucking awesome for solving crimes. You can see exactly where that truck went after leaving the house of the victim, etc. No more disappearing into the night.
What I'm concerned about is abuses of the system, either passing ridiculous laws and using this to selectively enforce them, or using the data to embarass political enemies.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
"Unless you're doing something illegal, as the old saying goes, you have very little to worry about."
Who gets to define illegal?
Periodically, we hear fearful reports about the nefarious schemings of DARPA and the government. Having actually read through the publically available DARPA budget, it is purcuing research that could be construed as far more threatening to civil liberties than those so far published. Take for instance TIA. This is not a stand alone program. It would form the underlying foundation/statistical database for an complex system that could identify terrorists(through an optical recognition interface) in a crowd of people through tell-tale characteristics. How useful would that be in Iraq right now?
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
..."but police, scientists and privacy experts say the technology could easily be adapted to spy on Americans."
Everything can be used to spy (or gain information on) Americans. We're just that open of a society. That's a no-brainer. But the question is: how do we balance our privacy versus the government's role of protector?
Lets also not forget that what allowed the Nazi party to gain power was the fact that the German economy was pretty much in the crapper and there was a HUGE resentment toward non-German people in the country who were taking jobs away from Germans.
Does any of this sound frighteningly familiar to anyone else?
It just has to be asked, what would the other Americans (USA) propose we do? Not advace our military technology because the potential exists for it to be used against us?
If you think about it, this has been the case all along...everything the military has can be used against you and me, right now, no matter if you like it or not. It is the nature of the (necessary) beast.
We need to keep America's great promise.
Good. Better they shoot at sensors then at troops. And when a sensor goes offline, that provides information about where the opponent is.
Refer back where I said that the sensors will end up being 'essentially disposable.' They'll be numerous, and when one goes offline, the other 5 in the surrounding area will be well placed to identify the forces, track them, and lead to their detention or elimination.
I can't agree more.
I just wanted to point out that the Bush administration is in fact attempting to cover up it's own appalling mistakes that caused September 11th with FUD like this because they are scared the public will take back the Whitehorse.
In May of 2001, the administration gave $43 million to the Taliban. It's not a liberal myth, its a fact reported by respected papers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe.
We have to stop Bush now, before the police state gets full control of our lives.
We (or our parents) gave up our anonymous travel long ago to avoid being hijacked to Cuba. Electronic commerce gave up more. The advent of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags is starting to close the seine. Now, how does some crappy software algorithm distinguish between a fleeing mugger and a jogger? Is this Armageddon? Revelations? Anti-Christ stuff? Who cares. Its just scarey to us in the benign majority. Call me a natural paranoid.
I left a post a while ago mentioning that it would take nothing more than a few years for this system to be used for illegitimate purposes.
But now that I think about it, it's role in a larger mechanism seems to be more fitting and immediate.
A while back the development (they hope to complete it by 2007) of the TIA, or Total Information Awareness program was announced by the DARPA. This coupled with something like CAPS II (a program used to collect information about Americans from their flying habits) would spell bad news for citizens and their privacy. All in all, I don't think we need to imagine a system where this kind of technology would be exploited against the average American citizen. Clearly, the government is providing an image for us.
(And, just an aside: how scary and Orweillian is the Information Awareness Office logo?)
"But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills..."
Want a laugh? Walk past the citizen-monitoring cameras on the way into london holding a placard containing the number-place (license-plate) of your favourite friend;
I was at Thanksgiving dinner back in 2000 and I was sitting at a table with a Retired Major General from the Air Force. He was talking about testing one of the features from this system. Apparently they were standing in a hotel room in Pentagon City, VA and using a handheld device they were having vehicles drive up a ramp at the FedEx Field in Maryland (not visible by line of site) and they could identify what type of vehicle drove up the ramp.
I just wish I had some idea of how that works. Of course I didn't feel it was my place to start questioning the guy right there...
Well, I don't understand the guy's concerns. This DARPA effort is just the application of current technology to a traditional warzone necessity. Any nation with the same technical capabilities would, and will, do the same.
Slashdot runs this kind of stuff under a "rights" rubric just as a piece of scaremongering to drum up traffic. It is nothing less than bush league tabload sensationalism (which, come to think of it, is what Slashdot has sunk to these days.) Sadly, it seems to get a lot of credence in the "Ashamed to be Born in the West" crowd.
The U.S. can't and shouldn't lead if that means kowtowing to the racist and extremist views that are endemic and most of the world. If the rest of the world finally gets the gumption to eliminate its own racist and manipulative dictators and potentates, then they can democratize themselves and join the 21st century. Until then, they pose a threat to democracies everywhere, including the U.S. Why would any state seek to lead nations whose very existence threaten it?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Sure. How about civil disobedience? That's widely considered one of the most important civil liberties we enjoy. I imagine it would have been a lot harder for civil-rights activists to peacefully assemble if a system like DARPA's had been in place in the '50s and '60s, constantly monitoring the "ringleaders" as they went about their business. Or imagine you lived during Prohibition, going out every night and in so doing quietly giving the finger to the 18th Amendment. When you leave your favorite speakeasy, would you rather take your chances with a cop happening upon you on the sidewalk, or a system of cameras recording your drunken stumblings to be used as evidence against you at a later date? I know what I'd rather put up with.
How about sharing a joint with your buddies on a week-long camping trip in the middle of a national forest? Not your thing? Not urban enough? Then how about enjoying a glass of wine one fine summer night in the park (open container of alcohol, a ticketable offense)? Still not your thing? OK, have you ever jaywalked in your life?
The concern is that the system described in the article would make it a lot harder to get away with these things. Yes, these acts are illegal, but I think most people value the wiggle room the law affords in such cases. Look up "reasonable expectation of privacy" on Google, and consider the ways it would be constricted if DARPA's urban surveillance system were turned on Americans.
And at the risk of sounding like one of those "knee-jerk" civil libertarians, I have to say that your argument could be used to excuse invasions of privacy I doubt even you would tolerate. For instance, if you're not performing any illegal acts in the bedroom with your S.O., why wouldn't you let the FBI install a camera in the ceiling fan to make sure? (Until last week, you are aware, certain expressions of sodomy, including oral sex, were against the law in certain states.)
I think my point got kind of lost somewhere in there, but hopefully you'll understand what I'm getting at.
yours
So you really believe that we are heading towards a holocaust? Or is that just an amateur debate ploy where you throw in the implicit or explicit comparison to Hitler?
I believe that if this country doesn't shape up soon, in a hundred years, people may look at the United States with as much disdain as people look at Germany with now. Whether that implies a holocaust between now and then is anyone's guess, but I'd assume that our liberties will slowly be stripped away, until eventually we have a dictatorship... and this country will fall into a secondary nation, just like Germany.
That is a very idealistic view you have of the founding of the country. I'm sure when asked about Benedict Arnold that Washington didn't say, "Hey! It's a free country. What he does on his own time is his own business."
Benedict Arnold deprived other citizens of this country of their lives, and did so in an act of Treason. That is, and was, punishable by death. I don't think I quite understand the point of your argument...
The Constitution was ordained and established for, among other things, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.
Exactly. My point precisely.
The current administration apparently feels they are doing this, though you may disagree with their tactics.
For the most part, I agree with their tactics. I don't agree with most of the PATRIOT Act, but in the Administration's defense, they needed a law drafted in a very short period of time. I think now would be a good time to revisit it and rewrite most of it.
The new republic was established for self-government (for over a hundred years before 1776 people were moving/relocating to the colonies for these freedoms), but I would argue with you that people set up a new government because they were being deprived of violence.
Perhaps my wording was confusing, but I meant the government is to protect its citizens from violence, and from deprivation of property.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
I'm sure that in 1937, all the German people thought their government was the greatest thing on the planet. I'm sure that even the Jews didn't really think they had anything to worry about,
The Nuremberg laws were introduced in 1934, but the Jews were worried *long* before that.
The geek-factor aside, as this seems like a pretty cool technical idea, I recently read a very well-put article in a Swiss paper about the rights of government.
The basic idea was that in a democracy, everything not specifically prohibited is permitted, both for citizens and "the government". This means that unless the boss, i.e. the voting public, specifically trusts and allows the government to do something, such as use information in a certain way, they are FORBIDDEN FROM DOING IT.
How to enforce this is probably academic, and I can hear the cynics already ramping up their arguments (which I probably agree with) but until this idea becomes a bit more pervasive, I wouldn't trust John Ashcroft and his counterparts around the world with this sort of power any further than I could throw DARPA.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Ever since Shelley's Frankenstein, we've all been terrified of the idea that technology could be put to ill use, or turned against us, or even turn on us.
This is one case that has a huge potential for that.
Another "Liberty" / "Security tradeoff.
We have to ask ourselves a crucial question when judging the use of such technology.
Is it REALLY that necessary to deprive people of their freedom, in order to ensure their freedom?
There is NO freedom that can be given that isn't some form of collar-and-lead. Freedom must be TAKEN.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So lets just take this as far as it will go already. Lets tag everyone living, born in, or immigrating to this country with microchips that identify them. Then they would know where you are at all times and exactly who you are. I mean thats the next logical step right? Or even better...when you are born or immigrate here they could just remove part of our brain so you are good sheep. Wouldnt both these ideas I suggested curb crime and terrorism even more than these silly cameras? Costs less in the long run as well...
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
It is already technologically possible to tap into conversations, even under adverse conditions. It will only become easier in the future. The legislation knows this and will certainly receive pressure from all sides, to maintain the citizen's right to privacy. We'll see how well they do.
assert(expired(knowledge));
Yes, it could easily be used to spy on citizens. Who cares though? They already can spy quite easily on normal people without this system. What this system is ideal for is the tracking of hundreds of individuals in a small area, something not necessary for the kind of "big brother" activity people are wary of. For that, all that's needed are a couple of white vans with FBI agents inside.
'would the Prime Minister lie?' Bearing in mind he's a: a politician, and b: has a pretty good track record of telling untruths
You forgot, he's also a lawyer...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
Imagine you are a technician working on this surveillance system, you'd be able to tell when that girl you've had a crush on has just broken up with her boyfriend and has just gone on a shopping spree to make herself feel better, then you'd know just the right time to call since you would know when the car pulled into the driveway. All from the comfort of your own keyboard... it isn't stalking right? That involves hiding in bushes, right? Of course, you caused this girl to break up in the first place by casually suggesting that she stop by a certain bar with her friends, since you knew her boyfriend was chatting up women there every Thursday.
Or imagine knowing exactly where your political opponent is at every moment and being able to send over your paid "protestors" at a moments notice. And anonymously alert the media to cover the event. Of course you couldn't come out and say exactly how you knew he was having an affair with a well know socialite since that would be unethical use of a public resource, but that's what anonymous tips to the press are for. Once the Press finds out something "on their own" then they won't care who or how they were tipped off in the first place.
The point here isn't that people can't and don't have the ability to do this today, since you could hire a private detective or just spy on people yourselves, but rather that "privacy concerns" will likely concentrate this new ease and power of surveillance in the hands of just a few. Likely those in government will have an additional edge over those not, those with connections the same edge.
Let nobody think that knowledge of other people's business isn't power of a particularly potent kind and will be used for other than stated or intended purposes. It will be used by individuals both important and not important for their own benefit. Maybe it will be good for others, harmless to others or perhaps it will ruin people's lives, but what is certain is that those with access to any knowledge will be superior to those that don't. This system will corrupt and be corrupted, it is a certainty, the only things we can do to mitigate the effects of such corruption are to be completely open about it's use so we can better judge those that use it.
" Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.
Around the world we have countless examples of restrictions made in the name of national security actually being used against the country's own citizens. East Germany, Russia, China, most of the old communist countries and so on."
Don't forget the good old Ghost of McCarthy. We've been doing this stuff in America for a long time as well.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But the wide boy in his racer will wear false plates or register at a false address and leave you to pay the bills...
Except that he's a "rich bastard" who probably pays more for a coffee than the CC, so he can't be bothered. Also, he most likely has personalised plates saying something along the lines of "My other car is a RR"...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
And how exactly should I know whether what I'm doing is illegal?
I don't even know how many laws exist. Do you?
And it's extremely naive to say: If I'm basically doing, you know, nothing wrong,
I can't be doing something illegal. Some laws out there are plain absurd.
And the point is not that everyone will suddenly go to jail (althogh the US have
the highest incarceration rate worldwide). The point is that it gets more and more
easy to get anyone the government dislikes into jail (like politicians of the
opposition or jornalists etc.).
There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse
IANAL and I've never bothered to read the US. Const. 1st Amend. But...
In most democratic countries, plotting to overthrow the government by any other means than a general election is considered as terrorism and/or treason.
Also, most democratic countries have explicit constitutional feedom to assemble, for political or other purpouses, but assembling to plot the overthrow the government is still illegal.
Conclusion: It's still a crime, even if you don't get caught.
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
The Nazi party started cleaning up political dissidents ... quite soon after they got to power
Actually, they started doing that even before they got to power. That's part of how they got to power: having the SA (no, not the SysAdmin, the Sturm Abteilung) beat the lefties into silence...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
I always find it amusing that people are so paranoid that the government wants to spy on them, as if it had the time and resources to check into their jaywalking.
Agencies have a limited budget (hard to believe for some) and are staffed by real people (harder to believe for some) and actually have BIG fish to fry (hard to understand for some). They don't give a rip about the small fry.
I guess it adds a certain meaning to an otherwise meaningless life to suspect that someone out there is interested enough in you to spy on you and maybe even arrest you for that naughty thing. But in reality, the government's not spying on you. They could care less about you.
How about one day everyone pastes a sign over there #plate saying 'N0MORETAX'
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I just thought I'd bring this up. People have actually forgotten about Godwin's law, and it really no longer applies in general.
I think that we need a new corrallary, or an overriding law. I mean, this is about as significant as Mercury's too-slow orbital speed, helping Einstein determine general relativity.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Swapping plates...
That would work only if you were outside the area of surveillance. If you swapped it out in between to cameras it should be obvious to the system that a switch was made. Finding you among cars with plates that hadn't been switched wouldn't be too difficult.
We don't see it as OK, but for the most part Americans also see it as 'their problem'. As do I.
It is the responsibility of the GOVERNED to deal with these issues. If the people of another country (or the government of another country) want to do this type of thing, that's fine by me. Who am I to tell another how to govern themselves?
In short, I don't consider a breach of someone elses civil liberties as 'OK'.. but at the same time, I have no reason to be concerned with that either. My job, as a governed member of society, is to be vigilante in ensuring that MY civil liberties are not breached. I can only offer empathy and support to those in other places.
Before the anti-american bashers in the crowd go nuts, I recognize that the United States does have this habit of getting involved in other peoples civil liberties. That's not something I support (along with a large percentage of the actual citizens here)..
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
See if you can find "Beyond Rangoon" at the video store. Of course it's only a movie - a work of political fiction. But since watching it, I note when Burma is in the news, and nothing I've heard discredits the tone of the movie. Where reviews may pan it, they do so for 'movie reasons', not for factual/background ones. Large-scale monitoring, with all of the sinister connotations, fits in.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Perhaps a name change is in order? from "Great Britain" to "Really Great Britain" ....
-kgj
Yes this technology can be used to spy on people, and for many good things including retrieving missing children. Probably every technology has hundreds of "bad" applications and hundred of "good" ones.
Well, mainly we don't care because we actually like it when other countries encroach on the civil liberties of their citizens... it give a pretext for invasion should we desire it.
So you are already being watched, that doesnt make it right.. or acceptable..
It only means you lost the battle...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
In case anyone has forgotten, our (if you are an American) government declared war (without really doing so in the legal sense re: international law or US law) against terrorists (who are not a state under international law although the Palestinians certainly have a nation without constituting a state). War declared not against a specific group really, as by their logic anyone they don't agree with can catch the "T" label. Our government is fighting this war domestically as well as overseas.
Despite the lack of a declaration of martial law, since 9/11/01 we've seen troops in the street (okay, they they are National Guard which is an end run around the law since, well, the same National Guard troops are called up and fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan), troops in airports (National Guard), military combat aircraft patrolling the skies, increased surveillance of ordinary Americans, vastly increased jailings including suspension of habeas corpus. Should I go on?
Cities like Washington, DC, already have extensive camera networks capable of tracking individuals as as vehicles. My hometown of Vienna, VA, has installed red light cameras. Systems like give unprecedented power over knowledge.
Given the penchant of organizations like the FBI to exceed their authority, CIA and NSA to do domestic surveillance in defiance of federal law, etc., why wouldn't they use this system domestically? As another poster posed, what foreign city would let them? Only a city like Baghdad, but they don't have the data to cross-reference, given that there is no civil authority and they currently have a cash economy.
That leads to a single logical conclusion: that the system is being designed for domestic use by the US and possible allied nations like the UK. That's a pretty scary thought, given the moral intolerance of people like Attorney General John Ashcroft who covers works of art with drapes because he gets indignant over a 100+ year old topless statue.
headline for a day after they apply this domestically:
..come on-- if we're going to out-reach/source this into every city in the united states, you can't possibly think that it every city will have the same great security. this is just begging for explotation.
"hackers sieze control of city survelliance system"
--even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
I was wondering how long it would take to have something like this implemented, although I was thinking of a purely law enforcement perspective, though. Often we get BOLOs for certain types of vehicles -- why not have a satellite look for them (weather permitting, of course)? The resolution is more than adequate to find a black four-door sedan (and even match a partial plate), and then you could combine it with spatial-awareness software that could determine the relative probability (given the location and time of the initial report) that the car it is looking at is the one we're looking for. It could then relay these to officers on the ground.
:)
Given what we have to work with (eyes and ears on the street) even if it was very inaccurate I couldn't imagine it would be *worse* than our current hit ratio.
As far as privacy is concerned, I can't say much more than you'd need to trust local law enforcement not to abuse it, like you do with NCIC/LEADS etc. Most people have a misconception that law enforcement are all horribly corrupt and would stop at nothing to violate your rights. Fortunately I can say that this is definitely not the case for many (all the different agencies and officers I've worked with would lead me to believe that the vast majority are honest). Generally we don't have any SPS (Secret Police Sh.. Stuff) going on. The Federal Gov't, though, may. Trust your local law enforcement.
But as technology advances the opportunity to invade rights becomes far easier (and it is generally much harder to track. An officer sitting in front of someone's house is fairly noticeable by the public; a computer watching the camera images is not). The only thing I can think of is have legislative oversight and keep track of who is being tracked and for what reason.
Thanks,
--
Matt
Not really. The US separated from England mostly for economic reasons hidden under the guise of "liberty!", "representation!", etc. If you look at the make up of most of the founding fathers, most of them were wealthy coastal elites: merchants and lawyers. The rich run this country, always have and always will.
The Constitution effectively shifted power away from the States, which were more or less beholden to the people, to the Federal government, where the only direct say the people had was in the House of Representatives. The Senate and the entire executive and judicial branches were not elected by the people.
If you'd like to know more about the conflict between "East" and "West" in revolutionary America, I'd recommend reading about the North Carolina Regulator Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which had a large hand in creating a shift in attitudes that would pave the way to the Constitution. The founders were not egalitarian gods as they are often thought to be, they were just as human as we are. The original ideals of the revolution fell flat on their face before the war was even over.
I better stop now lest this turn into a 20 page paper. The way revolutionary history is taught in high school genearlly contains a lot of misleading oversimplifications, but I think it's worth the time investment required to gain a better understanding of it.
For hundreds of years, armies around the world have had technology that could easily be adapted to permanently remove all right from a civilian; in fact, it has even been used for this in the past. We can't allow this violation of our rights to continue - disarm the armies!
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Everyone can just cycle and pay cash. Strangely, lowtech methods can often bypass high tech security. People who use technology are easily tracked, but those who don't can't.
Like the way Tony Soprano uses public telephone boxes to communicate.
Its kind of funny how so many people assume that Democrat=Anti-Guns, the wonders of GOP propaganda!
Dean in particular is well known for his "A" rating from the NRA. I think he is also a relatively eloquent speaker on gun rights, much more so than any Republican I've ever seen talk about the subject. I'm sure he's been in a lot of debates with his fellow Democrats, so he knows the kind of rhetoric that is effective at not alienating your audience.
Ah yes, the good old "Only the guilty need fear" argument, shame its a fiction.
Yes, the presumption is that we have nothing to fear and it's wrong. We always have something to fear. When a cop pulls you over, will he plant drugs in your car? Will you go to jail for a crime you didn't commit? In this case, perhaps this technology would be used against people for the wrong reasons. Perhaps people will be discriminated against, controlled, or even eliminated. In the UK this technology is used to spy on girls and minorities, so basically it's a toy for sensation-seeking voyeurs.
Not to mention the fear of stupid laws.
I remember the DoD using spy planes to track the DC sniper. I remember what we went through when the sniper was killing people almost every other day. If they had this technology then, the people would be screaming for it to be used, privacy be damned.
"Even if a new law was drafted and passed that would require (insert your ethnic group here) to register in the middle of the desert in Nevada, realistically, there's nothing you could do about it for the next few years, until the sponsors of the bill were up for re-election."
No, being American, there is definitely one thing you CAN do about it: open revolt. This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government. In this instance, I'm sure that enough Americans would agree with you that such a law was bad, and that enough would even join you in armed revolt if you so chose. While the safeguard of an armed populous is a crude tool, it is still very effective.
relative immunity from surveillance because population density is too low to justify the expense.
In the Square States they don't need cameras on streetcorners to spy on citizens. With the low population and lack of dense urban areas, the satellites are able to keep track of you just fine.
(Really, they'll be switching to Global Hawks in the near future. Just one of those things can circuit over the whole of Illinois in a single day)
If you're dropping them on troop concentrations...
Why are you dropping cameras on troop concentrations when you could be dropping bombs on troop concentrations.
So, this is about having cameras dropped or setup to monitor an area.
Unless the area is friendly, people will take out the cameras.
So, the only time people won't be shooting at the cameras will be when they are deployed to observe friendly populations.
Here, let me give you a better example. Suppose we deploy these in Palestinian controlled areas. How long do you think it will be before kids are breaking them with rocks?
5 minutes?
10 minutes?
an hour?
Damn, a broken camera. We'd better bomb that area.
I agree, and perhaps I oversimplified things a bit--but still, liberty and equality are two of the most widely held American values and ideals, and most people believe strongly in them.
just wait until they start going "you fucking piece of eurotrash, you are just jealous of us americans" me? oh i'm going away nz/asia atleast there they are upfront about it i.e "fuck the law, the law goes BUBBA on you"
but seriously this sheit is starting to creep me out...
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do NOT wave in a Vacuum " --Arthur C Clarke
Well, if you're a conservative it might be tough to convince you, but it's admirable though that you're willing to hear and consider different points of view. While Dean has been branding himself as a liberal, in truth his record is very moderate. Three main reasons I support him are economics, national security, and foreign policy.
On economics, Bush has given huge tax cuts to the rich and not cut spending at all. This has turned our biggest surplus in history to our biggest deficit. In fact, while on the surface he cuts taxes, his economic stewardship in fact is causing states to rise taxes, effectively increasing taxes for the lower and middle classes. Dean is a fiscal conservative. He believes strongly in a balanced budget and often fought off Democrats in the Vermont legislature who wanted to increase spending, because he believes fiscal discipline is important. He wants a national health care plan but it costs much less than the Iraqi occupation will cost and much less than the tax cuts, and also less than Dick Gephardt's plan.
On national security, I believe that contrary to popular perception, Bush is very weak. Bush has stifled the 9/11 commission that was investigating our intelligence failures. The non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations believes that the terrorist threat is greater and ever and that there isn't enough spending on security. I believe that Bush has simply exploited 9/11 in order to further his own agenda rather than making us safer. Also, I believe that Bush has made the Justice Department too powerful and given law enforcement way too much power. I am somewhat of a social libertarian and I believe that if government has too much power it will tend to abuse it. Dean's plan I think would do a lot more to improve our national security.
The last thing is foreign policy. Bush's policy of pre-emption is very dangerous and is alienating the entire world and creating bad precedents. Bush manipulated intelligence reports in order to make the case for the Iraqi war and now his facts are crumbling and the CIA is very upset. This has become a scandal in Britain, where the media is more open. Dean opposed the Iraqi war not because he thought Saddam was a good person but because he thought we risked alienating the rest of the world and because he thought Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. Dean would make America a leader in the world and maintain our military supremacy but he would work with the world community, not against it. For example, if we gave Iraq a bit more time we might have been able to create a multinational coalition that would greatly reduce the nation building costs. We will be there for ten years at tens of billions of dollars per year and it's using up half our military, threatening our security and costing lives, all for an exaggerated threat.
Dean often comments that Bush has forgotten ordinary people, and I believe that Bush is more concerned with his special interests than helping the American people. Dean is a man of the people, willing to speak what he thinks, even when it goes against his party line. He's honest and has a proven track record from his time in Vermont. I think he'd make a great President.
>>> AND UK/USA. It is illegal under both our laws for the security services to spy on civilians. So we spy on yours, you spy on ours, data exchanged, all nice and legal.
Actually, UKUSA and similar agreements have explicitly prohibited such exchanges of information between the U.S. and the British Commonwealth in a manner that would circumvent privacy rights through espionage. Please try again.
Oh please, everyone that thinks the government wants to spy on everyone all the time is pathetically paranoid. Just because something can be used for something, doesn't mean that it is automatically going to be used to spy on us. Stop looking over your shoulder and move on with your life.
oh please...
"Bush was elected by the populace and his support couldn't be stronger right now."This has got to be the funniest thing I have read all week...wait no the saddest. Are people really this stupid? If so I will just kill myself right now
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
He just didn't make a good impression on be of being able to think on his feet and express his ideas and knowledge if it wasn't a scripted speech he was making.
As far as taxes...well, I don't want to pay more...I think that surpluses mean the govt. is taking TOO MUCH of my money. I don't believe in using taxes as a wealth redistribution system. When they bitch that the poor don't get much a tax cut...guess what...if they don't pay taxes...they don't deserve a cut?!? I would like to see the Dem.s go ahead with their idea to also cut payroll taxes in addition to the Bush tax cut.
One thing I desperately want BOTH sides to define...what do they consider rich? I think some of them think if you make over $30-$40K...you're rich?????????
I think about the only way you're going to get govt. spending down is to cut off the flow of cash into it...like with the tax cuts...then that forces them to cut spending.
I'm all for listening to all candidates...but, my last few impressions of Dean weren't that good..but will continue to listen...I love the political years where so much is going on...the speeches..ideas..etc. Just hope someone out there comes up with some good stuff...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But seriously, this just shows that the existence of a technology doesn't mean the police have to posess it. It is up to the general public to say, "sorry cops, that's one toy you won't be getting for Christmas."
Hint: if any of you honestly think that this project (whose original purpose was coordinating emergency response services and that I am most definitely not associated with in any way and anyone implying otherwise is lying) wouldn't be used to deprive you of your civil rights, then you need a savage beating w/ a cluestick. For starters, go look up COINTELPRO.
[o]_O
This is the post everyone should read... why did you post it as an anonymous coward?
Unless mankind redesigns itself
If you're not paranoid of the government using a surveillance system like this to completely repress dissent and freedom, I would like to hear the argument against that ever happening. The trite idea that innocent people have nothing to hide doesn't hold up. A government with this level of omniscience would be invulnerable to its own citizens, which would be a bad thing. No government should be invulnerable to revolt because no government is infallible.
Same thing with banning guns:
criminals: get guns even if they aren't sold.
regular people: Can no longer get guns to protect themselves from the criminals who now have guns.
Its just another form on control over how pople live (matrix!)
this government and it's employees are OUT OF CONTROL.
...I have no idea. 45 minutes of them threatening us before they left, I just finally told them that was it, arrest me if they thought I was doing something wrong, or go away. Oh wow, they didn't like being told what to do BY A FUCKING CIVVIE. Nope, a man can't stand in his own living room and do nothing to get accused and terrorised.
DIG THIS. I got RAIDED last night.
My big crime, I had THE LIGHTS TURNED ON. My girlfriend and I do caretaking/estate management. We got a new gig finally after looking for several months. We decided at this time we couldn't afford to buy our own land around here, so we answered a paper advertisement and got this new job, like 50 miles away. We've been moving for a week now, only partially finished, because our new house which is part of the pay was trashed out, we're having to do major fix up just to move in. So every day, we haul over a small load of our stuff, then spend all day fixing floors, hauling away garabage, cleaning the yard and mowing, paintinig, the whole deal. We've been there a week, last night we stayed over. About midnight the county's "finest" show up en masse, raid us, I got a gun to my face, screamed at, the whole bit. They got a "tip" on 911. A *tip" there was an EVIL LIGHT ON IN THE HOUSE. Didn't matter we are the same peoplle, been there for a week, everyday until late, same vehicle, same trailer, same everything, massive work done.
It didn't matter to them they could SEE painting, mowing going on, plants hanging on the porch, all the stuff anyone normal does when tey move in. Nope, to them morons it was evidence of
They do it overseas, then them skin heads(4 out of the 5 of them were punk skinheads) come back and they turn them into cops. People just won't believe this shit until it happens to them. I write about it too, because I've seen it before, and here I go again, how DARE I get a new job, move in, answer their questions at after midnight, then get further terrorised for an additional 1/2 hour. Threatened to get shot in the head, threatened to have the police dog turned on me if I didn't "shut up" me shutting up meant I couldn't answer their questions they kept yelling at me? Like what are you supposed to do? One skinhead screams a question at you with a gun to your head, you answer it, the next one tells you to shut up or else?
We'll, to the slashdot folks I'll say yes, this shit happens, and this DARPA big brother shit is going to be used on you, by similar low IQ MORONS with guns, and anyone here working on it, GOT TO HELL YOU TURNCOAT MERCENARY DEMON.
SCREW THE NWO POLICE AND OVERSEAS MERCENARIES, YOU GUYS SUCKASS. GO TO FUCKING HELL ANY OF YOU BIG BROTHER GOONS.
......and what are executive orders, presidential directives and findings called? They are "laws" just as much as any of the bogus crap that comes out of the bribed and blackmailed congress in this corrupt junta.
I listed all of the legal means to change the current government. A constitutional convention, recall and impeachment are all alternatives to a general election for radical change of the government.
It is legal to "plot" to overthrow the government - the Clinton impeachment - is a fine example of "plotting" to overthrow the government. Legal work product of both sides various counsel is private and should remain so. There was no crime committed in the impeachment *save for the waste of $$*.
You are exacty correct in your analysis that plotting to overthrow the government, by means that are illegal, is terrorism and treason. The Founding fathers were all terrorists. Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?
we have those in canada..
and actually i'm in favour of them.
they do help promote responsible driving,
and i don't worry about loaning my car to people who run red lights.. because i don't loan my car to people who run red lights.
What? Me? Worry?
Sheez. Did you know that this comment has been modded troll like 3 times?
Big butts AND no sense of humour!
All things in moderation; including moderation
Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?
I wouldn't mind... ;-)
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
http://www.geocities.com/rayito/sentry.zip
This is a webcam surveillance program. Please feel free to try it out. I am looking for partners to help me commercialize it, or host it on their websites.
raywright111@hotmail.com
sorry, that is the correct link.
This is what that ever-troublesome clause of you contitution ("the right to bear arms") has given you - the option of forceful rebellion against a repressive government.
And that's EXACTLY why the Democrats and Socialists don't want the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. They'd rather appoint people they can persuade into the Supreme Court, and rule that the 2nd Amendment was "Unconstitutional".
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
The Gestapo, the Stasi, etc. existed and operated without vehicle tracking technology. To assume that the ability to track vehicles leads to the end to rights is absurd. Vehicles can already be tracked - a set of plainclothes cops can follow your car anywhere and you'd have no idea - the trouble starts when they pull you over for no reason and ...
... dishonest about the possibility of this, or any other, technology in a way that the general public might question. I'm glad there are people like you out there to show me the err of my ways.
You're so obviously correct. Who would have ever thought that an oppressive government would use whatever technology it could to "persuade" its citizens that they're really just protecting them? It seems so absurd now that I think about it. I really must have been smoking something to have thought that the government might been
What we really need, instead of tech paranoia, are laws governing the use of these systems, just as we already have for wiretaps, search warrants, etc.
I've got a question for you. Who is the only person or group that exists primarily within the borders of this country that can break any law it wants to, at any time it chooses? It's the government. They can lie about it later ("No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") and they'll most likely get off the hook. The government is the only person or group that can use deadly force, if necessary, to accomplish its goals. NEVER underestimate their willingness to do so... it could result in your death.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Let's consider the loss of the 4th of July holiday....
;-(
Guy Fawkes day isn't till November 5...
Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the country, and it's tough to argue with facts like that.
It's very easy to argue. Homicide rate is positively correlated to dense populations, high temperatures, and recent immigrants.
Those factors are lacking in Vermont, but prevalent in NY & CA, and even TX & MA.
Alternatively, I could argue the fact isn't even true. In 2001, both Vermont and New Hampshire suffered exactly two murders. But New Hampshire has a larger population. Depending on which year you look at, Maine and North Dakota may also beat Vermont. Obviously, all of those states are places of low population and immigration, so the effects of their gun laws is a poor predictor for the rest of the nation.
Incidentally Hitler was chosen the person of the year by Time magazine in 1938.
The "Person of the Year" was supposed to be chosen on basis of importance or newsmaking. Selecting Adolf Hitler for the cover was an acknowledgement of his power, not an endorsement of it. It was an excellent choice, considering how much Hitler's policies dominated international events for the next eight years.
Of course, in 2001 Time broke their editorial policy in the name of patriotism, and selected a local politician who merely responded to events, instead of the international master-mind who initiated them.
Thankyou! A voice of sanity! (I'm sure there are others, but this is the first I saw)
Sure, this protection system could be used to spy on people. So can cameras, microphones, computers, hubs, and people in the street. You're not rushing to outlaw them.
Come on people... do you *really* think your interesting enough for the government to want to know where you are 24/7?
There is not a single head of an American corporation that is capable of telling the truth about anything. These people that you defend promise you a better day if we get through the "adjustment" of increased competition, yet, they themselves do not compete, they talk about accountability and they are not, and, finally, they keep adjusting manufacturing and now IT jobs overseas. F--- the leaders of American corporations. When will you realize that they do not care about American Citizens, that everything they say is a lie, that the CEOs of the Fortune 500 are a bigger threat to the American people than are the Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hamas and every dictator on the planet combined. All they care about is their own pocketbook, even when it means the ruin of their supposed nation. The next time an American CEO waves a flag at you, you should shove it up his a--- because he ain't no patriot.
Fine, you go ahead and defend your business leaders the same way Uncle Tom defended Nice Master. When they get the right to search your hard drive and your house (oh wait they already do), buy their way into starting wars overseas (oh wait they already do), and then send your job to some dude for 50 cents an hour, then, you can pat yourself on the back for being the dope that you are. CEO - American slang for traitor!
This is my sig.
Then... why are we using cheaping human labor to do something when we could instead be developing machines to do the same. Really, sending tasks offshore to be done by hordes of cheap people is a technological copout.
This is my sig.
After the supercomputer in Terminator III.
I'm a student at the University of Missouri-Rolla, and have several friends who are actively involved in writing software for the DARPA project. Their summer project involves navigating a van across several hundred miles of desert terrain in the American southwest, unmanned. It's fascinating technology, and there is a considerable amount of AI programming involved. Where does Skynet come in? Laughably, the government is footing a rather large bill for all the research and this technology will be directly applied to military applications. Imagine the cost savings in building armed vehicles when you no longer need a cockpit and all its associated instrumentation. This means that you could build 100 tanks for every 75 your enemy can produce. These tanks could be controlled remotely, but like the unit AI in Dark Reign or Starcraft (or any other RTS), they also can hold their own with a general set of orders, as well as avoid obstacles, etc - without human intervention. These are the wars of the future, and there is nothing that anyone here can do to stop government from producing such intelligent weapons. This is pseudo-AI; these machines are not coming up with new concepts and not having emotions. As for security concerns, here in our pseudo-democracy that is America, the citizens had better watch out for their own rights. Surveillance has been around for hundreds of years without the aid of machines, the only thing they add into the mix is not sleeping. If anything, unfocused machine-based surveillance will lead to huge amounts of unprocessed data. It's us that choose what we want to focus on.
[c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
Guy Fawlkes' day is not a public(bank) holiday.
AAMOF, England only has 8 bank holidays: Chrismas day, boxing day, New Years day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, spring bank holiday, early summer bank holiday and late summer bank holiday.
It also isn't the English "National Day". That's St George's, when the English celebrate a Turkish saint and indulge in a bizzare tradition called "morris dancing"...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
But, there ARE fireworks! That is the only common thread between GFD and 4 July.
Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.
My given name is George and an old headmaster of mine was keen on references to the dissimilarity between St. George's day and any day he had to deal with me.
Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.
Except Guy Fawlkes' never did blow up the Houses of Parliament, but there you go...
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
GF didn't have the technology. The Royalists in anticipation of the Civil Wars due in 40 years denied his access to the Da Vinci aircraft.
His co-conspirators did manage to off King James...Catesby (sp?) I believe was the originator of the plot. An early Roman attack on the Protestants (something still going on, but at a low simmer, in Ireland).