Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Government Information Awareness

Posted by michael on from the sauce-for-the-gander dept.

gbjbaanb writes "Wired News is reporting about the GIA, software inspired by the TIA program. 'Researchers at the MIT Media Lab unveiled the Government Information Awareness, or GIA, website Friday. Using applications developed at the Media Lab, GIA collects and collates information about government programs, plans and politicians from the general public and numerous online sources. Currently the database contains information on more than 3,000 public figures. The premise of GIA is that if the government has a right to know personal details about citizens, then citizens have a right to similar information about the government.'"

8 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Will it include the same information they collect? by Sagarian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Things like credit card purchases, phone bills, personal contact information, organizational affiliations, travel history, books checked out from the library -- you know, things you wouldn't want to hide unless you were a criminal?

  2. Excellent. by Mmm+coffee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People like these are the true patriots. Unlike my neighbors who never flown a flag until 9/11.

  3. People tend to forget something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a democratic republic, WE are the government. And, if you don't feel you are, take a more active role and make it so.

    1. Re:People tend to forget something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who donate to political parties are the closest that a regular citizen can get to being the government.
      The rest of us just have our one vote.

  4. Re:Will it include the same information they colle by Brushfireb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I am not sure if you are serious or not, your logic is flawed. The simple fact that the government has ACCESS to those files should not be legal. This is about challenging your government. Its what happens in fascist and dictator states.

    "Oh Look, he checked out an article by Locke, or Marx, or Lenin, Or an Islamic Text.....he MUST be doing something illegal. Kill him". While this is extreme, the government knowing what people are doing, seeing, reading, and learning allows them to find and target those with different political beliefs than they. The whole point of a free democracy is to prevent such things.

    The MIT cause hopes to prevent the government from having all the info and all the power, and returns some power to the people. The simple fact is, that behind every bad decision in government, there is a person responsible. The MIT site helps us to pinpoint who, so we (the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS) to not elect next time, or to ask our reps to fire.

  5. Re:1984? by Rectum2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly how should work a democracy. With power comes the duty to be transparent and subject to critic.

  6. Re:Coincidence? by bigjocker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I wonder is how long before the government pulls the plug on this one. Considering the practices shown, the government could argue almost anything from the Patriot Act to "information in the hands of terrorists", no matter how idiotic it is, and the big media (ala CNN) will repeat it to death so Joe Moron will believe it and feel comfy when the plug gets pulled.

    This project has the potential to show the big players the dangers and possible consequences of the Total Awareness Act (or whatever is named).

    Anyways, a great idea nontheless, and here's hopes for it to live long enough to make a difference. Projects like this, the EFF and the few others make you hopeful.

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
  7. anonymous contributions - how well will it work? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to the wired article, information about politicians is posted anonymously, and the politician always has a chance to refute the claim. The claim and the reply are always kept together, no information is removed.

    There is system to rank the credability of the contributors to keep things in check, similar to epinions' trustworthiness ranking system.

    However, this could still be open to widespread abuse with a coordinated effort. A person posting a comment could be backed up by hundreds of people vouching for his or her integrity, and even if the politician replies denying the claim, the damage is already done, which is the whole point behind a smear campaign.

    The lesson is, be weary of all information you receive from anywhere. Everything is suspect and most of the details of information you receive about things you did not witness in first person is probably 90% incorrect. Did you ever do that experiment in school where you whisper a phrase around in a circle of people and by the time it comes back to you it's completely different?

    It will be interesting to see how this page plays out, to see if it is compromised by hundreds or thousands of people with an ajenda. It's hard to pick up on subtle slanting of information until it's too late.

    "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." -- Winston Churchill

    ---Mike