Funding for TIA All But Dead

Shackleford writes "Wired has an article saying that the Terrorism Information Awareness program, which would troll Americans' personal records to find terrorists before they strike, may soon face the same fate Congress meted out to John Ashcroft in his attempt to create a corps of volunteer domestic spies: death by legislation. The Senate's $368 billion version of the 2004 defense appropriations bill, released from committee to the full Senate on Wednesday, contains a provision that would deny all funds to, and thus would effectively kill, the Terrorism Information Awareness program, formerly known as Total Information Awareness. TIA's projected budget for 2004 is $169 million."

Comments

Long Road Ahead

[dtolton]

At least they are putting some strong language into this version of
the bill "No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Department of Defense ... or to any other department, agency or
element of the Federal Government, may be obligated or expended on
research and development on the Terrorism Information Awareness
program."

If the full senate doesn't approve this bill, the entire issue is
pretty much stillborn. Assuming they approve it though, there are
still several more steps for it to go through.

The main concern at this point is what happens when the bill goes to
committee. This process has always held concerns for me, but it
worries me that whether or not the defunding stays in the bill or not
is so dependant on one person. "The defunding has a chance of
surviving committee " Schwartz says "If Stevens is behind it, then it
almost certainly will happen.". I would have felt more comfortable if
he had said "It will almost certainly succeed."

Let's just hope he's behind defunding it. Removing the defunding
would completely remove the teeth from this bill IMO.

I also didn't see any comments from President Bush. As I understand
it, he is supportive of the TIA. Will he sign a bill that is going to
kill one of his pet projects? Again, let's hope so.

There are still a lot of steps for this bill to go through before it
becomes law. Progress is being made, but let your senator know that
you are against TIA, and maybe this bill will make it.

well...

[ed.han]

except i have one question: what if they simply rename the darned thing? it's only $169 million: in beltway terms, this isn't a whole lot of money.

what worries me is that this could sneak into some other omnibus legislation through a rider under a different and more innocuous name, under a last-minute change to another bill before congress.

i fear this may become a senatorial shell-game.

ed

Re:well...

[Monkelectric]

How funding works ...

You don't need to worry about what congress approves, you need to worry about what congress doesn't know about.

The top level super secret shit is called "black projects". Funding for black projects doesn't come through washington, and isn't controlled by congress. Nobody knows *where* the funding for a black projects come from, but there is a ton of it. I have a few friends who work on them, and have interviewed for jobs at places that do black projects (which is how I became aware of them). So my answer to you is, you don't need to be worried about things congress funds, because congress doesn't even know about the good stuff.

Re:well...

[TopShelf]

Even sneakier, development on this could be pursued by a private agency, betting on the commercial prospects once it has been proven out.

Imagine the value of a centralized database that gathers together just public information about people, let alone private. Basically, it would become an automated mini-private eye service, which could mined for all sorts of useful information.

Just because this might not survive the Congress doesn't mean the idea won't be pursued...

Re:well...

[2short]

"The top level super secret shit is called 'black projects'".

People call various levels of secret things "black projects", particularly in the movies. I'm willing to bet that "top level super secret shit" is called a variety of things, and you don't know any of them.

"Funding for black projects doesn't come through washington, and isn't controlled by congress."

Then it doesn't come from tax dollars, and I don't care.

"Nobody knows *where* the funding for a black projects come from, but there is a ton of it."

Maybe it comes from magic elves! Of course someone knows where it comes from. Several someones in congress know where it comes from because they approve it. Just because they don't tell you doesn't mean they don't know. And while it may be officially secret how much is spent on various secret projects, it's not exactly hard to figure out the general outlines. For example, a significant chunk of secret spending is buried in the Air Force budget. (The Air Force buys a bunch of really expensive things, frequently with perfectly good reasons to be quiet about them, so confusing the issue of just how much really expensive stuff they bought is not too hard.)

Re:well...

[Slime-dogg]

There is a provision in the DoD funding specifically for black ops. Senate knows that there *is* money going into them, although they all know that there is no way that they will know what the money is spent on. For all we know, TIA has been a thriving force since 1980.

All money for government goes through the house, regardless of what people may think. The military / CIA / NSA need to request funds from congress in order to do their operations. These funds end up looking like "Monkey Wrench" and "Toilet Seat," because these are good non-descriptive words that act as substitutes.

The wording of the bill is interesting, however, since it doesn't specify what can get the money, rather is specifies what cannot get the money. This way, congress can limit what the intelligence department can do with the money, without them actually knowing what they really are doing.

John Ashcroft

[Lord Omlette]

Has he had a single good idea?

No seriously, the blurb says this is his second massive failure. What has he succeeded in? (other than the Patriot Act)

OF COURSE!

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Yes, this is true. No money "on the books." A perfect "end".

But do you really think TIA will really end? The project will simply go, as they call it, "Dark". When the F-117 was being made, in a project called, I believe, "Deep Blue" do you think money that was on the books was used? No. TIA will "die" in the public, because the project is going dark. End of story. The website will remain the scrappy little inocent bits of HTML it is today, meanwhile under a lake somewhere will be a cluster of computers that are running TIA at full speed.

If only this concept scaled better.....

[Rahga]

I remember something Ted Kennedy said a while back in committee, about "obsolete" ideas in the constitution about indivudals witholding taxes so that stuff like the Army couldn't operate without funding. Quote, "That stuff will never happen here in America". IMHO, he's not ultimately correct about this point, but the motivation in making it is pretty strong.

I really can't go any further without trolling like 95% of these other posts are. I'm kinda really sick about political stories in /., aren't you?

John Poindexter does his own funding

[babykong]

TIA is run by John Poindexter who was involved in Iran Contra. Iran Contra was a method of bypassing the need to use congressional funding for the Contras by selling arms to Iran and using those funds to do the Job.

These people can generate their own funds, possibly by selling some of the valuable information they collect to various marketing organizations. With the death of investigative reporting, who is going to catch them this time?

Imagine...

[Schezar]

You made me think...

Imagine (HYPOTHETICALLY!) if the the US Government actually -had- orchestrated 9/11 (or knew about it and allowed it to happen) as part of a larger scheme.

Now imagine if the public at large found out. If there were undeniable proof.

What would happen? How would middle-class America react? That would be the ultimate test of the unity of the American people. Would they actually -do- something about it? Or would the spin-doctors win?

If only there were a World-Sim(tm) I could use to watch something like that unfold.

Re:Nervous Senators?

[tc]

What "un-American" activities are you referring to? The thing that the Republicans seemed to get their panties in the biggest knot about Clinton was his lying about getting a blow-job from an intern. I guess that's somehow considered a more serious matter than, for example, lying to the public about the evidence for taking the country to war?

Canned on paper, but funded anyways?

[Lead Butthead]

What I fear is that the project would be funded through other black box line items...

"You don't really believe they paid thousands of dollars for a toilet seat do you?"

stop using 911

[asscroft]

I'd like to go one day without hearing someone use 911 to justify some sort of crazy bullshit that never would be allowed otherwise.

"I'm sorry, but since 911 we just can't play by the same rules, therefore I'm going to have to rape your mom. If you don't let me you're un-American and the terrorists will win. You DO NOT want to go to guantanamo, do you? Good. Get the rope, please"

comeoff it. Meanwhile, anyone who dares question our response to 911 or any of these decisions "justified" by 911 is "disgracing the memories of the victims and insulting their families and all patriots of america"

how nice, you have it both ways.

well, in tribute to the popular drinking/card game:
BULLSHIT!

10 lines of truth
1. Flight 93 was shot down by US fighters- justifiably so.
2. Iraq was and still is only about oil.
3. TIA is about spying on Americans.
4. The Partiot act is unconstitutional.
5. The DMCA is an overreaching easily manipulated bad law stifling innovation and driving technology out of America.
6. Trickle down sucks if you aren't at the top.
7. "Support the troops" does not mean cheer as they go to die and kill while simultaneously reducing their benefits.
8. Israel isn't always right. Sometimes 2 wrongs make 2 wrongs.
9. Despite listing these truths, I am not a terrorist.
10. Fox is biased.

Re:TIA is more smoke and mirrors

[jazman_777]

Like the Patriot Act, Leave No Child Behind and Clear Skies initiatives, the best way of figuring out what a Bush effort is NOT about is to pay attention to the name.

You're gettin' there. Also: most government secrecy is mainly to prevent embarrassment. Also: most of these efforts are to protect the _state_, not us. Also: most of these efforts are to expand the state at our expense.

Folks, these so-called "conservatives" really believe in nothing that is traditionally conservative. Oh, sure, Bush pops into a church during campaign time and says "Jesus" and the religious right just rolls over. But these guys aren't interested in conservin' much of anything.

PS. Ever wonder why "conservatives" and the conservation movement are polar opposites? You'd think that conservatives would gravitate to conservation.

Re:Nervous Senators?

[geekee]

"lying to the public about the evidence for taking the country to war."

Isn't there a saying that goes, don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity (this is GW Bush after all). Just because they're wrong, doesn't mean they lied.

Re:Don't worry,

[nanojath]

Yeah, don't forget that John Poindexter is in charge... he's an old hand at, um, unconventional funding of "special" government projects. Maybe his old buddies in the CIA can help him move a little ultra-pure heroin from our new buddies, the warlords of Afghanistan.

Go ahead and mod it funny... I wish it was more of a joke.

No worries, they'll just sell drugs instead

[Zen Mastuh]

It's been 29 years since Reagan announced the War On (Some) Drugs. In the meantime, millions of individuals involved in feeding America's rather large appetite have been absorbed into the world's largest prison/labor system. Many of these people have avoided prison by committing suicide, and many drug prisoners have died of AIDS (prison rape). Billions of dollars in assets have been siezed by police agencies with the result of militarization of police agencies of all sizes. Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year to ostensibly keep drugs out of America. And yet, drug use and drug availability are nearly unchanged after all this time. In other words, in spite of a very large, high-profile War On (Some) Drugs, the level of drug use in this country has not decreased.

What happened? Didn't we remove millions of drug dealers from general circulation? Didn't we pass enough Draconian laws to scare remaining drug dealers out of the business and steer aspiring drug dealers into other professions? Didn't we spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign designed to convince the average American that the horrible 9/11 attacks were paid for by drugs? Just how do drugs manage to keep flowing into this country? Somebody must be bringing them in, and not getting caught.

Additionally, we all know from experience that John Poindexter doesn't have any moral qualms with the selling of guns and/or drugs to finance extra-legal activity. Ergo, the TIA could (and likely will) fund itself by selling drugs. Civil Liberties activists will congratulate themselves for defeating the TIA as it goes underground and compiles information on YOU, using money from every bag you buy.

New bumpersticker idea: De-fund the TIA: Grow Your Own Drugs!

PUH-LEEEEASE!

[jhylkema]

Tell me you're not that naive. Until 1997, we didn't even know the how much was being spent on inteligence. It took a FOIA lawsuit by the Federation of American Scientists to get the CIA to release the "black budget" figure. The CIA then announced the figure for 1997 - $26.6 billion (yes, billion with a "b.") The FAS then forced the release of the 1998 aggregate intelligence figure - $26.7 billion.

Anybody who knows anything about government budgeting will know this figure is a lie. Most federal programs get an automatic 10% annual budget increase. Any increase of less than 10% is called a "cut" (remember the mid-90s Democrat Goebbels-worthy "Medicare cuts" campaign? Same thing.) Had the CIA's budget only increased by $0.1 billion, we would have heard a hue and cry about the intelligence budget being "cut."

The point is, they're lying about the amount of the budget even when a court ordered its release. Having been given essentially a blank check, who says they won't (or haven't) implemented TIA already via the "black budget"?