Slashdot Mirror


Total Information Awareness, Disguised And Alive

unassimilatible writes "According to the AP, aspects of the controversial Total Information Awareness DARPA program, officially shut down by the U.S. Congress in September 2003 after a public outcry, seem to have survived. The article reports, 'Some projects from retired Adm. John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness effort were transferred to U.S. intelligence offices, congressional, federal and research officials told The Associated Press. In addition, Congress left undisturbed a separate but similar $64 million research program run by a little-known office called the Advanced Research and Development Activity, or ARDA, that has used some of the same researchers as Poindexter's program.'"

134 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Common practice by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in government, shoot for the moon and keep what you can if someone gets a nose on it. This happens all the time and is one of the reasons the federal budget is so large, departments ask for more than they really need and keep what they get.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Common practice by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap...

      Thank God you finally figured that one out.

    2. Re:Common practice by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and next Tuesday I plan to exercise #2, not to mention that I keep in contact with my representatives throughout their tenure at the various levels of goverment (I have recieved 10 letters back from my Congressman including three hand writtern, how often do you write yours?). Some people simply use #1 and bitch about nothing getting done, I have used the first three and pray to god that I never have to use the fourth.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Common practice by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Informative
      I worked in government for a while, municipal not federal, but the idea is the same I think. There are two major factors that affect budgets IMO: empire-building, and the "gravy train effect".

      Empire building is the worst. Managers in government departments do not get cash bonuses or stock options like their counterparts in private enterprise. If a bureaucrat wants to increase his compensation he has two options: get promoted outside the department, or build up his department by adding staff until he has so many people working under him that he can go to his manager and say "Look how much more responsibility I have! Much more so than Joe over in the Department of Thumb Twiddling...and he makes more than I do!". So he is highly motivated to make his budget as big as he can. And what does he get if he (the fool!) reduces his budget? A "productivity award" plaque, which he can hang on the wall, much to the amusement of his buddy Joe.

      Most budgets are operational, that is, you figure what you need to run your program, estimate what changed from last year, and request what you need for the year ahead. But now and then a major cross-departmental program is announced with funding for some initiative. It's a huge amount of money, and if you are a good manager, you will figure out how to get a slice of it. This is the "gravy train effect". Anything you do that has even the remotest connection to the program is reclassified, renamed, and generally reconfigured to siphon off money from it. That's why those major programs never seem to make an impact - much of the funding is diverted to non-related activities. (In defense of this practice, most government departments get their "operational" budgets squeezed every year, so robbing the "gravy train" as it rolls through town is often the only way to keep their department running day-to-day.)

      Don't get me wrong: I'm no bureaucrat-basher. By and large, everyone I know in government is decent, honest and hard-working. But the compensation system does not reward people for efficiency or productivity.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  2. Similar by noelo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this somewhat similar to what the East German secret police did to their citizens during the cold war...

    1. Re:Similar by Durandal64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Insightful my ass. This "If you don't like it, leave" bullshit from the neo-conservative right wing-nuts is growing tiresome. This is America, and if you don't like something you are free to speak out against it and try to get it changed. If you don't like that, then you can leave. Try picking a state that shares your bullshit nationalist views about the government being the final arbiter of all that is good and correct. I hear that Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.

    2. Re:Similar by Michael+Hunt · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're missing the point: under Australian law at the time, there was nothing illegal about what David Hicks (at least) was doing.

      So, as a nice loophole to get the poor bastard strung up ex post facto, we're happy to leave him in Cuba to be prosecuted by the Americans.

      Let me reiterate that. WHAT HE DID AT THE TIME WAS NOT ILLEGAL.

    3. Re:Similar by cfuse · · Score: 2, Informative
      You should probably resist the temptation to take literally those posts which ridicule the banality of your non-sequiturs.

      Banality huh? You really must be an staunch adherant to the fight fire with fire philosophy.

      Regarding Guantanamo, I have no problem with the US holding combatant terrorists for as long as they deem necessary. These terrorists were not fighting under the accord of any acknowledged UN/Geneva conventions of war, thus they are not privy to the protections of said conventions.

      Or any conventions of human rights either, apparently.

      1. If they are terrorists, charge them as such - but stop crapping on.
      2. As the other child post states, David Hicks has done nothing illegal under Australian law.
      3. I have no problem with America becoming the new roman empire. But just stop trying to justify the behaviour - it's just embarassing.
        It is America's behaviour that is unlawful in this situation. No other country can be bothered risking their relationship (ie. financial and diplomatic) with the US over a bunch of Afghan nobodies and a handful of foreign nationals. The US can do as it pleases, no one will oppose it.

      That Australia is none too desirous of having the combatant terrorists repatriated to Australia where they cannot be prosecuted under laws passed post Afghanistan-conflict, is not surprising.

      Irrelevant. They don't care, it's all just to please the US. Why would Australia care about people who aren't enemies of Australia?

      They'll let the US mete out whatever punishment they are due and then take them back at the appropiate time.

      Not if they get the death penalty.

      Australia has not sold out its citizens. They have sold out their Australian citizenship by engaging in illegal conflict.

      Under Australian law (at the time), those Australian citizens held at Guantanamo have done nothing to warrant being held.

      If you send your name and address to the US Military, I'm sure they'll be sure to send them directly to your residence when they are released. Perhaps you can pick up some Pashtun and learn how to make bombs.

      I wouldn't have any problem with that, after all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      I look forward to your reply.

  3. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    and here I just packed my tinfoil hat, again!

  4. From the ARDA Page by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ARDA's mission is to sponsor high-risk high-payoff research designed to leverage leading edge technology in the solution of some of the most critical poblems facing the intelligence community (IC).

    High Risk as in 'Public Backlash'?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:From the ARDA Page by Jim+Starx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High risk must mean "oops he's innocent"

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    2. Re:From the ARDA Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      People are very confused on what and who DARPA is. I have worked on a few DARPA projects and this is how it normally goes.

      DARPA is only concerned with research. Not production or use.

      On the couple of DARPA programs I worked on it goes like this.

      1.) DARPA gets a crazy idea (like "I wonder if we can make an anti-gravity device".)

      2.) DARPA puts together about 6 to 10 teams of researchers (from industry and academia) and gives them some money to study the problem.

      3.) 6 months or so later the teams present their ideas to DARPA. DARPA then decides if it wants to stop the research or continue.

      4.) If DARPA continues. It will pick the best 2 or 3 approaches and give those teams more money for more details on their approach.

      5.) 6 months or so later the teams present their approaches to DARPA. If DARPA really likes an idea, it might have one of the teams build a small prototype.

      If the prototype works out DARPA will ask congress to take the research to production (not under DARPA but under DOD).

      Very, very rarely does a DARPA project make it to production.

    3. Re:From the ARDA Page by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 3, Informative

      High Risk as in 'Public Backlash'?

      High Risk as in it's not likely they'll be able to make it work, but it'll be Really Cool (in their opinion) if they can.

    4. Re:From the ARDA Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > 1.) DARPA gets a crazy idea (like "I wonder if we can make an anti-gravity device".)

      I KNEW IT I KNEW IT I KNEW IT!!!!!11!11

      I'M NOT CRAZY ANYOMO-

  5. Why ... by Vanieter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    am I not even remotely surprised by this announcement ?

    Could anyone actually trust a government that passed the PATRIOT Act to actually can TIA ?

    1. Re:Why ... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should not be surprised - this is behavior that should be expected from any government no matter what benevolent face it puts on.

      The only things that keep power hungry government officials in check is fear of retribution from the populace. When the country was small and the military little more than a couple boy scouts with prettier boots (a situation that persisted well into the 20th century to some degree), there was the potential for armed revolts. Even pockets could cause huge problems.

      When the official forces were bulked up as a result of the world wars, there was still the ever hanging axe of the ballot box to keep politicians under control. When the media gained the power of radio and TV, any little foible could be broadcast within hours to a population that might actually care.

      Now, armed revolt isn't a threat, the media is broadcasting sensationalist bullshit for ratings meaning people don't take it that seriously, and the typical voter turnout is so horribly anemic that I have a hard time believing people even realize that they have a vote sometimes.

      Politicians are free to pursue whatever agenda they want now. Nobody is going to stop them. With a few exceptions like TIA, nobody speaks up against ridiculous, authoritarian programs coming out of D.C. anymore. When they do, you just see this - they get broken up and hidden in various budgets and departments in such a way that they look like harmless little pocket programs, but the same folks are still pulling the strings at the top.

      I've got to wonder sometimes how much farther this can go. The technology will just keep evolving in favor of loss of privacy and big brother-esque data collection and monitoring. When will people step up to draw the line and, depending on how long it takes, what will it take to actually keep the government from crossing it?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    2. Re:Why ... by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about that US CITIZEN that is currently being held with out trial and who has been denied a lawyer?

    3. Re:Why ... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Tell me which portions of the Patriot Act that trouble you.

      Blanket search warrents.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    4. Re:Why ... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Stupid people will do stupid things with or without the Patriot Act.

      True, so why give them more power to do stupid things with?? This specific event may not have anything to do with the patriot act, but it shows that people can and will abuse their power. That in of itself is the main reason why the US was founded on giving away as little power as possible.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    5. Re:Why ... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "How about that US CITIZEN that is currently being held with out trial and who has been denied a lawyer? "

      Bad example.

      a.) The operative word here is 'one'.

      b.) It's being fought, as opposed to it just happening without any checks and balances in place.

      c.) Shit happens.

      I'm not arguing that it's right or that it's harmless. Rather, I just want a more substantial reason to be afraid. I'm not a "whoah I better join the crowd" kind of person, I'm a "give me the info so I can judge" kind of person. So please, help me out so I can understand.

      (P.s. Modding the guy down for asking "What harm has it caused" is ridiculous. Not everybody (including myself) stays on top of every little thing that happens. Questions like that are never harmful.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really think that politicians are out to get us? Come on man. The "power hungry" people you speak of are interested in money, not the ability to watch you in your house. I promise. The people that want the ability to watch you and collect data on you are those in the organizations like the CIA. They want the ability to do it, because it would make their job easier. They aren't going to go around bugging everyone's home, they juse want the ability to do it if they want.

      I'm not justifying these programs, all I'm saying is that they arn't linked to Big brother type bullshit.

    7. Re:Why ... by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "How about that US CITIZEN that is currently being held with out trial and who has been denied a lawyer? "

      Bad example.

      a.) The operative word here is 'one'.


      Well, you know, it always starts with one.

      One Bolshevik, one kulak, one "Enemy of the People", one Jew, one Japanese-American, one Communist, one educated person, one literate person, one Arab.

      (Roughly in chronological order; I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to connect each "Enemy" to the society that demonized them. Feel free to add other examples.)

      That one is supposed to be our warning that it's time once again to fertilize the tree of liberty.

      Because if we don't, suddenly it's not "just one" anymore; it's a thousand, a hundred thousand, six million, 20 million. And then everybody exclaims in surprise, "how could this happen in a civilized nation?!"

    8. Re:Why ... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The politicians are closely linked to commercial interests.

      Commercial interests have a great deal to gain from knowing everything about everyone.

      Both the politicians and the agencies are closely linked to the private sector. The agencies, as you stated, have a great deal to gain from knowing everything about everyone.

      None of these three can exist in their current incarnation without the crucial link of the politician. Would you like a pencil to connect the dots? This is not just some paranoid goon bullshit either, it's the most likely series of connections in the event that anyone really is "out to get us". Whether anyone is actually out to get us, or this is simply massive incompetence, pork-barrel spending, or a vulgar display of power by some sniveling twit with a shriveled cock sitting in Congress somewhere is up for debate.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    9. Re:Why ... by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Informative

      Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir, supposedly plotted to build and detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." He is a U.S. citizen. Yet he's being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Yaser Esam Hamdi is also a U.S. citizen. He, too, is being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Meanwhile, Zacarias Moussaoui, purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a U.S. citizen. Neither is Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber. Both have attorneys. Both have been charged before federal civilian courts.

      -----------

      Please read my post above.

    10. Re:Why ... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell me which portions of the Patriot Act that trouble you.

      Blanket search warrents.


      Nationwide roving wiretaps.

    11. Re:Why ... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "None of those bother me at all. Probably because I have nothing to hide or worry about."

      I could ask about your address, bank account, relatives, or hint at hidden cameras in bathrooms and bedrooms and such. But, I'll just say this. If you have nothing to worry about, feel free to post your main email address or phone number on here.

      Oh, wait: from your slashdot page
      "tealover (187148)
      tealover
      * (email not shown publicly)"

      Got something to hide do we?

      And sorry, just because someone works for the government doesn't make automatically give them integrity. As for laws, you mean those things that stop regular people from exploiting such information as well?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    12. Re:Why ... by sindarin2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When will we stop hearing that excuse?? It's the potential for abuse that bothers me so much. Have you ever been harrassed by a police officer, even though you were not doing anything illegal?? There are always people who will abuse the system for their own personal ends. Laws like the Patriot Act remove the checks and balances to make these abuses more difficult. With these checks gone, the ease of abuse skyrockets.

    13. Re:Why ... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That argument has long sense been proven inadequate. Do you consider people who want their right to privacy respected as having something to hide? Rights are not just for the guilty.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    14. Re:Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iraq is a completely different story. These "gun nuts" here aren't going to strap on some explosives and go blow themselves up in an army barracks. Do you honestly think that domestic gun owners can be compared to the resistance in Iraq? Do you honestly believe that they would stand a chance against the army? If so, I would suggest that you wake up. The only hope you have is that people in the army would actually THINK about something and take your side. Then again, we DID have a civil war...

    15. Re:Why ... by John+Courtland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the worst response ever. Good luck having someone care when you are falsely accused of a crime. Also, you do not represent everyone else, so your logic falls apart there. People may have nothing to hide, but demand their privacy. There should be no problem giving them that.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    16. Re:Why ... by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "When will people step up to draw the line and, depending on how long it takes, what will it take to actually keep the government from crossing it?"

      We alread have some recent historical precedent you can draw from. What it took last time was:

      - A lengthy, ugly, pointless, war in Vietnam that killed and maimed large numbers of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. Vietnam for the U.S. and Afghanistan for the U.S.S.R. created large numbers of returning veterans who were disillusioned with their government after being subjected to the senseless horrors they were producing in the name of their geopolitical and economic manuevering.
      - A CIA that had essentially run amuck and was using covert operations, coups, assasinations and rigged elections to install despotic regimes around the world
      - An FBI engaged in a massive domestic spying and social engineering campaign
      - A President, Richard Nixon, who was caught using dirty tricks to destroy political oponents and insure his reelection.
      - Economic upheaval thanks in part to the massive expenditures in Vietnam

      America did manage to come back from the brink then for a time thanks to:
      - The antiwar movement. We forget this now but a lot of people were politically very active in the late sixties and early seventies.
      - Congressional investigations by the Church Commission which reined in the CIA and FBI for a time.
      - Investigate journalists, Woodward and Berstein, who refused to accept the mush being spoon fed them by the government and actually did what journalists are supposed to do which was find the truth.

      Today many of the same elements are coalescing though it took time for them to develop in the 60's and it wont happen overnight this time either:

      - the war in Iraq has the same potential as Vietnam to incite an anti war movement unless the U.S. is successful in disengaging its occupation army and fostering a stable government soon. Both are unlikely. If the U.S. were to disengage its army Iraq would likely devolve in to a civil war. Any real attempt to actually turn sovereignty over to the the Iraqs, with a democratic vote, would lead almost immediately to a Shia dominated Islamic republic which the U.S. won't tolerate. As a result the U.S. has to manipulate the politics in Iraq and maintain an occupation army, indefinitely, or cut and run and let it collapse like South Vietnam eventually did. If things continue as they are the root of an antiwar movement will form each time a new wave of 100,000 soldiers return from Iraq with the permenent scars of the horrors they are subjected to there. Occupations with a creditable insurgent resistance are always very ugly for everyone involved. This disillusionment would be an instantaneous process though. It will take years as it did in Vietnam. There are some forces that work against another Vietnam too. The Army learned a lot of lessons about what caused the moral collapse of the Army and public opinion in Vietnam and they have remedied some but not all. The three obvious ones are:
      - drug testing to prevent drug abuse
      - maintaining unit cohesion
      - suppressing media coverage of the ugly side of the war, in particular wounded soldiers screaming in pain and the unloading of the coffins in Delaware(the later insituted by non other than Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense). The media today obsesses endless over the sensational murder/kidnapping of the day, but the nearly daily causalties in Iraq pass by with little more than "2 soldiers were killed today by an IED".

      - As for reining in the intelligence establishment with a new Church commission, there is one force working towards that and one against. The force working for it is growing public awareness of the blatant and obvious deception used to justify Iraq which should be grounds to once again rein in the CIA and to launch impeachment proceeding against the President. The force working against it is the Republicans control the government. As long as they do the deceipt will be

      --
      @de_machina
    17. Re:Why ... by Chagrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I myself am kinda curious about electromagnetic weapons, but I shouldn't even mention that here and wouldn't dare check out a library book on it for risk of being flagged as a terrorist.

      --

      I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    18. Re:Why ... by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me. - Martin Niemoelle

      No mod points for me on this topic. But well worth it. IMO, it annoys me to no end when people use this "defense". "I don't care if Marijuana is illegal, I don't smoke it." "I don't care if <insert any of the many inane things that are illegal in the US here> is illegal, I don't do <said act>" This is *not* an excuse to sit back and do absolutely nothing while The Constitution is slowly dissolved. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Bush say we're at War with Terrorism? A never-ending war, seeing as how it's got no conditions FOR it to end? It's like the War On Drugs. The War On Illiteracy. The War on whatever. This country is ALWAYS at war. We're taught to fear everything. Ever notice what's on the news? Crime, crime, crime, bad news, more crime and the weather. Oh, can't forget the sports. We've had ONE ATTACK on our country. Now, ever since then, we've been hiding with our guns pointed at our doors waiting for someone to twitch. A population that lives in fear will look for someone in AUTHORITY for answers, that's what we're taught to do. Now, the Government has us constantly looking at each other and asking....is s/he a terrorist? Maybe they are...they look different than we do, and that guy over there...he acts...different. We're slowly becoming a nation of intolerants. I see it every day. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me to watch the fear and paranoia that have taken root in this country over the last few years. Fear is also the best way to control a population, think about it. In light of the newest "TERRORIST THREAT(TM)", then a few million stolen by a business doesn't seem to matter that much does it? Oh, and those people being held...not to worry, they were "different" too, just look at their names...nothing to worry about [/sarcasm] Look around you people, pay attention not only to WHAT is going on, but What is being said about it, and most importantly *WHY* it's being said.

      In closing, I'm reminded of something from around the time of 9/11. It's a quote but I do not remember from whom at this point. " After the bombings, they could have told us to learn CPR, they could have told us to arm ourselves, they could have told us to donate our time or money to charities. They didn't. Instead, they told us to shop." (Horribly mis-quoted and I apologize... if anyone knows the quote I'm talking about I'd really appreciate posting it..)

      Not trying to be FlameBait or a Troll, simply sharing the world how I see it.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    19. Re:Why ... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are hiding information so that other people do not take advantage of that information. In all likelyhood it is not because you are doing anything wrong. I believe that is my point.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    20. Re:Why ... by MobileC · · Score: 2, Funny

      One Bolshevik, one kulak, one "Enemy of the People", one Jew, one Japanese-American, one Communist, one educated person, one literate person, one Arab.

      Walk into a bar...

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

    21. Re:Why ... by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "I have something to hide because I don't want SPAM ?"

      Exactly right, you do have something to hide, and most people here would fully understand your reasons for hiding it.

      Now what happens if a few years down the road a new Law passes saying that it is illegal to post anonymously to the internet, and that all users must be registered and traceable.

      Are you the type who would just say, "Ah well, posting to the internet is a privilege not a right," and accept it? Will you go underground and post in places where you can be anonymous and thus be (technically) a criminal?

      Seriously, just because you are known here as tealover, you are still essentially anonymous and you probably prefer it that way, and yet, you do not feel that you are entitled to that privacy? Enlighten me as I cannot understand that.

    22. Re:Why ... by ymgve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, I am hiding my email because other people will abuse that information.

      I am not afraid of the government abusing that information. A big difference.


      The government is made of people.

  6. This just keeps happening by Bobdoer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We tell them no, then they break it in to a bunch of pieces and do it anyway.
    Why do we keep electing these people who keep misrepresenting us to represent us?

    1. Re:This just keeps happening by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
      We tell them no, then they break it in to a bunch of pieces and do it anyway. Why do we keep electing these people who keep misrepresenting us to represent us?

      Because you can only elect from those people on the list that is essentially chosen for you. And you don't get much of a say in who goes on that list.

      Those with Power (those who own and/or control this country's largest corporations) choose who get on that list and "sell" it to you via their mass media outlets.

      And the end result is that the only people you can realistically choose from are people who will not represent you, but who will represent Those with Power. It's why the "democracy" part of the "democratic republic" title for the U.S. is a lie.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    2. Re:This just keeps happening by whovian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very Insightful, +2.

      Now how do Those with Power "sell" to the public? By voicing the standard fare benefit programs that lead to better healthcare, better education, defense, lowered taxes, creation of new jobs, consumer protections, etc.

      After your post, I can't help but view these things as being dangling fishing lures baited with carrots.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:This just keeps happening by stewby18 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, what were you saying? I was distracted by my enjoyment of this fine carrot.

      -The average voter

    4. Re:This just keeps happening by bluGill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you don't get much of a say in who goes on that list.

      Sure you can choose. In MN your chance in March 2nd, also called super tuesday where people in 10 different states all at once get a chance go choose who goes on the ballot.

      Of course you have to belong to a political party in order to have a choice, but if you don't want to belong to a party why would the party want you to have a say in who they put on the ballot. Get your own party, or just go out and get on the ballot yourself. (If you can't get enough signatures to get on the ballot in an afternoon in a local city you aren't trying)

      The greatest tradgity is that people have been convinced that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Don't fall for it.

    5. Re:This just keeps happening by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because you can only elect from those people on the list that is essentially chosen for you. And you don't get much of a say in who goes on that list.

      You know what I find odd though, is that when there is a choice (like, say, the Green Party), people complain about it and claim they're taking votes from an electable party. It's sad that America is completely dominated by two parties, both very similar (race to the middle, anyone?), and any apparent deviation from that is met with great hostility ("Nader cost us the election!"). It would be nice to be able to vote for something, instead of a reflex vote against what you don't want. I see people as voting for Nader because they believe in his policies, rather than because they don't want Bush to get elected.

      But who knows? The voter turnout for 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2000 election was 9 percent. Nobody cares anyway.

    6. Re:This just keeps happening by jrexilius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, that is a damn fine question. Why do we keep electing them? And dont give me crap about we have no choice. I see lots of choice that people consider "fringe" and dismiss.

      My question is, knowing that this would happen given the advances in technology, short of running for office what are we (the technologically inclined) doing to keep the playing field level? Other than Lessigs challenge and Applied autonomy what else are we doing?

      I realize that we aren't all cut out for leadership roles but we can do things to combat governmental excesses and restrictions on freedom. We gave the common user macros and excel for power over office data, what are we giving them for power over personal data?

    7. Re:This just keeps happening by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nearly identical? Nope, not to the millions of victims of neurodegenerative disorders who Bush is robbing of a cure with his fundamentalist stance on stem cell research. Not to the millions of elderly who depend on Social Security and Medicare benefits, which will have to be drastically cut thanks to Bush's happy-go-lucky attitude towards the gigantic budget deficit.

      Look, real life is about compromise. For better or for worse, we live under a two-party system, just as Americans before us have for close to 250 years. Voting for Nader isn't going to change our system--it'll just make the fringe he represents look even more extremist and out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans.

      I'm repeating myself with this post; you might want to read this editorial I wrote the other day.

  7. Nothing stopping it now. by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Take a look at the bottom of any of the ARDA pages. See the little webmaster mail link? See the domain it goes to? ardaweb@nsa.gov. I think that since the NSA has gotten a hold of it, there's not much you can do about it . . unless you want to disappear.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Nothing stopping it now. by Erwos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, because we know an organization composed of crypto-geeks and engineers is completely equipped to make you disappear.

      NSA's not in the business of making people disappear. The program is public. Do you think they make every concerned citizen disappear? Please. Don't take movies as documentaries.

      In fact, NSA tends to be one of the more non-threatening agencies when it comes to dealing with protestors. Remember the infamous tea party, when they just met the protestors at the fence, gave them some tea, and asked them about any specific issues they had? They're not quite that loose anymore, but I'd really be more concerned with Homeland Security than NSA.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  8. No surprise by shamir_k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The whole congressional action looks like a shell game," said Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks work by U.S. intelligence agencies. "There may be enough of a difference for them to claim TIA was terminated while for all practical purposes the identical work is continuing."

    So most of the projects continue, but under a different name. And this time I am sure they will be much better hidden from the public eye. 1984 anybody?

    1. Re:No surprise by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Funny

      So most of the projects continue, but under a different name.

      Except for the Adm. John Poindexter project. From Wikipedia:

      Poindexter was convicted on multiple felony counts on April 7, 1990 for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair.

      However, in spite of being a convicted criminal, he hasn't changed his name. Duh -- what a fucking amateur!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  9. Government by rholliday · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's the government for you. Did you expect anything less?

    On a lighter note, I find it endlessly humerous that this psuedo-top secret department, causing all this controversy, that "sponsors high risk, high payoff research designed to produce new technology to address some of the most important and challenging IT problems faced by the intelligence community" has an Upcoming ARDA Calendar of Events!! that it so gleefully links to on its target="_blank">home page. :)

    --
    Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
  10. lessons learnt by maliabu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    will this (public outcry) also pushes more privacy-invading systems being developed and used in the dark?

    now that they knew public doesn't like the idea of such thing, why bother asking in the future? just go ahead and do it.

  11. Not smart... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It said, for the time being, products of this research could only be used overseas or against non-U.S. citizens in this country, not against Americans on U.S. soil.

    I don't think treating americans diffrently based on where they are in the world is a good precident to set....

    --
    The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
  12. Civil War by MacFury · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I seriously wonder how long before we have another civil war. There is already civil unrest. We have it too good right now to take up arms...but I wonder if it will happen within my lifetime.

    Mass protests have done nothing to stop the war in Iraq...what would it take?

    1. Re:Civil War by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I seriously wonder how long before we have another civil war. There is already civil unrest. We have it too good right now to take up arms...but I wonder if it will happen within my lifetime. "

      The USA is a wonderful place to live. It would take a catastrophic set of events along with nobody trying to fix them in order to cause people to fight the government. Frankly, with 300 million people in this country, the chances of that are VERY low, even if we were to look towards 2050.

      For a civil war to happen, the bads have to outweigh the goods we have. We take them for granted, but we have a LOT to be thankful for here.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Civil War by cfuse · · Score: 2, Funny
      I seriously wonder how long before we have another civil war. There is already civil unrest. We have it too good right now to take up arms...but I wonder if it will happen within my lifetime.

      Right now, in the TIA database, a flag just went against your record for that post.

      When the thought police kick down your door and drag you off to an internment camp the politicians and their friends who set up TIA will sleep a little safer at night.

  13. I think not by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny
    ARDA said its software would have to deal with "typically a petabyte or more" of data. It noted that some intelligence data sources "grow at the rate of four petabytes per month."

    So, the bastards think they can keep track of my porn collection, do they?

  14. not suprised at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    i am not suprised at all by this article.

    i'm definately not voting for bush (not like i did) because the terror color code thing has my little cousin scared of clifford the big red dog because he thinks he's a severe terror threat.

  15. In Government... by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No bad idea ever goes away.

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  16. America... by rsklnkv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is about twenty years overdue for revolution.
    From the article:
    "to help the nation avoid strategic surprise ... events critical to national security ... such as those of Sept. 11, 2001,"

    This kind of reasoning to destroy rights is sick. What does that mean, "such as those"? Where are all these 'terrorists' (sick of THAT word) who wait to waylay me and bugger me bloody?
    Ooooh, that's right! The New & Imroved ARDA is protecting me from them. Thanks for that.

    BTW. Not believing privacy is my right
    MEANS NOTHING TO ME. I'll still claim I have that right, and fight for every inch of it.

    --
    _____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
  17. Big government by MrScary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It just amazes me that the repulicans are all about government staying out of our lives but they produce so much legislation the interferes with our lives. I think that it is time for king George the second to reread the bill of rights or maybe its time for us to fight the revolutionary war again.

    --
    I've been searchin for the chord I can't hear Ive been searchin for years Its somewhere inside But its well disguised
    1. Re:Big government by mellon101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both sides read the founding documents the way they want. Dem's are all about freedom of speech until it comes to something like campaign finance reform, which is a blatant violation of freedom of speech. They crap on our right to bear arms. Neutering it every chance they get. The republicans are giving the finger to our rights to privacy with all this patriot act and other such bullshit. Denying US citizens the right to legal representation and a fair trial by classifying them as POW's (or whatever they are calling them this week). There are so many more examples on both sides. The government is seriously getting out of hand. It has grown into something it was never intended to be. Things went wrong when power was taken away from the states and sent to D.C.

    2. Re:Big government by Jim+Starx · · Score: 4, Informative
      could you please tell me where the right to privacy exists?

      Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
      [wikipedia.org]

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    3. Re:Big government by dont_think_twice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dem's are all about freedom of speech until it comes to something like campaign finance reform, which is a blatant violation of freedom of speech

      We have always accepted that the right to free speech is not an absolute right; hence the overused, but still true "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. When it comes to campaign finaince reform, a small amount of free speech is being sacrificed in order to ensure that our elections are democratic and not influenced by money. Whether that is a good tradeoff or not is argueable, but the idea that campaign finance reform is strictly unconstutional because it is a violation of the right to free speech is just silly.

    4. Re:Big government by qtp · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Republicans have never been about keeping government out of your life. Whether the subject is obscenity, abortion, "family values", or smoking pot, the Republicans have been there to offer legislation to regulate the minutia of your behavior. They do claim to be all about reducing government, and they do talk about reducing taxes, but it has been the Republicans that have obscenely increased government spending since Nixon, and it has been the Republicans who have proposed new powers for federal, state, and local law enforcement that infringe upon our first and fourth amendment rights, and it has been the Republicans who have bypassed US laws (proposed by Republicans) to support foreign terrorists and dictators (Including Osama Bin-Laden, Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinoche, Francios and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Samoza, Alfredo Cristiani, Mobuto Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, P.W. Botha, etc, etc, etc,) and murdered democratically elected leaders of other countries (Patrice Lumumba) incited coups against Democratic governments (Chile in 1973, Congo in 1964, Liberia in 1980, and a failed coup attempt in Venezuela this past April).

      Many Americans choose to be ignorant this historical record because of the Republicans talk of lowering taxes, in spite of the obvious connection between increased government spending and a need for increased revenues.

      Many Americans are aware of the historical record, are aware of the continuing illegal activities of our intelligence agencies (both abroad and at home), yet they choose to act as if blind to these things, will argue in favor of these actions, and will contrive to make life difficult of anyone who dare speak of them (if you do not produce documentation you are "crazy", if you do produce documentation then you are "dangerous").

      TIA and ARDA are little more than our intelligence agencies and the current Republican administration conspiring to behave a bit more like the dictators they have traditionally backed. The intelligence agencies and the industries that are supported by them would like to see a return to the more lucrative days of the Cold War. They feel they are under threat as more and more people are scrutinizing their history using collections of documents released by the Freedom of Information Act, like those at the National Security Archive, EPIC.org, the Federation of American Scientists, the EFF, and probably more that I am unaware of.

      Read this stuff, it is an amazing way to gain insight into the hidden workings of our government. Read about "the Church Commission to learn how the CIA breaks the law, hires the mob, and manipulates the media while harassing and murdering US citizens that they beleive hold "un-American beleifs". Read about the Iran-Contra affair to learn how little respect for the law our current Administration's Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Poindexter (among others) really have, and read about the cocaine importing that they participated in to fund their pet terrorists.

      The current mood seems to support giving our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies increased freedoms to invade our privacy while reducing oversight of their actions in hopes that this will increase national security and make our lives a little safer. The problem is that when you look at the record of their history, it appears that the opposite is much more likely to result, and that allowing the FBI and CIA increased freedom and power, might just end the

      --
      Read, L
  18. Is this a surprise? by cluge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many government agencies have been struggling to pay catch up when it comes to the "Information Revolution". Now a decade after the revolution began some are starting to realize the potential. It's been pretty embarassing to sit at your desk in the CIA and not be able to do a Google Search. I believe that the "total information awareness" program is simply a way to try and rectify this.

    The tools are only going to get better, and the more laws and policies that allow the "leakage" of personal information will only make "privacy" a state of mind as opposed to something you actually have. If congress was so concerned about privacy perhaps they would rethink the Patriot Act, or other invasive police policies that have been en vogue for the last decade.

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  19. I like this by Pave+Low · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I know this is probably an unpopular opinion on slashdot, but I hope the government does go ahead with this plan.

    The government isn't really spying on you, per se. They are taking all the public information out there, and data mining it to potentially flag and catch criminals and terrorists.

    The crowd here turn into luddites as soon as technology is used by the government, but I think this is a great use for it. The 9/11 hijackers were in plain view, but because of the different agencies and bureaucracies, they fell through. This could be a tool to find the next 9/11 and I am all for it.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    1. Re:I like this by cgranade · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'Ya know, that's wonderful, but let's be rational about this. 3,000 deaths... a staggering number, right? However, it is hardly the most tragic thing ever to happen: "In 2002, an estimated 17,419 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes--an average of one every 30 minutes. These deaths constitute 41 percent of the 42,815 total traffic fatalities. (NHTSA, 2003)" [from MADD.] Don't get me wrong... 9/11 was no doubt a significant event. I just mean to say that the threat posed by it pales in comparison to so many of the threats that surround us every day and which go largely unnoticed.

      Even if we assume that 9/11 represented such a grave threat as to cause us to consider the radical restructuring of the very nature of our rights, then we must ask if that is a productive course of action. Remember when TIME magazine ran the cover article claiming that not enough was done to prevent 9/11, even with the Phoenix memo and other warnings? So, please, remind me again how TIA will prevent a "second 9/11?"

      While you may be ready to give up your rights in response to a vauge threat (color scale of doom, anyone?) and to passively take hook, line and sinker, there remain those of us who still value the lives lost back in the late 1700s... the lives which won us this freedom in the first place.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:I like this by blincoln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This could be a tool to find the next 9/11 and I am all for it.

      If there were going to be another terrorist attack, don't you think *something* would already have happened, even if it was just a Hammas-style bus bombing?

      When even the normally insane Pat Buchanan writes a lengthy, thoughtful, and accurate essay on why the "war on terror" is a sham - and it gets the cover of a conservative magazine, that should set off alarm bells in everyones' heads.

      Al Qaeda already got what they wanted - they blew up some Americans, sent the US on its way to becoming a totalitarian state, isolated it from its allies (particularly in the Middle East), *and* as a bonus Iraq will soon be converted into a hardline Islamic nation. They didn't even lose their leader in the process.

      What could they possibly gain by sticking their necks out again?

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:I like this by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government isn't really spying on you, per se.

      Of course not.

      They are taking all the public information out there, and data mining it to potentially flag and catch criminals and terrorists.

      And it won't flag and catch me by mistake. They'd never make an error like that. This technology only affects bad guys.

      This actually should be wonderful news for me. I made $92 off of Poindexter's stupid Total Information Awareness program last year by selling this T-shirt protesting it: "I gave up my essential liberties to obtain a little temporary security, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!" [Disclaimer: I might make money off you if you click that link and buy one, but I have a job, honestly don't need your money, would forward it to no worthy cause, and am just showing off my shirt design and bragging about the fact that I made $92 off of Total Information Awareness.]

      The crowd here turn into luddites as soon as technology is used by the government, but I think this is a great use for it. The 9/11 hijackers were in plain view, but because of the different agencies and bureaucracies, they fell through. This could be a tool to find the next 9/11 and I am all for it.

      Well, let's not get too presumptive about 9/11. It hasn't been demonstrated at all that the only way to prevent this attack would have been to implement a massively connected database with an extensive electronic dossier on each one of us. In fact, it hasn't been demonstrated at all that the attack could not have been prevented simply by people doing their jobs like they were supposed to.

      Once the 9/11 commission finishes its report, maybe we will see what improvements can be made short of creating an unAmerican police state.

    4. Re:I like this by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess nobody noticed that over the XMAS holidays a plan to attack the US via plane hijackings was thwarted.

      Given that the details are super secret, so it could have been just a confidence improving spoof. I don't remember any evidence being produced to the public that there was a threat on any of the planes that were grounded.

      I don't see how TIA or PATRIOT are needed. The events of 9/11 happened because of broad agency incompetence at handling the power they already had at the time, not because of a supposed lack of power. I fear giving more power to the incompetent.

    5. Re:I like this by cgranade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are missing my point, methinks. I apologize if I misworded it, however. In short, what I'm getting at is not that the number of deaths justifies or not the war, but rather that the scope of our fear is misplaced. Even if a million people were killed, that does not mean that we should be afraid that a million more will be as well. In fact, when we take some simple, small, prudent measures, like putting in better cockpit doors, we do a world of good. When we let fear drive us, and give unnessesary power to the gov't, we have completed the goal of "those who hate freedom." Remember the days when America held true to the ideal that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself? Let me get this through clearly: There are not a dozen terrorists around every street corner. Yes, there are terrorists. Yes, they want us dead. No, they can't bring this country to its knees that easily. No, we can't make a "War on Terror."

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    6. Re:I like this by JGski · · Score: 3, Informative
      The "supposed" terrorist who fled was in fact just an Indian businessman in textile import/export who routinely books and skips flights for business, just in case, just like thousands of American business executives. The Dehli-Paris-Los Angeles was a regular route he had been booking (and apparently continues to book) for years.

      The US government was informed immediately by the Indian government but didn't care to listen to the details of how he also skipped the Dehli-Paris leg already, was a regular, legitimate traveler, and most important, had a name that simply is as common in that part of the world as "John Smith" is in the US, and which to an ignorant desk-jockey in Washington thought sounded like a name used by a terrorist.

      In others words: the whole Christmas "terrorist alert" was a crock caused by moronic goverment incompetence, at best.

  20. btw imho lol by segment · · Score: 4, Informative

    See what acronyms can do to you. MWEAC, OSIS, MISSI, hell some of their own don't even know what exists or even what they do. Again, I thank John Asscroft and his Patriot Act, all under the gimmick of the pork barrel Department of Homeland Insignificance. Now, obviously this sound trollish but it is not, most people here click by things without looking into things. Sort of like the way stories are read here, a quick glimpse, and that's that.

    For those interested in what is going on in government behind the scenes, don't always think people who post the kinds of things I post are all conspiratorial stories aimed at bringing down government through chaos. Hell look at sites like FAS, Cryptome, Arms Control, and the multitude of others. Many people point things out but too many are concerned with menial things such as Janet's boobs, Sex and the Shitty, etc., to notice the rug being pulled from under them. Hell most Americans think CNN and Fox are the holy grail of news. Get out there and read, know what's happening in your country. Check out BBC, Observer, Greg Palast, AntiWar, Chomsky. These people aren't being controlled via advertisers, not political pressure. I write sometimes too kooky assed documents, that some might say aren't worth a pot to piss in. Maybe so, but there is a reason for me rambling on like a madman sometimes. I care about my privacy and liberty. I don't want my friends or family growing up in something out of "Escape from Alcatraz"

  21. My recent experience by pegr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just recently applied for a mortgage loan. The loan guy was happy to share my credit report with me. I looked it over, and found a section I couldn't make sense of. I asked the loan guy what that section meant. He said "That's whether or not you're a terrorist. Congrats, you're not." So as far as the credit reporting agencies go, yes, they track that stuff. Scarier still, that little tidbit, accurate or not, is available to every person capable of pulling a credit rating...

    I asked the loan guy what he would do if the report said I was a terrorist... He said "I'd excuse myself to the restroom, get in my car, drive at least five miles away, then call my boss!" ;)

    1. Re:My recent experience by SkorpiXx · · Score: 4, Funny

      in other news.... osama just consolidated his debts through a home equity loan using ditech! ::crickets:: i try. S

      --
      bah.
  22. Futile Waste of Money? by polv0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As a data-mining professional I find myself using the term data-mining less frequently in my interactions with clients and colleagues. That is because data-mining is going the way of artificial intelligence: over hyped and under delivered. The ARDA Novel Intelligence from Massive Data web-site summarizes the principle failures of data-mining.
    "The techniques fail to acquire or to use the prior knowledge - the "thread of logic" - that analysts bring to their tasks. As a result, discoveries made by machines prove to be trivial, well-known, irrelevant, implausible, or logically inexplicable"
    95% of what is "discovered" in data-mining falls into one of the above categories. The value is provided by leveraging the data to quantify the "well-known" effects, and is obtained by using modern applied statistics to tackle specific problems such as:

    Use these 100,000 measurements of 10 known varibles and outcomes to build a model to predict unkown outcomes for new variables.

    DARPA and ARDA's goal of predicting terrorist behavior, or
    "spotting the telltale signs of strategic surprise in massive data sources"
    will fail due to a paucity of observed terrorist behavior, an inability to precisely define the objective and an enormous amount of poorly collected, noisy and irrelevant data.
  23. You'll see it starting in 2005, by pb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you believe your friendly neighborhood time traveler...

    --
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
  24. Get real by binkless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is in fact not at all like what the East German secret police (Stasi) did during the cold war. There was no legislative shell game to play because the legislature was a sham. The scope of individual liberty was so small that there was no comparable initiative from Stasi. There was no need to sift through large amounts of data about citizens to find out what they needed to know. Activities were all duly registered, and all records were available to them. Elaborate systems of informants kept tabs on any person of interest.


    It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to remember the cold war would say something so ridiculous. American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control. Without that context, total information awareness or whatever it has become would not even be a dream in a spies mind.

    1. Re:Get real by MoebiusStreet · · Score: 5, Insightful
      American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control.

      I disagree. I challenge you to name one area of our lives that is entirely outside of government control. I can't think of any.

    2. Re:Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Five bucks says that, with enough digging (pardon the expression), you could find some regulations on the quality of paper that can be sold commercially as tissue.

      Also, the government limits your right to blow your nose on the sleeves of the following government representatives: The president, the Secretary of State, officers of the law, military servicemen of ranks above E-6 or O-3, senators from states with more than ten million citizens, visiting foreign dignitaries, and Condoleeza Rice.

      Finally, depending on what you do with the tissue after your nose is blown, the government can hold you on charges ranging from littering to arson to attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice.

    3. Re:Get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've lived all over the US, and I can say with confidence that the
      closer to the viper's nest you are ( Washington DC ) the worse it gets. States like Maryland, Virgina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
      etc. are far more fascist than other states I won't mention, because I don't want too many assholes from the above states moving there ;-)

      Trust me, out west there are many people who don't think too much of the federal government, and are in some cases ready to fight rather than knuckle under.

  25. More interesting links... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.ic-arda.org/events/arda_poc.html
    Telep hone numbers, sorted by project:

    Points of Contact

    ARDA Telephone Numbers (301) 688-7092 (comm)
    992-3000 (NSTS)

    Thrust Managers
    Information Exploitation (IE) - (443) 479-8006 / 992-7228
    Quantum Information Science (QIS) - (443) 479-8008 / 992-7230
    Glodal[SIC-"Global"? ed.] Infosystems Access (GIA) - (443) 479-8009 / 992-7231
    Novel Intelligence from Massive Data (NIMD) - (443) 479-8010 / 992-7232
    Information Assurance (IA) - (443) 479-8012 / 992-7234

    Program Managers
    Resource Enhancement Program (REP) - (443) 479-8005 / 992-7228
    Exploratory Investigations (EI) - (443) 479-8011 / 992-7233
    Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) - (443) 479-8011 / 992-7233

    and from the "Contact Us" page:
    If you are interested in learning more about ARDA or have questions, please contact ARDA via:

    arda@nsa.gov
    301-688-7092
    800-276-3747
    (fax) 301-688-7410

    ARDA
    STE 6644
    9800 Savage Road
    Fort George G. Meade, MD
    20755-6530

  26. Very telling quote by extrarice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you only read a few sentences from this article, read these:

    [quote]
    Ted Senator, who managed that research for Poindexter, told government contractors that mining data to identify terrorists "is much harder than simply finding needles in a haystack."

    "Our task is akin to finding dangerous groups of needles hidden in stacks of needle pieces," he said. "We must track all the needle pieces all of the time."
    [/quote]

    This would be where the "Total" part of "Toal Information Awareness" comes in.

    --
    "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
  27. History by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Crazy as it sounds with our current culture, history tells us that is exactly what we have to do.

    Having democratic elections creates the illusion of that process, but unless the organisations that operate under the government get shuffled as well, then nothing much actually changes. Something tells me that overthrowing the CIA, NSA, FBI, Army, Navy, Airforce, etc, etc isn't going to be easy...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  28. send your thanks to these people by segment · · Score: 4, Informative
    You can thank them for your liberties being bled from you.

    Mark Maybury, MITRE (Chair), maybury@mitre.org

    Karen Sparck Jones, University of Cambridge, sparckjones@cl.cam.ac.uk

    Ellen Voorhees, NIST, ellen.voorhees@nist.gov

    Sanda Harabagiu, University of Texas at Austin, sanda@cs.utexas.edu

    Liz Liddy, University of Syracuse, liddy@syr.edu

    John Prange, ARDA, jprange@nsa.gov

    ARDA workshops. And for your non Americans, if you think it's limited to us... Have I got news for you! They'll be snooping around the mountains when you come... They'll be snooping around the mountains... they'll be snooping around the mountains...

    1. Re:send your thanks to these people by xyzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have exactly made my point. Research doesn't take people's liberties away, people do. John Ashcroft is top cop -- he will be the one breaking down your door, not any of the people the previous poster mentioned.

  29. The man with a presidential pardon on his resume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is Pointdexter doing running government programs anyway. He and North both ought to be in jail.

  30. Friday? by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Funny
    I will not live in a country that has Friday Night Hockey.
    Thats good, because I think knowing that 'Hockey Night in Canada' is usually on a saturday is one of the requirements for citizenship.
  31. US CON says otherwise by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    5th:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    6th:
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    1. Re:US CON says otherwise by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it does. The exec branch made the decision to detain an US citizens and ignored their oaths. What makes you think they will do what they should in regards to the USA PATRIOT act?

      ---------------------

      July 1, 2002

      Citizen Padilla: Dangerous Precedents

      by Robert A. Levy

      Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

      Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir, supposedly plotted to build and detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." He is a U.S. citizen. Yet he's being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Yaser Esam Hamdi is also a U.S. citizen. He, too, is being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Meanwhile, Zacarias Moussaoui, purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a U.S. citizen. Neither is Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber. Both have attorneys. Both have been charged before federal civilian courts.

      What gives? Four men: two citizens and two non-citizens. Is it possible that constitutional rights -- like habeas corpus, which requires the government to justify continued detentions, and the Sixth Amendment, which assures a speedy and public jury trial with assistance of counsel -- can be denied to citizens yet extended to non-citizens? That's what the Bush administration would have us believe. Citizen Padilla's treatment is perfectly legitimate, insists Attorney General John Ashcroft, because Padilla is an "enemy combatant" and there is "clear Supreme Court precedent" to handle those persons differently, even if they are citizens.

      Ashcroft's so-called clear precedent is a 1942 Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, which dealt with Nazi saboteurs, at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen. "Enemy combatants," said the Court, are either lawful -- for example, the regular army of a belligerent country -- or unlawful -- for example, terrorists. When lawful combatants are captured, they are POWs. As POWs, they cannot be tried (except for war crimes), they must be repatriated after hostilities are over, and they only have to provide their name, rank, and serial number if interrogated. Clearly, that's not what the Justice Department has in mind for Padilla.

      Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal. That's what happened to the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin. But Padilla has not been charged much less tried. Indeed, the president's executive order of November 2001 excludes U.S. citizens from the purview of military tribunals. If the president were to modify his order, the Quirin decision might provide legal authority for the military to try Padilla. But the decision provides no legal authority for detaining a citizen without an attorney solely for purposes of aggressive interrogation.

      Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution distinguish between the crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the terrorist acts Padilla is suspected of planning. Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions -- noting that Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war that expressly authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military tribunal. Today, the situation is very different. We've had virtually no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of tribunals, and no suspension of habeas corpus.

      Yet those functions are explicitly assigned to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. It is Congress, not the executive branch, which has the power "To declare War" and "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Only Congress can suspend the "Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus ... when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Congress

    2. Re:US CON says otherwise by FooGoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you recall the D's did do it but on a much larger scale. It was called japanese internment camps. Why did they do it? We where at war.

      A quote:
      Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "The war power of the national government is the power to wage war successfully and it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their actions [the executive or Congress], or to substitute its actions for theirs."

      Let's seen what happens this time around now that an R did it to one person.

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    3. Re:US CON says otherwise by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That war had a formal declaration of War. This 'war' doesn't.

    4. Re:US CON says otherwise by FooGoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you formally declare war on an organization? They have no ambassadors or government. In the mid 90's bin Laden declared war on the US. We just failed to take it seriously until 9/11. The US hasn't formally declared war since WW2 but that hasn't stopped us from fighting them. The politicians don't have the backbone for it.

      BTW: Thanks for the mental stimulation

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    5. Re:US CON says otherwise by FredGray · · Score: 2, Informative
      Article IV:

      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      So, a treaty does not override the Constitution, but it does carry the force of Federal law.

    6. Re:US CON says otherwise by CmdrGravy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "How do you formally declare war on an organization? They have no ambassadors or government."

      I think that if you can't declare war on it then it's probably not a good idea to fight a war with it either.

  32. unreasonable search by SHEENmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just as it's illegal for the feds to go through every home in america looking for a criminal, it should be (is?) illegal for them to search through private information about me without reasonable cause to suspect me.

    Furthermore, the government's paranoia about terrorists will make it illegal to look like a terrorist to this list. If you refuse to give your SS#, you look bad to the list. If you refuse to show ID, you look bad to the list. It doesn't matter that your SS# is supposed to be privately used only for purposes of social security, and it doesn't matter that you can't be forced to show ID unless you are suspected of a crime. What looks bad to the list will become a crime.

    I hate this idea because it will imiplicate and punish innocent people for matching the trends of guilty ones. Furthermore, the people said "NO!" to this once, and it's disgusting that our government forces its will over that of the people.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:unreasonable search by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just as it's illegal for the feds to go through every home in america looking for a criminal, it should be (is?) illegal for them to search through private information about me without reasonable cause to suspect me.
      But what is "private information?" In the US hardly any information is legally private; information about you is owned by whoever bothers to make note of it. Credit agencies can even sell *false* information about you with no liability for the damage they cause!
  33. I think data mining is scary by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I cannot agree that US government data mining is necessarily ineffective.

    US gov TLAs with access to certain types of data alone have phenomenally clean and good data to use for data mining. For starters:

    * Phone calls. Forget *contents* of phone calls -- a cop doesn't even need a warrant to get a list of phone calls. Plug all phone calls into a nice big database, and you have an excellent association network -- I can build up a list of all the people you know.

    Now, suppose I want to detect flow of causuality. I look for some degree of correlation between a phone call from entity A to entity B and entity B to entity C. If a phone call of the second type follows a phone call of the first type within a day or two more than, say, 25% of the time, there's an interesting link to explore. Maybe entity B is passing on instructions to entity C. I'm not sure what the status of past location data is -- whether a warrant is required for telcos to turn over the data they've logged on your movements. Given a couple of years of accurate movement data, it's probably really interesting when a phone call from entity A to entity B is frequently followed by a physical visit from entity B to entity C.

    * Purchasing-related data. Movements can be tracked via ATM withdrawals, credit-card use, phone card use, store purchasing card use. You ever let a friend use your store grocery card? That's a great source of determining who knows who -- a store card associated with two credit cards.

    When you get a driver's license, most states fingerprint you (or at least thumbprint). I didn't even know that I *could* opt out of the thumbprint until afterwards.

    I agree that mining is probably less useful to find terrorists (frankly, unless a terrorist is just incredibly stupid, he's going to avoid the above), but it *is* useful to track all kinds of other people.

    Any person with a cell phone should have no expectation of privacy. They're carrying around a portable tracking device with a microphone that can be turned on remotely. End of story.

    1. Re:I think data mining is scary by polv0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The scenarios you list may aid in tracking down a known terrorist, but without prior knowledge that can be effectively inserted into the data mining algorithm neither scenario will discover novel information about unkown terrorist rings.

      Consider that there are approximately 300 million people in the united states. At 10 phone calls a day for 365 days you get 1 trillion phone calls per year. Suppose I have 100 known terrorists telephone activity for 6 months, and I want to find similar patterns in the remainder of my data to identify other terrorist rings. That means I have 100*10*365/2 = 182,500 training examples. I.e., 200k / 1,000,000,000k ~= two millionths of a percent of my data for training a predictive model is labeled as positive for terrorist activity. Even with an amazingly accurate algorithm, this will lead to hundreds of thousands of false positives and a few true positives, for no net gain of actionable information. Certainly you can narrow these results by orders of magnitude through very intensive effort, but the margin will not be overcome.

      To track down known terrorists can't the data be requested on an as-needed basis through the courts?

  34. Wack a mole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you have a crimial organization the size of the US Government, they will do as they please.

    If it fails here, they'll wack it. Sure.

    It will pop up there, and if uproar continues, they'll wack it there.

    It will pop up over there, under security this time, and if it leaks and there's more uproar, they'll wack it again. With "feeling".

    But, once told "no", only criminals will find another way. And the Feds have so very many options.

    They'll move it into "private research" inside Lockheed.

    Or, they'll bust it up into dozens of subject matter and time compartmentalized graduate projects in their Universities.

    Or, or, or...

    Seems real terrorists just won't allow themselves to be stopped.

  35. The real question is: by Trejkaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could anyone actually trust the US government at all.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  36. Obligatory Tolkien reference by K.B.Zod · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I am ashamed that after scanning the discussion so far I may be the first to recognize "Arda" from Tolkien:

    "In the language of the Elder Days, 'Arda' signified the World and all that is in it." -- from The Encyclopedia of Arda

    I guess it's a suitably ambitious acronym for the project.

  37. I predicted this one already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For a program like TIA to work, first we have to tell the people that we have chosen not to implement it. No surprise here.

  38. This IS surprising by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought government researchers were killed when their programs got cancelled.

    Turns out, they just go get similar jobs in a similar field. Wow.

  39. Getting across the wall by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Your mention of a ditch had me thinking for a second. I remember it now - for anti-tank use.

    I lived in West Berlin for over a year oh so long ago. I used to make kindof a study of the wall. Even brought back a piece of it, long before it came down and was sold in pieces in the US like pet rocks. (taking the piece home made kindof a funny story. I was taken off the subway by plainclothes policemen who thought I was going to use it to vandalize something. I switched to English and told them I was an American tourist who was bringing home a souvenir, so they let me go, rock and all)

    From what I remember, there was "the wall" - that part that is famous in pictures, with the graffiti and all. Incidently, it was covered/topped with what looked like a continuous cylinder maybe 2 or 3 feet in diameter along the top. I imagine that would have been very hard to get past without special equipment. Behind the wall was the no man's land with a small access road for patrols and the antitank ditch in it. Behind that was a somewhat shorter inner wall as well.

    Of course, "the wall" was different in different places. In some places it was partly made up of buildings. Additionally, the western subway went under parts of East Berlin. You could sometimes see guards in the stations in the Eastern part.

    It was an interesting study in security. As the wall changed in form due to the changing geography, infrastructure, and so forth, you could see how one who wanted out would attempt to choose the weakest link. One guy built a flat car and drove under the checkpoint gates. Another tightrope walked over the wall (IIRC). And so forth.

    1. Re:Getting across the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can corroborate that this guy is spot on. Also, of little relevance here, is the fact that not only did the U-bahn subway (the western one) go through East Berlin, but the S-bahn (the eastern one) went through West Berlin. The steps themselves were East Berlin territory, so demonstrators and crooks both could escape to them.

      I was at Brandenburger Tor late a Sunday night. I didn't realise it was closed. I sat in the empty bleachers and a West Berlin cop hailed me. 'You'd better get out of there', he said. 'Why?' I asked.

      'Look up at that guard tower on the east side', he said. 'See that guard there? See what he's doing? He's got his gun trained on you.'

      'Hold on, I'm coming back with you!' I yelped, and jumped down the bleachers and walked off with the West Berlin cop.

    2. Re:Getting across the wall by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in Kentucky, 2,000 miles from Berlin, but I seem to remember that the cylinders on top of the walls were pivoted so that they would rotate if you tried to climb them, so you would just fall off of them.

      I do have a piece of that wall though.

      You should be made an *honorary* American for pulling the trick of disguising yourself as an American tourist....it's up to you to decide if the recognition is reward or punishment :)

  40. Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why does this guy get insightful?
    I hate people who say that if you don't like it, then you can just leave. No! If you don't like the way something is done, you change how it's done. Grow a pair of balls, man.

  41. The usual AI suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interesting who the research money was going to. Lenat's Cycorp is well-known in the AI community as a black hole into which vast sums of money are poured with no useful results.

    On the other hand, Craig Knoblock, whose name was horribly misspelled in the article, is a first class AI researcher. His current work looks like it would be useful outside the context of TIA.

    All in all, it looks like the usual story: well-known names in the AI community being supported by money from wherever in the convoluted entrails of the US Federal Govt money comes from. If TIA is defunded, they need new grants to keep working. Don't know that it all means much.

  42. Slashdot is not the world by shamir_k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The AP is a powerful media organization, agreed, but Slashdot?? Despite its tremendous power to bring down powerful web servers with one simple post, Slashdot does not reach the vast majority of Americans.

    While the program was unified under Poindexter, it was easy to publicise, easy to criticize, and easy to attack. Now that there are 20 different projects run by N different agencies, how are you going to stop it? Since oversight is so much more difficult, this may even end up being more of an invasion of privacy then the original TIA plan.

  43. No shocker there by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think everyone on Slashdot called this one last July.

    Basically, the funding bill that supposedly "killed" TIA only banned funding for the program called "Terrorism Information Awareness." It's a gaping legal loophole that seems to have been written in a piss-poor attempt at reassuring Joe and Jane CNN Viewer that the good government really had no intention to spy on them for subversive activities, no-siree.

    I'm not surprised the obvious result is taking place. I am surprised that someone in a newsroom somewhere thought to follow up on the fate of TIA-related research.

    Remember: It's not paranoia if they're really watching you.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  44. ARDA project's logo by mrogers · · Score: 2, Funny

    The logo of the new project can be seen here.

  45. i used to work for TIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work for TIA, as part of a software contractor. If I named the contractor, it would mean little to you, but we were an integral and successful part of Poindexter's plans - I was supposed to meet the man myself and ended up meeting all his direct reports (he was busy at the last minute). We were part of a larger software effort invovling information databases. I made quite a good living.

    I ended up in the job, as is always the way, by drifting from one task to another inside the contractor until I ended up doing anti-terrorist work - a classic "slippery slope".

    I did the only honest thing I felt I could - I quit. Of course, I'm not going to claim I was any sort of hero. Because I didn't like why I was working, I didn't like my job, and as a software programmer, it wasn't too hard to find another job. But, I did quit a good job for essentially political reasons.

    I mention this for 2 reasons: 1) If people refused to do the work, refused to take the jobs, the program would never succeed (I know it's easy to say - I have no kids to feed - but still, it's true). Hell, people fled the country to avoid fighting in Vietnam. 2) It was common knowledge that there was little risk in having TIA go away - everything would stay the same (and has, at my old company). 3) What we were doing was not secret - never was. But nobody knew anyway, and the people running the show liked it that way. Security through obscurity.

  46. Alternatives? by AvantLegion · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Typical. Lots of whining, crying, and complaining, and little in the way of insightful alternatives.

    Or does the fact that the intelligence agencies aren't able to even analyze the massive flow of info they have not bother anyone?

    Certainly we don't need a repeat of past events. What's the point of saying, "no don't look, no don't look, no don't look, no don't look", and then when the attack comes, scream, "why weren't you looking???"

  47. whoa by discogravy · · Score: 3, Funny
    the government was less than honest?

    ...well, fucking, DUH.

  48. Have you been paying attention lately? by danaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The greatest tradgity is that people have been convinced that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Don't fall for it.

    Did you notice what happened in the 2000 election? In New Hampshire and Florida, about 3% of the votes went to Ralph Nader. Polls showed that the majority of those votes, had Nader not been there, would have gone to Gore.

    If a majority of those who voted for Nader in 2000 in either of those states had voted for Gore instead, he would have had a very clear majority and become our president.

    So I suppose that sometimes, yeah, votes for a third-party candidate can make a difference. They can achieve exactly the opposite of what you want. People voted for Nader because he was for the environment, basically. And...um...what has Bush done for the environment lately? (Note, for, not to)

    Voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away in the current political-economic climate. Someday, I think there will be third-party candidates who can stand a chance, but not until there's real, serious campaign finance reform.

    By this I mean that what I hope to see is no election can be funded, at all, by private money. Everyone gets the same amount, from the government (yes, obviously, it means more taxes. Deal. We pay very low taxes compared to the rest of the Western world).

    But, to get a little more back on topic, unless you can raise significantly more than any of the other candidates and get serious name recognition, you don't stand a chance as a third-party candidate these days. So voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away. Vote Democrat, at least they say they want campaign finance reform, and have a much better record of standing up for what they believe in (no, I don't have specific examples. Find your own).

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Have you been paying attention lately? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Did you notice what happened in the 2000 election?

      Yes. Gore lost by less than the number of votes that went to the Communist Party candidate. Nader was blamed because his party was the "third party". Behind the third, party, though, were a lot of "minor parties", any one of which could have swung the election.

      The problem here is the US electoral system. Your only hope is to vote strategically. Vote for a third party if you're in a "safe" district and vote for a major party if you're not. This way, the third party gets over the magic 5% threshold, and a not-so-bad major party gets in. This was the essence of "Nader trading" in 2000.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  49. Look may they bought BOXCUTTERS, oh no! by TheUberBob · · Score: 3, Interesting
    seriously. come on, the CIA/FED has been screwing around in foreign countries, funding coups, shipping weapons, and generally encouraging anti-american anti-capitalist backlash instead of funding diplomacy. and people here are posting in support of this stuff. wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.

    fear and terror makes money --it funds the military industrial complex and helps slow growth of other countries by allowing us to continue destabilizing them economically and politically. Cuba anyone? This is a control mechanism that will be used to reduce citizens rights and dissent in the US, not just to hunt terrorists. and it will perpetuate the OH NO the TERROR ALERT WENT UP! paranoia because all it will find is false positives anyway. it's about as useless as stoping cars at an airport to make sure they dont have explosives. hello, we'd hit a school, tyvm.

    --

    All your preview button are belong to Hello Kitty.
  50. They won't be stopped... by MMHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bad scary naming (TIA, Total Information Awareness!? come on) and bad marketing aren't going to stop them. They'll rename it to sound beneficials and be much more covert about implementing it. But they still will.

    Too much at once (Patriot II) is also scary. So they implement all the little bits of Patriot II over time, until it is eventually all done. Once it's done it'll be much harder to roll it back.

    The story of boiling a frog once again comes to mind: stick the frog in boiling water and he jumps out; you lose your dinner. Put the frog in warm water and gradually heat it to boiling -- he stays in and eventually gets cooked.

    We are the frogs.

  51. When it comes to 10's of millions of people by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the only thing you *can* do is generalize...

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  52. Dear Washington, by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Wow. Not that I thought for a moment that it wasn't going to happen - here you are again with your power-trip plans.

    I really don't appreciate this.

    Although September 11th was scary, and a wake-up call (to whom, I'll let you decide), you certainly have taken the ball and run with it.

    From control of the media, to your obvious relationships with big business, you're feeling pretty good right now, I'll bet. Hell, you barely try and hide controversial projects now; really who's going to stop you? Voter turnout is a joke, and even if people showed up, there's not really a guarrantee that the results haven't been tampered with.

    The 'war on terror' is just amazing. So much can be rationalized for 'safety's sake'. Who's un-american this week? Who's a potential threat? Who stands against freedom?

    I'm sure you will provide the answers to these questions from your bully pulpit, from newspapers and television that run whatever is put in front of them.

    Frankly, terrorists don't scare me. You do.

    That's right, my very own government. You've declared war. Not on terror, but on privacy, civil and human rights, and freedom.

    Washington? Are you listening? When did rampant wiretapping, invading library records and putting gag orders on librarians, installing keyloggers on our computers, and treating every citizen like a criminal become the definition of freedom?

    I'd sure like an answer, Washington, because it sounds like you have it in for me, as well as everyone else who lives here - in the most free nation on earth. For now.

    Sincerely,
    teamhasnoi

  53. Re:just to be fair... by RKBA · · Score: 2, Informative
    "... not all Libertarians are the total nutjobs that you describe"

    What the hell is that supposed to mean? May I remind you that the original purpose of the federal government was primarily to resolve disputes among the states? There was no individual income tax, and the federal budget primarily consisted only of the money required to pay Congressmen's salaries. These days the federal government consumes about 40% of the GNP and is tantamount to an oligarchy. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants Congress only 19 specific powers, and none of them (except for counterfeiting) permits the federal government to pass laws regulating the conduct of individual citizens. Such laws were only within the purview of the individual states.

    Inasmuch as one of the primary purposes of the government is the defense of the country, the present 18% budget expenditure on defense is probably justified, but other than that all the myriad entitlement programs, federal government agencies, etc., could and should be eliminated, resulting in a federal government that is minuscule compared to it's present ponderous and burdensome size.

  54. RTFP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Read the f'ing post. He didn't say "love it or leave it." The poster was pointing out the absurdity of comparing a toltalitarian police state - where one was not free to travel - to the most free - yes, I said it - the most free country in the world, the United States, where one can come and go (even, unfortunately, if one is an illegal alien.)

    And if you want to get into an argument about how the US has greater constitutional freedoms than any other country, let's have it.

    You remind me of a typical lib. - Challenge his stand on national security, and he responds, "don't question my patriotism." Uh, when did I do that, knucklehead?

  55. Don't let Legislators watch CSI... by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish people, especially people responsible for the spending of billions of our tax dollars would get their ideas from sources more credible than CSI or The Six Million Dollar Man...

    Talk to the leadership in the Intelligence Technology, and they'll tell you, finding bad guys is hard enough. Trying to sift though mountains of pepper hoping to find the one fly speck, is just insane. One "Intelligence Researcher" refered to the idea of watching every single American for signs of terrorist affiliation is like "Looking for a needle in a haystack of haystacks..." This will ultimately make it much harder to find the real bad guys, waste precious human and financial resources on fantasy tech that does not exist (and won't for some time to come), and in the end... innocent lives continue to hang in the balance.

    I have a close friend who during Pappa Bush's administration, worked at Lockheed. He worked on debunking "Brilliant Pebbles" the next incarnation of "Smart Rocks", intelligent projectiles in space designed to hunt down and elliminate the threat of ICBMs to America (all part of the Star Wars Initiative.) He explained that the hardware to make this possible wouldn't exist until some time after 2010, and that even when that hurdle was cleared, there was no way to control the pebbles or have them communicate, that couldn't be jammed by EMP or radiation. In short, it was a doomed idea, and no amount of sexy or comic book fantasizing by Pentagon hawks was going to make this dog hunt. It took years and millions of dollars to finally convince these guys.. this was a bad idea. God only knows what we'll have to do, to get the Dexterites to wise up in a sane timeframe.

    This is of course above and beyond the simple gutting of the entire philosophy of our particular form of government. That being;

    Government should be transparent, and citizens should have operational privacy.

    Somehow, our executive seems to believe the opposite, and it's all too clear that an opaque executive can simple be equated to one who is interested in paving his agenda all over the citizenry and the landscape, rule of law be damned.

    Genda
    -- Thems that trade a bit of liberty for a bit of security...

  56. Offtopic rant by trezor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sorry for this offtopic rant, but statements like these really piss me off:

    • Regarding Guantanamo, I have no problem with the US holding combatant terrorists for as long as they deem necessary. These terrorists were not fighting under the accord of any acknowledged UN/Geneva conventions of war, thus they are not privy to the protections of said conventions.

    Jeez. Do you know how ignorant that paragraph makes you seem? You need the basic rights like due process and a fair trial to actually establish for a fact that these people are "combatant terrorists".

    They may be, but there is no fscking way of knowing, unless they are given the rights, which has been explicitly been taken away from them. How complicated is that to understand?!?

    Ofcourse, G. W. Bush haven't understood this at all, but this should be no surprise. I quote: "the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people". How does he know?

    But let's be consistent in our reasoning at least. Since murder is also a sever crime, I suggest we remove all security that the law provides for fair trials, if the poeple are accused for murder. After all they are murderers and don't deserve any legal protection, now do they?

    Last I checked, some of these "combatant terrorists" held which were release after only 18 months, was found to be a taxi-driver and his ride. I think you should consider the possibility that the people giving out "terrorists", has aproximately the same credability as those informing the US about Iraqi WMD.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  57. US Government are not stupid by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US Government are not stupid - they go along with DARPA to get a surveillance society.

    They want to keep an eye on you all.

    This is NOT about terrorism.

    I have posted on this topic many times.

    Extract:

    Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

    Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

    Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.

    .......

    The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.

    e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

    Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?

    No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?

    More at previous post.

  58. Poindexter by Cackmobile · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone else find that Admirals name highly amusing. Maybe its just me.

    --
    -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  59. Not the real issue by trezor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As someone else pointed out in some other slashdot/k5-discussion (I've googled and looked, but I can't find a link), the people who are really in power are not elected at all.

    The president may be the one who "makes" the decissions, but he has advisors and generally a big staff. There are also those who are head of variuos goverment agencies, who are largely influencial.

    When you look upon us politics in general, you will find that alot of what the president is apparently doing, really is the work of someone who has been sitting in the administration for 10, 20, maybe 30 years.

    The people with real power are not elected. That's why these things seem to happen regardless.

    At least that's what I claim, for what that's worth.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  60. Hey, DARPA. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Funny
    How many fingers am I holding up?

    That's right. Two.

    One on each hand.


    -FL

  61. The kid next door. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You know. . .

    It's pretty much a given, I'd say. When they finally crawl out and start taking people away for muttering seditious 'thought-crime' anti-government stuff, I'll probably be hauled off and killed or humiliated or whatever along with the rest of them.

    Fine, and to hell with 'em.

    What's a painful, miserable death anyway? You have to go somehow. A red-hot fire-poker shoved somewhere indecent can't be any worse than extended bowl cancer or getting hit by a truck.

    I might even be reduced to fear and groveling and begging and all that other stuff which is almost a certainty when torture is involved. Doesn't mean they win, though.

    Anybody working on the Dark Side is beneath contempt. You are losers and you will fade forgotten from the eye of the Universe. Nothing but a speed bump; a challenge. --That and I'll fight you every last step of the way. I'll point out your spineless, dark-side, un-loveable qualities until you finally rip my tongue out in pathetic rage. And then my eyes will follow you with disdain until you jab those out as well.

    And when I come back, I'll be the clear-eyed kid next door who you secretly both love and despise and wish would validate your existence by letting you tag along. And on our ever diverging paths we will go until you are nothing but a dream in the past.

    Souls develop, and the decisions you make today are who you become tomorrow. In which direction are you working?


    -FL "The biggest crime was convincing everybody that this life is all there is."

  62. Indeed. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Talk to the leadership in the Intelligence Technology, and they'll tell you, finding bad guys is hard enough. Trying to sift though mountains of pepper hoping to find the one fly speck, is just insane. One "Intelligence Researcher" refered to the idea of watching every single American for signs of terrorist affiliation is like "Looking for a needle in a haystack of haystacks..."

    Very true.

    Unfortunately, and you probably realize this, the watchers are not looking for terrorists.

    Fear = Power, and Power = Control; The Power to control the things which they Fear.

    An ever tightening circle.

    IBM supplied Hitler with the punch card machine technology which made it possible for the Nazi regime to track down through blood relations all the Jews which were sent to camps for destruction.

    Terrorists? Puh-lease.


    -FL

  63. Did you even -read- my post? by trezor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You obviously missed my point entirely.

    My question was how would you determine with absolute certainty that someone is guilty of a crime, being it under costitutional protection or not, if there is no due process?

    Would you except being stuck at Guantanamo for years without an attorney, simply because someone named you as a "illegal combatant"? May I ask you, as you may clarify this, illegal according to whom?

    I'll claim with great prejudice, "illegal combatant" is simply a political rethoric, a rethorical rewrite to avoid difficult questions. Obviously works on Americans though.

    You obviously take it for granted that these people are, oh whatever, say "illegal combatants" or terrorists, name your favorite. How can you know this with certainty? So far there has been only claims, captures, and complete ignorance of basic human-rights.

    Which really is no good method of determining guilt. And is this kind of treatment really worthy of a modern democracy?

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  64. dissenting view on TIA by whittrash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't object to the researchers being kept on. From what I have seen, the Information Awareness office that was shut down did some good work. We need 'information awareness', we need ways to automate looking through all the crap out there to find out what is useful and what isn't. The problem seems to be that some of these people seem willing to do anything to get that information, and I don't mean the researchers, I mean the spooks and the right wingers.

    The irony is that this tool would be much more useful and effective if they knew which way to point it. Rather than blanketing every bit of data everywhere, why not send in spies, get a vague idea who may be involved and then focus on that group rather than wasting resources everywhere. Go from 6 billion targets to 1 million or so and your odds go way up. It may be old fashioned, but that method got us through the Cold War and I don't understand why it can't work for the 'War on Terror'(which is a misnomer but I won't get into that). We need decent human intelligence. Without decent human intelligence all of these fancy computers will be next to useless, which is our current predicament. Information is useless without knowledge.

    And as for the people who are getting all freaked out by the government, especially on this geeky forum, it is the powermongers/wannabe dictators that should be afraid of us. Whenever I imagine a worst case scenario, where fascists take over, I imagine what I would do to fight back. Theoretically, I know how to shut the whole system down: communications, telephone, internet, power, transportation et cetera. Knowledge is power. But I believe that most of the people who run the national security apparatus are patriots who believe in liberty. I find it difficult to believe they would stoop to dictatorship. But if they do go too far, I'm not afraid of them, and they had better fear me. If anyone truly believs our liberty is being undermined, it is their duty to stand up and fight...anyone???