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.'"

69 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.
  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.

  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 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.

  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 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?!"

    6. 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!
    7. Re:Why ... by LearnToSpell · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Blanket search warrents.


      Nationwide roving wiretaps.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

  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.

  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. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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?

  12. 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?

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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"

  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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...

  22. 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

  23. 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.
  24. 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

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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!
  29. 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.

  30. 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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...

  39. 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.