Slashdot Mirror


Feds Fund Anti-Terrorism Search Engine

Ben writes "The FAA and researchers at the University at Buffalo are developing an anti-terrorism search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' information -- like how to take down an airliner -- that can be puzzled together by grabbing bits and pieces from unrelated documents. Eventually, they say, the technique can be commercialized to improve search results on more mundane matters.`"

278 comments

  1. Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the funniest thing I've heard about the government doing since they shut down the "psychic spies" unit ten years ago.

    1. Re:Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew you were going to say that.

      Timesprout
      Chief Psychic Sprout
      NSA
      1984-1994

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Are you they shut that down? Maybe they just outsourced the goats?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually I thought they had something like this already. There was a show on TV not too long ago that was discussing privacy and related things.

      They covered the facial recognition software, and a few interesting things in the pipeline. One of them really caught my eye.

      We all seen database data being represented in graphical terms. I remember seeing a drug dealers cell phone, and the web of links made by people to the dealer and to each other. It was a fascinating albeit very damning photograph.

      This database's claim to fame was that it could find "Non Obvious Links". Something similar to this http://www.semagix.com/solutions_security.html/

      Funny thing is I don't think Osama and Zacowie surf the web or talk on cell phones anymore.

      Using my decoder ring, I waited for the secret message to come through..."Eat More Ovaltine" What!!! That couldn't have been right.

    4. Re:Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just my luck. Whenever there's a split in the multiverse, I take the fork where bad crazy insane and goofy shit happens.

    5. Re:Okay. I'm sorry. I just have to say. by imeneo · · Score: 1

      all right!!!

      --
      http://cousasdeimeneo.blogspot.com http://usuarios.lycos.es/xoiaweb
  2. Taking down and Airliner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, according to Fox News, my laser pen should do the trick.

    1. Re:Taking down and Airliner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so should plenty of other words in the english language:

      bin

      laden

      president

      white

      house

      bomb (the bass)

      al

      government

      terror

      I'm bored now. Someone take this shit off my screen...

  3. Something like google. by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Huh, doesn't google do this already!????

    1. Re:Something like google. by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Huh, doesn't google do this already!????"

      (Note: I din't RTFA.)

      I would imagine that the biggest difference between Google and the engine in the article is that it is intended to reduce false hits by a great deal more. "how to take down an airliner" turned up over 200,000 hits.
      In other words, it'd be hard to use Google to find somebody planning a terrorist attack.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Something like google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha...maybe the gov't will figure out a way to filter out all the spam...everyone knows Google has failed at this...

    3. Re:Something like google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no:

      Your search - "how to take down an airliner" - did not match any documents.

      Suggestions:
      - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
      - Try different keywords.
      - Try more general keywords.

    4. Re:Something like google. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Um, if Google lists 200,000 ways to take down an airliner, I don't think the terrorists will go to the trouble of setting up their own web server.

      Call me crazy.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Something like google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the quotes out, dumb fuck.

    6. Re:Something like google. by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Remember that what terrorists need most is willing martyrs (typically very uneducated and likely fanatical or forced) and bloodthirsty hate (violent, psychopathic minds), not technological information.

    7. Re:Something like google. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Of course. Which is why this initiative is silly.

      There isn't a search engine for peoples' brains yet. Thank God.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Something like google. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I misinterpreted your original message. Wouldn't want to piss-off a fan.

  4. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I get a copy it can teach me how to bring down an airliner and be a better terrorist? Good show!

    Oh yeh fp beehotch

  5. One Stop by anandpur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://cryptome.org/
    Mirrors :
    http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/
    http://www.infosecwest.com/cryptome/

    UPDATED CRYPTOME DVD/CDs
    Cryptome offers its archives on a single DVD or 4-CDs.
    Donate $25 (yes, only $25) for a DVD or 4 CDs --state preference -- of the Cryptome archives of 25,000 files from June 1996 to February 2005 (~2.4 GB). Click Paypal, use E-gold or mail to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. (E-gold users: send mail address to jya [at] pipeline.com.). Archives include all files of cryptome.org, cryptome2.org, jya.com, cartome.org and eyeball-series.org.

    1. Re:One Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I give the feds your address they won't need a search engine? You should get a point of light for saving all those tax dollars.

  6. This is a great idea! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since the government has been trying for decades to obfuscate information and make sure people can't really get useful data, this will help them accomplish that goal.

    ``Saunders, you did it again. If a user visits these 73 pages in the right order, and happens to hear the NBC news theme anywhere during the last 7 pages, it will be intuitively obvious to them how to actually get through to their Congresscritter. We can't have that!''

    1. Re:This is a great idea! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      If this thing is government maintained... count how many days before it gets hacked. A search for "BUSH" might return "TERRORIST".

      In other news the search engine provide the administration excuses to raise taxes.

    2. Re:This is a great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell instead of that piece-o, why don't they come up with a BabelFish style translator for the Bush man???

      Something that could speed up the candence and at lest try and sound somewhat intelligent.

  7. Interesting... by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard there was this device that allowed a person to kill others by simply pointing at them. Apparently it involves bits of metal propelled at high speeds by explosive charges. You reckon they'll be able to find instructions for one of these things so they can censor it?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Interesting... by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They will try. Hell, the US has 20,000 gun laws and the areas that have the most gun laws have the highests amount of gun/violent crime.

      It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to transfer money from the taxpayers to who ever donated to those that sponsored this.

    2. Re:Interesting... by c · · Score: 1
      I heard there was this device that allowed a person to kill others by simply pointing at them.


      Well, sure, but those aren't really allowed on planes.



      On the other hand, I've heard that if you soak an iPod in the bathroom sink and then stick it with a piece of metal you can make a bomb...


      c.
      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like, "Weird, documents about how to manufacture sarin gas, the deploying of toxic gasses against the ventalation systems of large buildings have just started to pop up in relation to some ideology."

      One of the toughest problems in computer science, and humans are naturally pretty good at it. This could do all kinds of things in reguards to helping companies actually retain some idea of what they're actually doing.

    4. Re:Interesting... by bersl2 · · Score: 0

      They will try. Hell, the US has 20,000 gun laws and the areas that have the most gun laws have the highests amount of gun/violent crime.

      Try again. Just because more gun laws and more gun crime are correlated does not mean that one must cause the other.

    5. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you didn't include the phrase "Try again." in that sentence, you wouldn't have looked like a smug arrogant twat.

    6. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's amazing is the Republicans voted down an amendment to the so called "RealID" bill which would have prevented the government from using the database from tracking gun owners. It's reasons like this I am a former Republican.

    7. Re:Interesting... by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Just because more gun laws and more gun crime are correlated does not mean that one must cause the other.

      Actually, all one has to do is look at the history of enactment of gun control in the US, and you will find that one does cause the other:

      Gun crime causes gun laws.

      Of course, whether gun laws reduce or increase gun crime is still inconclusive. For every example of one, there is a counter-example of the other.

    8. Re:Interesting... by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      I'm merely saying that the thinking is fallacious without more explanation.

    9. Re:Interesting... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If that Australian kid makes it to where I can't use my iPod on airplanes, I'm flying down there and kicking his ass.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Interesting... by c · · Score: 1

      If you can actually fly to Australia without the iPod, maybe you don't really need it...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he didn't say that.

      The point is that gun laws don't work. The high crime areas in which these laws were enacted as a measure to try to solve the crime problems simply do not work.

    12. Re:Interesting... by CPUGuy · · Score: 1

      But gun laws only effect the law abiding citizen, which really makes gun laws pointless for the most part. Sure, it's harder for a criminal to get a gun, but if they want one, they will get one. The only thing that can put a huge dent in this is eliminating our right to bear arms, and even then it won't bring it down completely.... not to mention it will bring about more problems than prohibition did.

    13. Re:Interesting... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      Hell, the US has 20,000 gun laws and the areas that have the most gun laws have the highests amount of gun/violent crime.

      Ok, I don't get it. Why is the surprising? Who would expect an area that didn't have problems with gun violence to pass lots of laws about it? They would either pass no laws or they would pass a few that fixed the problem, so they would stop writing gun laws. Obviously the areas that pass tons of gun laws are going to be the ones that have endemic problems with gun violence. What is this supposed to prove about the federal "anti-terrorism search engine"?
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    14. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun crime rate in New York(not including that commited by the police) is somewhat lower than it was in the 70s and 80s.

    15. Re:Interesting... by EugeneK · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh yeah?? What about Hitler's gun laws??

      This thread is now over.

    16. Re:Interesting... by BigJStudd · · Score: 0

      It says a lot about me that I spent 5 minutes wondering whether you were talking about this

    17. Re:Interesting... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What does "need" have to do with it? I don't "need" anything other than food, water, air, and the occasional roof over my head.

      I'm so far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it ain't even funny.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    18. Re:Interesting... by Halvy · · Score: 1
      yea, there not allowed on planes, so i guess the terrorist will obey that rule the next time their ready to strike.

      all the terrorist need to do is have a couple sexy sluts go in front of them, distrake the arswhole security jerks, and then over power the pigs while their still thinking about porking the sluts.

      maybe your right tho, maybe they should make a law where there are no sexy sluts, or terrorist that can 'over power' pigs at airport security! :)

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    19. Re:Interesting... by Halvy · · Score: 1
      wot about them? didn't almost every male older enuff to hold one, have one for the war effort? and the quite a few fems too?

      soooo, any law was for who? kids? old people redy to die? it was show only.

      everyone else was part of the war effort and had weapons of some sort (at least those officialy in the army, but i'm assuming many more towards the end wen it was getting close to the zionists wining).

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    20. Re:Interesting... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      When CC was made legal in Texas the crime rate fell. States that have made hand gun permits almost impossible to get have higher rates of cun crime than states where it is easy for lawful people to own a gun.

    21. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we believe you!? You are a liar who demands that everyone else provide citations for facts, yet you never do!

    22. Re:Interesting... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Your typical gun has less regulation then a car or a lighter. Sad but true.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    23. Re:Interesting... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Crime rates have been falling all across the country. Mostly due to an aging population, but there are other reasons as well.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    24. Re:Interesting... by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      there can't BE gun CRIME without gun LAWS. No law, no crime.

      There were crimes that happened to be committed with guns, but they would be no less illegal if with knives, baseball bats, or chainsaws.

      A gun is a tool. It serves a purpose. Some people use them for good, others for ill. It's not the gun's fault. I have lots here and none of them has ever told me to go rob the ABC store.

    25. Re:Interesting... by MacDork · · Score: 1
      Gun crime causes gun laws.

      Hmmpf, and here I thought Jim Crow causes gun laws. Silly me. Gun control isn't racist. It's just those damned 'inner city gang members' bringing it on themselves. Damned white kids dealin' smack and shootin' up the hood.

    26. Re:Interesting... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Could that be the result of increased police presence and and zoning laws?

    27. Re:Interesting... by maelstrom · · Score: 1

      What are you even talking about, how about some objective evidence, instead of some pithy quote?

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    28. Re:Interesting... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      I hate to quote a very old tome, but guns do not kill people - people kill people. When they do, they use whatever means are available at the time to commit their crime... ...everything from an insane mother drowning her children, to a violent ex-con using a potato peeler to stab little 10 year old girls, to an irate housewife running over her husband with the family SUV.

      A firearm is nothing more than a tool, albeit a tool with limited uses. Statistics have shown a direct corelation between a government's poitical will to enforce their pre-existing laws against violent criminal behavior, liberalization of gun laws to allow honest citizens to protect themselves with firearms, and a remarkable reduction in the number of violent crimes committed against those same citizens. Criminals bent upon violent acts of crime seem to prefer victums that do not have the ability to defend themselves -- they make those crimes easier to commit with a probability of fewer negative consequences for the criminal.

    29. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "But gun laws only effect the law abiding citizen"

      Not all citizens that legally own guns are law abiding in general or with respect to the use of their guns. Some legally owned guns are used to commit crimes, such as murder. Murder is already a crime, so the argument could be that the additional restrictions on gun ownership are unnecessary.

      Basically it comes down to the philisophical question of whether you should proscribe only the negative consequences of gun ownership (or poison or handgrenade ownership or whatever), i.e. murder, or proscribe the item itself unless there is a good reason for having such an item in the hope that it reduces the undesirable behaviour. (As an example some poisons fatal to people have little legitmate use in the home, but some can be used to kill pests or weeds).

      Apart from some extremists at either end of the spectrum most people, from those advocating gun control to the NRA, want to reduce murder but basically don't agree on the point at which gun control should be set to reduce the negative consquences of mass gun ownership relative to any potential benefits of mass gun ownership.

      Personally I am for governments making the minimal number of laws (I am a liberal in the true sense of the word where liberal is derived from liberty) but I also think the self defence argument used for gun ownership is not really backed up by much evidence. Most people, in their everyday lives or for defence, don't need guns. But I think those that choose to have them should be allowed to run the risks of ownership (e.g. child shooting self) as long as they aren't putting innocent 3rd parties at risk and keep their guns locked up so burglars can't run off with them (as then it is out in the criminal community and becomes a risk to me). If a person uses a gun they own in a crime, however... come down on them hard.

    30. Re:Interesting... by say · · Score: 1

      When they do, they use whatever means are available at the time to commit their crime.

      Pfft. 90% of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Even murders are very often not planned, and access to a gun means that the probability of committing a crime rises. Your "people do what they want and will always find a way" does imply that nothing we do will help against crime. Reality proves otherwise.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  8. Worthless by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

    UnleSs thEy have A BOt capable of huMan level thinking they won't find a Blasted thing.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Worthless by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > UnleSs thEy have A BOt capable of huMan level thinking they won't find a Blasted thing.

      I assume you also support the Terror Services And Terrorism Reform Act of Prevention [Sponsor -- Sen. Ackbar (R-MC)] bill too, huh?

    2. Re:Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Senator Ackbar any relation to Admiral Ackbar? I suspect that we better get ready to take on the new Death Star. Perhaps Senator Ackbar can pass a resolution banning dark side Jedi from taking over the galaxy.

    3. Re:Worthless by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      Somebody set up us the false positive?

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    4. Re:Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noooo. Because we know that human-level thinkers couldn't come up with something automated that could pull all of the capital letters out of a sentence.

      You, sir, are brilliant.

      *EFG*

    5. Re:Worthless by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      UnleSs thEy have A BOt capable of huMan level thinking they won't find a Blasted thing.

      Apparantly you are not familiar with the NSA. They excel at cryptography and pattern recognition, pattern analysis, etc. Why do you think your elite code would be so hard to notice? It took me about 30 seconds to device a program to look for patterns like yours.

      They don't need to develop something to do everything for them, just to flag data that should be examined further, presumably by humans in this field.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    6. Re:Worthless by Dizzle · · Score: 1

      And the winner of the Mr. Anal contest goes to... That's Unpossible!! When reached for comments, That's Unpossible! declared "I have no need for humor, my program makes jokes for me. I'm just that good."

      Like serIously, just kiddinG Here. There's a lot wE Need to learn about Us before we can imProve surveillance.

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    7. Re:Worthless by Halvy · · Score: 1
      aparently you aren't familiar with hackers, joe-citizens, or terrorists. cuz their the ones that out number morons in the nsa. if 'they' (nsa) were soooo smart, and the rest of their counterparts, then how come there weren't any jets waiting to protect ny shitty on 911?

      the answer is...... THERE IS NO 'G O O D' REASON!! PERIOD!!!

      it is obvious that the same mentality that played out prior to detonating the 'First Atomic Bomb' (ie. scientist for the usa were not sure if the test wouldn't end man-kind), played out on 911.

      the only problem is, these governement (Machiavellian scumbags) have underestimated the power of God, via both the masses and the goodness of individuals who are not going to stand by and let the bushes of the world --- destroy it.

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    8. Re:Worthless by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Somebody set up us the false positive?

      All your lame tired jokes are belong to us.

    9. Re:Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you also support the Terror Services And Terrorism Reform Act of Prevention [Sponsor -- Sen. Ackbar (R-MC)] bill too, huh?

      Allah Ackbar!

    10. Re:Worthless by mikiN · · Score: 1

      $ cat parentpost | sed -e "s/E//g" -e "s/N//g"

      Yes, I mean the green stuff. Super-green.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    11. Re:Worthless by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      "It's a trap!"

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  9. Watch out if you place any "modern" RPGs... by cnelzie · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and post after action reports to the Internet.

    How many gamers do you think will get tagged by and subsequently visited by authorities who believe they are mixed up in terrorist activities?

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:Watch out if you place any "modern" RPGs... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      so many there database will be useless.

      A friend of mine starting a conversation about WoW in a resturant with the following sentence:
      "I really like killing priests."

      uncomfortable moment there as everyone in line turned to look at him.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Watch out if you place any "modern" RPGs... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      You're already within six degrees of seperation from a terrorist.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Watch out if you place any "modern" RPGs... by jtwronski · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I wonder if i'll ever be arrested for helping a friend on FFXI land "bigger nukes".

  10. How in the world... by hoka · · Score: 1

    is this going to do us any good? Seriously, throw up any custom restricted webpage (.htaccess will do, though how can you crack around say 2048bit public/private key?) and the entire point is gone. What if the information is hidden within graphical text documents in such a form that you can't easily connect the pieces. This sounds too much like "A Beautiful Mind" and not like a real solution.

    1. Re:How in the world... by leonmergen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is this going to do us any good?

      Yes, research in a field otherwise not really (directly) profitable for commercial applications, is now done by the US government... like the summary says, this could have a good impact on search algorithms.

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    2. Re:How in the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, who says they're even going to serve data - or the same data - to this thing. People already give google different information based on user-agent string. They could easily have a blacklist or whitelist of user-agent strings.

    3. Re:How in the world... by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Ramsi Yousef was a chemical engineer. I hate to say this, but he is (was? -- I haven't been following that story lately) a prolific innovator in the field of terrorism. I'm sure he's come up with hundreds of ways to kill us all. The terrorists don't need to search google for ideas. They already have them.

      The only role the internet can play in terror is in facilitating communication. This scheme will not help with that, for the reasons you've provided, among others.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    4. Re:How in the world... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      is this going to do us any good? Seriously, throw up any custom restricted webpage

      The idea is not to find deliberately hidden information, but to detect patterns in freely available information. Aside from the breathless "detect terrorism" spin to get funding, it sounds like a very interesting project. Pretty useless for predicting terrorism though; but for crimes or plots advanced by larger, more bureaucratic (generating lots of documents) groups -- military, companies, etc -- it could reveal much. Think of loading up the tons of evidence in big antitrust cases; even after they've "lost" the obviously incriminating files, there well could be a trail left in the rest.

  11. I don't quite get it by wankledot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds to me like it's simply a terrorism search engine designed perfectly for terrorists. What purposes would culling bits and pieces of info about how to take down an airplane serve for anti-terror efforts? You would find out that it's possible to find lots of info on the subject... great... now what? You're not really going to be able to stop that information from existing.

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    1. Re:I don't quite get it by VidEdit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only use for this search engine is find things to censor. Otherwise, as the parent says, it is just a *terrorism* search engine, not an anti-terrorism search engine.

      I"d be worried that this will be used as a way to identify subjects for federal Patriot act "National Security Letter" searches--the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!

      This is not a good thing.

      --
    2. Re:I don't quite get it by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      What purposes would culling bits and pieces of info about how to take down an airplane serve for anti-terror efforts?

      Isn't it obvious? If your site has a discussion of the strength of aluminum and this search engine decides it can use that to blow up an airplane, they'll kick in your door and send you to Cuba.

      We don't want people helping the terrorists now, do we?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:I don't quite get it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      a discussion of the strength of aluminum

      If your monitored discussion includes:
      explosives, How to introduce them onto an aircraft
      and airport security, how to defeat or airport job, how to obtain
      and Semtex, where to obtain
      and language = [keyword] or location = [keyword]

      You might be a terrorist.

    4. Re:I don't quite get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like a computer can actually figure that out. If you believe that they're going to actually go through the hits by hand and sort them out, then have I got some RIAA C&D letters for you!

    5. Re:I don't quite get it by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!

      If you did share it with a lawyer, wouldn't the lawyer be bound by attorney-client privilege, so you couldn't get in trouble for doing so? Assuming, of course, that you didn't decide to take further action.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:I don't quite get it by Halvy · · Score: 1
      actually you dont' give the government 'enough' credit here..

      what they really are doing, is trying to 'scare' the terrorist, so they don't communicate in public anymore...

      then the poor terrorist will have to resort to some new unheard of ways-and-means of communicating like a cafe' in france, or 258k ssh (encryption)

      then 'the pigs' can claim how they are fighting terrorists and suceeding, using our trillions of dollars (and euros), using only bluff-bluster--- and oh yea, 'duct tape' :)

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    7. Re:I don't quite get it by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Terrorism search engine> search "terrorism" | shutdown_site

      Searching...

      Found: "Terrorism search engine"
      Shutting site down...

      Lost connection

    8. Re:I don't quite get it by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, I say that like a Jeff Foxworthy joke.

    9. Re:I don't quite get it by Halvy · · Score: 1
      yea well that law (Patriot Act)is 'illegal' and anyone who supports or abides by it is commiting a crime against humanity.

      soooo, the choices for us are such;

      'brake' the illegal law on such a 'collective-MASS-scale that it becomes voided (where it is not feasable for the feds to put so many people in jail),

      or as indiviguals, go to jail for 'violating' the illegal law, and when things are finished 'going down', come out of jail a hero with a sense of pride AND freedom and power over the scum (ie.bush and the rest of the morons who think they 'rule-the-earth') who enacted; The Patriot Act'.

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    10. Re:I don't quite get it by zCyl · · Score: 1

      I"d be worried that this will be used as a way to identify subjects for federal Patriot act "National Security Letter" searches--the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!

      I'd like to see someone try to press charges against someone for seeking a lawyer. That would go over really well in the judicial system.

      Balance of power exists for a reason, and that reason is that abuse is inevitable and regular.

    11. Re:I don't quite get it by Everleet · · Score: 1
      'brake' the illegal law on such a 'collective-MASS-scale that it becomes voided (where it is not feasable for the feds to put so many people in jail),

      Pardon me, but have you ever heard of drugs?

      --
      It's tragic. Laugh.
    12. Re:I don't quite get it by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Sure, I take them every day.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    13. Re:I don't quite get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the kind that the victim is prohibited by law to revealing to anyone, even a lawyer!

      That doesn't make any sense. What's the charge for showing it to others? I'd probably do it anyway, because I'm a rebel.

    14. Re:I don't quite get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fp?

    15. Re:I don't quite get it by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 0
      I'd like to see someone try to press charges against someone for seeking a lawyer. That would go over really well in the judicial system.

      No need. You simply disappear the "enemy combatant" to a gulag in, say, Guantanamo where you keep him incommunicado. Judicial system is then simply bypassed. That is the whole point of Patriot Act and similiar totalitarian devices.

    16. Re:I don't quite get it by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      All that would happen is that you would get an extra criminal charge against you, and if you had actually revealed anything embarrassing to the government, the lawyer would be taken into custody & held incommunicado.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and we'll start seeing regular real-life examples of that the closer the U.S. governments gets to being a complete police state.

      On the other hand, in the short-term, it might be a good idea to join the Soviet Communist Party^W^W^W work for the federal government.

  12. new search engine eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they found oj simpson a day after nicole simpson's death, but they can't find the people who shot 2pac and biggie?

    nicole simpson can't rap.

  13. Data Mining by xv4n · · Score: 1

    Isn't this called data mining?

    1. Re:Data Mining by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 0

      It's called terror mining.... there has to be a terroist on the internet somewhere... we just have to smoke him out.

  14. i can only imagine the search terms by StandardDeviant · · Score: 0, Troll

    "terruh +oil +iraq"
    "weapons of mass destruction +iraq -north -korea"
    "nucklar"
    "reaons over 1600 of our finest died, so we can
    save a nickel on a gallon of gas... oh wait,
    the suckers re-elected me so I don't give one
    iota of a shit"

    1. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i can only imagine what idiots are out there that still believe the US invaded Iraq for oil.

    2. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's less about driving down the price of gas, and more about controlling who gets the profits from selling it.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    3. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      i can only imagine what idiots are out there that still believe the US invaded Iraq for oil.

      Well, it makes more sense than a lot of the alternatives, like the idea that we invaded for idealistic causes like liberty and human rights and all that shit. If that were really the case, why has the Bush administration proven so reluctant to get involved in places like Liberia and the Sudan, where there's a lot of humanitarian issues, but no economic interests?

      If you really want to get a measure of the character of a person, check out how they treat people who they have nothing to gain from. If you apply that same criterion to the United States, I don't think it comes off as very well. The United States' actions in Iraq are- well, at least were intended to be- self serving.

      What those self-serving motives were, I don't know. Part of it, I think, was that after the fall of the USSR, the U.S. became the sole remaining superpower. The Neocons wanted to cement that position by knocking off one of the few guys who challenged us, acquiring strategically important bases in the Middle East, and using that position to ensure that America would continue to be able to access the cheap oil it needs to grow. The liberty of the Iraqis was like all the Halliburton contracts- not the main reason for invading, just a bonus.

    4. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I agree. They invaded so that Iraq could get freedom and democracy.

    5. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed, it was all because of the WMDs. Really. Oh and that mean man who was treating them wrong.

    6. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Neocons wanted to cement that position by knocking off one of the few guys who challenged us,"

      Serious question: how did Saddam Hussein challange the USA? (I'm assuming of course, that you're an American and not from Kuwait or Iran.)

    7. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by dustmite · · Score: 1

      War has always, but ALWAYS, been about (a) resources or (b) control, with (b) in fact being only in order to secure more (a).

      But hey, I guess it's true what they say about those who don't learn from history.

    8. Re:i can only imagine the search terms by danila · · Score: 1

      Iraq was not a threat even to its neighbours, much less to the USA. And it never "challenged" the USA in any way. An alternative explanation is that neocons needed a myth about evil terrorists or evil Saddam to "unite the country" and grab more power. BBC's The Power of Nightmares discusses this.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  15. They even have a pretty jpeg by herbicidal+maniac · · Score: 0

    This explains everything. http://www.buffalo.edu/news/hires/SrihariSearchGra phic.jpg Wow such advanced tech.

    1. Re:They even have a pretty jpeg by louabill · · Score: 1

      The beauty is that it knew that 'hamburg' meant Hamburg, Germany, and not hamburg from Mickey D's

  16. Why Not Just Use Hollywood-Nash by weston · · Score: 1

    Get yourself a schizophrenic math genius. They see everything. :)

    1. Re:Why Not Just Use Hollywood-Nash by mikael · · Score: 1

      Or a geeky nerd with a six-pack of Jolt Cola, and a magic monitor that can project images of the screen onto the user, and makes a chattering noise at the same time. Passwords should always be displayed as 2-inch high *'s, but not be more that six letters in length. Printing or saving a document must not take less than 30 seconds or at least until the bad guys have entered the building. Accessing a shared directory must trigger the entire building alarm network, while encrypted documents must be easy to decode for the good guys but impossible for the bad guys.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  17. www.googlebomb.com by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

    +explosion +"bad arab guys" -"al qaeda" +iraq +france

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:www.googlebomb.com by Scootesti · · Score: 2

      Yes, because France (yes I'm canadian) is definately a terrorist hotspot. I know it's been said before but haven't you ever googled "French Military Victories" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"? They don't really pose a significant threat. But don't take my word for it: result here(albinoblacksheep.com) Once you get there, click on one of the links

      --
      "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet
  18. It already exists by RandomSkratch · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's already a search engine that compares 2 pieces of data.. it's called googlewhack http://www.googlewhack.com/

  19. FBI Visits Cryptome by anandpur · · Score: 2, Funny
  20. tin hats unite by Whammy666 · · Score: 0

    So let me get this straight. The feds are going to develop a search engine that will search for "hidden information" from various websites scattered across the internet. So what happens when this program decides that a discussion board on someone's blog is a terrorist site because they had a thread about 9/11 or the US's anti-terror programs? Does Joe Blogger get sent to Gitmo without charges for supporting terrorism based on a computer-enhanced hallucination?

    It's really sad that the feds are resorting to using computers in lieu of common sense.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
    1. Re:tin hats unite by VidEdit · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if this "hidden information" they are referring to isn't just the pages that have a no robots tag. I sure hope the Fed isn't trying to create an internet spider that ignores the no robots or no follow tags.

      Or this could be an IRC search engine.

      Either way, a new Big Brother sponsored search engine can't be good for civil rights.

      The idea that this Government funded search program will have great civilian benefits sounds like spin.

      Oh, but what do I care? I've just read that the government has increased the chocolate ration!

      --
    2. Re:tin hats unite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a razor I can borrow?

  21. Anti-terrorism? by MoogMan · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Wouldn't that be a terrorism search engine?

  22. layoffs by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Funny
    That's the funniest thing I've heard about the government doing since they shut down the "psychic spies" unit ten years ago.

    Well, management knew it was time to close shop when, during their talks about whether to do layoffs, employees were asking for raises and coming in late.

  23. We have your IP, prepare to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prepare to meet your doom.

    Not your pal,
    Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security

    --
    This post is satire and no actual U.S. government employee was involved in its creation. Only North Korean Government Employees post on Slashdot.

    1. Re:We have your IP, prepare to die by djhack · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah , we got him too
      127.0.0.1
      that bastard is going down !!!!1!{#^G. .. . NO CARRIER

  24. The FAA should know already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they fund a search engine to find out how to take down an airliner?

    Being the FAA, you'd think they already had their own ideas of how to do it.

    Plus, everyone knows the easiest way to take down an airlineA@#32tsdgaAETZASA asd aSa
    +++ NO CARRIER

  25. biotech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually, the UB search tool may also be used for other applications, such as helping biomedical researchers

    Yes, my friends this technology may also be useful in another field with big players that have a lot of money to throw around: biotech. Who would have thought?

  26. terrorist recipe generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    i'm going to develop a site where you can put in what equipment you have and it will generate instructions on how you can kill the most people with said equipment.

    kind of like macgyver but in reverse.

    1. Re:terrorist recipe generator by Taladar · · Score: 1

      That would be a major strike against bureaucracy. After all most office products (as in pens, not as in MS Office) were used by MacGyver in one episode or the other to produce some weapon or other special forces-like equipment.

    2. Re:terrorist recipe generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a Clippy front-end to inspire the terrorists.

    3. Re:terrorist recipe generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't print it out on one of those fancy self-fabricating printers.

    4. Re:terrorist recipe generator by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      i'm going to develop a site where you can put in what equipment you have and it will generate instructions on how you can kill the most people with said equipment.

      Step 1: Tie together a bunch of ipods..
      Step 2: Wash in soapy water..
      Step 3: Weapons of mass destruction!

      Also, you can create a "dirty bomb" if you put some michael bolton or similar mp3s on the ipods first..

    5. Re:terrorist recipe generator by MeanJeans · · Score: 1

      That made me laugh out loud. I wish I had mod points right now.

      --
      =====
      imagetweak.netWeb-based image t
  27. Think bigger, search harder by Timesprout · · Score: 1
    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Think bigger, search harder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Results 1 - 10 of about 703,000 for how to achieve world domination. (0.15 seconds)

      doesn't pinky & the brain have dibs on the whole world domination thing?

      http://www-public.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de/~fischeni/

  28. Re:Finding trolls too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on information I've been able to find easily online, I could build a heat-seeking missile in my garage, using materials available at the local RadioShack, Tower Hobbies and Home Depot. Granted, the sensor wouldn't be top-grade, but it could probably track the exhaust nozzle of a 777 during a night-time climbout.

    Here's a list of the sites I went to:
    http://www.r/ No CARRIER

  29. Oblicatory PI quote by Phrekie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sol Robeson: Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.

  30. crock of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the US would stop funding terrorism, maybe they'd accomplish a little more anti-terrorism..
    Set up bin Laden with weapons for "freedom-fighting" in the 80's? check.
    provided weapons to the Iran contras? check.
    Bay of pigs? check.
    The real threat here is that the americans might realize that everybody knows they're full of it, and throw aside all pretense. Immediate enslavement of the populace ensues.

  31. Do they do this: by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    Does the intelligence agency put out fake advertisements for selling weapons? Underground sources could then try and secure weapons through these channels and be caught.

    1. Re:Do they do this: by katz · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Do they do this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ooorrrrrrrr, they can meet in a cafe', the old fashion way (like in the french movies)...

      ..or they can just use 256k encryption like everyone else (except the americans of course, cuz their 'not aloud' ;)

    3. Re:Do they do this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best Prices on Shoulder Fired RPGs now on eBay

      http://ebay.com/rpgs_misc


  32. Now everyone is a suspect... by gillbates · · Score: 1, Interesting

    UIR is an example of text mining, going across documents and uncovering things that are not apparent to the user," she said. [emphasis mine]

    So, IOW, someone who posts in their blog a phrase they overheard in a bar can now be surrepitiously linked to terrorism. Thanks to the PATRIOT act, their house could be then searched without them even knowing it. Isn't it wonderful that we have this computer program which even further undermines our basic liberties?!

    So what this tool basically does is allow the FBI to portray an otherwise innocent person as having "links to terrorism". Considering the degree to which the common person (read: grand juror) trusts computers, this is a very dangerous extension of power for the FBI.

    I wonder if the authors of this software are even aware of the oppression and injustice they are enabling.

    The proponents of increased surveillance used to say, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" Well, thanks to those numbskulls who wrote this software, even those who have nothing to hide may still be judged guilty .

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Now everyone is a suspect... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      This is why I search slashdot in full tactical gear.

      No, I'm serious. Stop laughing!

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:Now everyone is a suspect... by VidEdit · · Score: 1

      ...and any information found on the "anti-terrorism" search info will automatically classify the info as "terrorism" related and subject to secret, warrentless Patriot Act searches. Be afraid...

      --
    3. Re:Now everyone is a suspect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when did being guilty have anything to do with anything? we lock people up here in the uk without trial, keep them in isolation until they become mentally unstable, and don't even tell them why other than to label them as terrorists.

    4. Re:Now everyone is a suspect... by hedge_death_shootout · · Score: 1

      Now everyone is a suspect

      No, judging from this thread everyone's a shrill paranoid fantasist with delusions of self-importance. :-)

    5. Re:Now everyone is a suspect... by gillbates · · Score: 1
      everyone's a shrill paranoid fantasist with delusions of self-importance

      Or perhaps they don't like the thought of our hard-earned tax dollars being used to detain innocent people. It's not so much the fear of being imprisoned as knowing that our government is using our money to do some very unethical things. Why should we have to be ashamed of our own government?

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  33. OH MY GOD YOU ARE TEH FUNNAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am planning a terrorist attack on your sister's ports of entry.

  34. robots.txt by Nohea · · Score: 1

    User-agent: FedBot
    Disallow: /

    the ip block is left as an exercise to the reader.

  35. Content analysis search engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool.. Sign me up if you find me...

  36. absurd by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful
    anti-terrorism search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' information -- like how to take down an airliner

    To be honest, that sort of thing has never struck me as the kind of problem terrorists have had- usually when they've tried it, they've been pretty successful. They haven't tried many times, and we've seen how close even complete and total idiots like Richard Reid(sp?) can come, despite all our "security measures".

    Nevermind that far more planes crash because of pilot error or mechanical problems than terrorist hijackings- maybe we should rethink priorities here a little?

    What's next? The Department of Transportation determining driver ed manuals need to be pulled because they tell people how to drive a truck, and trucks might be used to carry bombs? Next thing you know, budgets will be hidden because, gasp, we wouldn't want terrorists to know where we spend the most money, they might try to blow it up! Then CSPAN won't be allowed to broadcast senate sessions- wouldn't want terrorists to know when senators are in session. The list goes on and on and on.

    This paranoia is getting REALLY annoying. Folks- come to grips with the fact that freedom might, on occasion, require personal sacrifice. This country is getting really fucking annoying to live in, which is pretty much exactly what terrorists set out to do.

    In the words of Ben Franklin, "they that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    1. Re:absurd by Silkejr · · Score: 2

      I'm beginning to believe that it's not about terrorism at all and that even the fbi guys know it. It's about controlling people, whether through false terrorism allegations and the fallout they cause or merely the threat of anti-terrorism activities to keep people from speaking political dissent.

    2. Re:absurd by quantum+bit · · Score: 1
      Then CSPAN won't be allowed to broadcast senate sessions- wouldn't want terrorists to know when senators are in session. The list goes on and on and on.

      "The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

      "That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"

      "The regional governors now have direct control over territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."

      I'll spare you the lame rewriting to mirror current players.
    3. Re:absurd by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      This paranoia is getting REALLY annoying. Folks- come to grips with the fact that freedom might, on occasion, require personal sacrifice. This country is getting really fucking annoying to live in, which is pretty much exactly what terrorists set out to do.

      Exactly, I remember right after 9-11, Bush was like "We can't allow the terrorists to change our way of life or they will have won...", Well the terrorists won.

    4. Re:absurd by mzwaterski · · Score: 1

      As if anyone actually watches C-SPAN anyway...

    5. Re:absurd by Robotron23 · · Score: 0

      Funny, I don't see any Terrorist Code on "how to manipulate attitude in said Democratic nations". Infact its persons like yourself procrastinating over the issue instead of ignoring the tin hats that contribute to it the most. Ironic or what eh?

    6. Re:absurd by CustSerAssassin · · Score: 1

      agreed, they are very successful... any gamer can tell you the easiest way to bring down a plane... point the stick forward. I guess if they are really creative they might come up with a wild idea such as explosives...

      --
      Sniper's Motto: One shot, One kill- If you run, you'll only die tired.
    7. Re:absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what George Lucas alsready did for you -- the other way around that is.

  37. Vague but promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Okay. My gut reaction was: "This is too ambitious, hence impossible."

    But it's not. At least I don't think so, based upon the glossing description in the article. The article is quite vague, but here's what I gather it does:
    One search the UB researchers used to test their prototype involved exploring the chapters in the 9/11 Commission Report for connections between the three terms that they knew had a connection: "Hamburg," "San Diego" and "imam" (a Muslim leader).
    Okay. So the input here is three terms, "Hamburg," "San Diego" and "imam". If you search with this multi-term query, the information rendered is the structured output displayed on the right in this image.

    So the point is, given that you know that there is a connection between several terms---the sort that, at first blush, seem unrelated---the search engine will elaborate upon how they are related.
    "The concept chains show you what may be of interest, but the real intelligence here is gleaned from looking for patterns of interest," said Srihari. "Once a pattern of interest is identified, then you can ask, 'Are there more patterns like this?'"
    I'm not sure whether that means the system is smart enough to tell you that "Hamburg," "San Diego", and "imam" are related without human help, i.e. automatically. I presume not. If it could, that would be quite a trick, and I suspect either the precision or the recall is quite low. Otherwise, we would have already read about this work in some conference proceedings, not in a university press release.

    P.S. Dr. Rohini Srihari is a cutie!
  38. Yeah but by isotope23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    btu wlli ti wrk if I tpey htings ni schu a wya thta u cna raed lla abuto a trreor plt?

    I smee 2 ermmeber taht poeple cn rdae obfsuctaed
    wrds. So hw wlle wlil ti wrok whne I strt tlaknig
    aobut pultonmiu ro drity bmbs?

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:Yeah but by Agret · · Score: 1

      That's awesome!

      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
    2. Re:Yeah but by psetzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you can slow it down and make things much more difficult, but it's not impossible. The words that you've typed are close to the words that you meant to type. But what's close? Any string of finite length can be transformed into any other string of finite length by adding, subtracting, and substituting characters. Two strings have a distance defined by the minimum number of additions, subtractions and substitutions that it takes to transform one into the other. This is called the Levenshtein distance, or for those who can't pronounce it, the edit distance. It's incidentally how most spellcheckers work, and if you run your text through one, it will be more readable by just about everyone. Now, consider using a SOM, or self-organizing map, a type of neural network. It can classify similar objects into single groups most similar to eachother. You can use this to find instances of possible manglings of uranium, plutonium, and most other words, given a large enough sample. Incidentally, just running your post through a spellchecker (Thunderbird's) and picking the default options on everything made the phrase 'dirty bombs' appear normally. So, it helps, but it's not perfect.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    3. Re:Yeah but by gkitty · · Score: 3, Insightful
    4. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cffg! Arkg gvzr, hfr rapelcgvba, lbh arire xabj jub vf yvfgravat!

    5. Re:Yeah but by Redwin · · Score: 1

      The frsit and lsat ltteers in the wrods hvae to be in the rgiht palce for the barin to register the wrods corerctly. For example:

      Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy,
      it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a
      wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist
      and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset
      can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it
      wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed
      ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    6. Re:Yeah but by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      I dunno, a system like that would generate a lot of false positives and would have to rely on grammar to interpolate what word it may be. No one should ever rely on grammar on the net!

    7. Re:Yeah but by imoXu · · Score: 1

      MS word spell check translates that almost perfectly when set to auto. try harder

  39. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, says. That's interesting, here's a list of thirty million things which seem like they're related. But in all honestly, I've really only got the dimmest clue. My best guesses are at the top.

    What they're talking about is a far more sophisticated version of the Sloan Digital Sky survery. There's a lot of raw data, they submit a cleverly crafted query and get a result of things that look like good asteroid candidates.

    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friend, you must not know much about computers. Google is the premiere search engine of the web. There is no other web search that gives you cleaner, better results every time. When you do your searches, are you sure you are using the correct syntax? You shouldn't get "thirty million hits" that are somewhat related. My searches typically give me the best results in the first ten links. Just remember these three simple techniques:

      1. Always quote phrases: "Linux vs. Windows"
      2. Always separate distinct phrases and words with commas: "Linux vs. Windows", "web servers", Apache
      3. Always prefix any terms you DON'T want with a minus sign: "Linux vs. Windows", "web servers", Apache, -"2.0.5"

      If you do that, your search will return perfect results in a matter of seconds and you will never have to search deeper than the first two or three pages of returns unless you are researching a very popular topic.

      Before you go blabbing about things you don't know, try and expend some energy and effort in learning about them so that you don't look like a fucking fool. Stop being an anti-Google tool you warm pile...

    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My google-fu is among the best. The fact that you don't think enough to include use of "site" as an excellent way to refine results is proof.

      But the fact that you have no idea how little google really understands about the tremendous amount of data it's looking at puts you in the population of people who vastly over-estimate their understanding of things.

      Google isn't good because it's accurate. It's good because it's fast, and vast. In the end, their motto is just like Microsofts. "Good enough."

      Here's what google doesn't do. If you ask it to "Tell you about Albert Einstein" it doesn't create a composite, possibly annotated, properly organized summery of it's information on him. That's the problem being tackled by this project. That you seem unable to tell the difference, is a testiment to your poverty of intellect.

    3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still will never understand why people insist on natural language anything. It sucks for queries. It sucks for programming languages. The search you illustrated is never likely to return any kind of usable results because machines will never be that smart. AI has failed. The only way to communicate with computers is to meet them halfway. You input queries or commands in a language that you can learn and that the machine can understand. That the best it will ever get unless we move from silicon to biological computing based on models of the human brain. Keep in mind, the way that we think about things is vastly inefficient and overrated. Machines are better thinkers than us for problem solving. It will always be that way. The day someone tells me I can ask a machine a question like "Tell me about Albert Einstien" is the day I will laugh them off like the fool that they are. It's a pipe dream that will NEVER see fruition. Just to prove this, I plan to come back to this post under my logged in account five years from now. I will bet you $500 that the kind of search you've posited will not exist in either the Google or the MS camp. It will never happen. It's just like the concept of man flying. It's ludicrous.

    4. Re:No. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      I googled in "Tell me about Albert Einstien" and the first hit was a bio that, you guessed it, told me about Albert Einstien

      http://www.geocities.com/kmhigginson/einstien.html Albert Einstein

      Go figger...

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
  40. mundane searches by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    I can just imagine what the government would want with "more mundane matters"...

    SELECT * FROM people WHERE (voter='democrat' OR state='California') AND age25 AND ....

    you get the idea

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  41. the easiest way by Monkeman · · Score: 2, Funny

    The easiest way to take down an airplane is to land a nuke on it. Easy. It's all science.

    1. Re:the easiest way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kansas is showing us the way to sort it out then. ban the teaching of science.

    2. Re:the easiest way by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Or, if your sufficiently tech'd-up to have a nuke, launch it so that the peak of it's suborbital trajectory is over the US, then detonate.

      One nuke in a exo-atmospheric explosion -> All planes bigger then a cessna will drop out of the sky like a bunch of car keys when their avionics fuse.

      Oh sure, the military will be fine (if a little bit pissed off). But just about every other circuit above ground's gonna have a whole lot of trouble headed it's way.

      See http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-senate-heari ngs.htm.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  42. Surreal & Strangelovian by Withigo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Eventually, they say, the technique can be commercialized to improve search results on more mundane matters.

    What a totally lame plan. I am outraged that my tax dollars are contributing to this.
    For starters, it's totally inefficient.

    A much better program would be to create an Afgan-style terrorist training bootcamp somewhere in the Midwest and invite radical Muslims and people from the militia/posse commitatus scene to "try it out" free of charge. Then "study" them afterwords in order to better understand real-life terrorism. Hell, they should even hire high ranking Al-Qaida members to staff the thing. And be sure to give them full amnesty, citizenship, high level security clearances, and six-figure salaries.

    Eventually the neocons will have their terrorists... even if they have to create them.

    Alas, how America has fallen...

  43. Hidden Message! by whackco · · Score: 2, Funny

    The TRUTH is that this post is in-fact a terrorist transmission, using their technology I have decoded it:

    "The FAA and researchers at the University at Buffalo are developing an anti-terrorism search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' information -- like how to take down an airliner -- that can be puzzled together by grabbing bits and pieces from unrelated documents. Eventually, they say, the technique can be commercialized to improve search results on more mundane matters.`"

    And I didn't have to spend 10 quadrillion dollars to find that hidden message ;-)

    1. Re:Hidden Message! by patchvonbraun · · Score: 1

      Does this remind anyone else of the scene in
      "A Beautiful Mind" where John Nash, at the
      peak of his paranoid schizophrenia, was
      "piecing together evidence" from vast
      quantities of apparently-unrelated events,
      newspaper articles, etc?

      So now we have an electronic equivalent of
      a paranoid schizophrenic. Lovely.

    2. Re:Hidden Message! by whackco · · Score: 1

      Thats funny, because that is where I got my inspiration for the post. Honestly, this whole system reminds me of this movie. Salim Witch trials anyone?

  44. Trail of links by Husgaard · · Score: 1
    It looks to me like they are developing software for finding a trail of links between two different documents.

    Most likely this will be abused to shut up dissidents by saying: "Your web page links to a web page that links to a web page that links to a web page by someone we consider terrorists. Shut down your home page or go to jail on terrorist charges."

    1. Re:Trail of links by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Substitute "spammers" for "terrorists" and you've just described SPEWS.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  45. Craig's list? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are going to start searching the Afghanistan version of Craig's list for any reference to Stinger?

  46. How To Take Down a 747 by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 1

    I think this might give you a good start, particularly the recipe for nitroglycerin.

    <sarc> But of course those "stupid towelheads" in those "axis of evil" countries wouldn't already KNOW that this information is freely available. </sarc>

    I fail to see what this will achieve.

    --
    "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
  47. Yer Inna Heap o' Trouble, Boy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We found out that you
    • bought a one-way airline ticket to Seattle,
    • use a computer to surf the Internet and have visited Middle Eastern websites,
    • bought five gallons of gasoline yesterday,
    • purchased two bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer last year.

    yer goin' on a little one-way trip to the HSA lockup-box 'til you 'fess up.

  48. My guess... by switcha · · Score: 1
    would be that it's much less about the information that you can piece together with this engine, than the location of the pieces.

    If all the nuggets of how to (insert evil thing) reside on similar servers/sites/etc., I'm guessing they're looking to be able to spot those patterns and see who's behind posting all these seemingly innocuous bits of info.

    Oh, that, and they want to read your email.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  49. who wants funding?? by Abstract_Me · · Score: 0

    Here is a great way to fund open source projects! just..

    1. add "to fight terrorism" to the end ofyour projects name/description
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    -firefox to fight terrorism (fight IE at least? )
    -gaim to fight terrorism (freedom of speach?)
    -open source fps game to fight terrorism by training the people

    oooo the posibilities

  50. I can see it now by webappsec · · Score: 3, Funny

    $ telnet terrorsearchengine Trying terrorsearchengine... Connected to terrorsearchengine. Escape character is '^]'. GET /search?query=WhereIsOsamaBinLaden HTTP/1.0 Host: terrorsearchengine HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:41:17 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) Location: http://nobodyfuckingknows/

    1. Re:I can see it now by r_glen · · Score: 1

      Oh come on now, that's ridiculous...
      Why would Apache send back an HTTP/1.1 header when the client request was 1.0?

  51. Hey spammers, terrorize this! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    I can't wait until all the search engine spammers try to get high ranking on this one!

    "Hmm, looks like Red November is moving into nuclear weapons, chemicals and .. inkjet refills." "My god! They must be stopped!"

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  52. Sounds like a waste of money by HairyCanary · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Does the FAA and the University of Buffalo think that they can do a better job of searching web pages than Google does?

    If they really want quick results, it seems to me that our tax dollars would be better spent hiring Google to whip them up something instead. Or better yet, just save the tax dollars altogether and find something more useful to spend it on.

    1. Re:Sounds like a waste of money by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know.

      Google isn't too good at shooting people. Not too much practice. And they weren't able to predict the 9/11 fiasco or any of the other terrorist attacks. I don't know if Google is up for it.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:Sounds like a waste of money by alphakappa · · Score: 1

      Look, you don't understand how the whole university-research thing works. Said university professor cooks up a grandiose project proposal which may or may not end up with a successful implementation, and someone in the government with money to spend in a particular area decides to accept the proposal. Now said professor/university may not be able to come up with anything that works like Google or even like anything that the proposal intends, but they will be funded well for years. Professor is happy, and the govt. department is also happy since they can show in their reports that they spent money for so-and-so research project.

      Results are not always necessary in these projects :-)

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    3. Re:Sounds like a waste of money by patio11 · · Score: 1

      DoD security grant = either everyone on the project gets a security clearance, or, minimally, no foreign workers (H1B et al) on the project. Google might have a hard time with either one of those qualifications.

    4. Re:Sounds like a waste of money by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Of course it does sound like a waste of money -- you obviously have not been properly re-programmed yet. The judge will likely sentence you to another 40 hours worth of taxpayer supported regime generated television propaganda, under the auspices of the US Patriot Act (I & II).

      Does it strike no one else here on slashdot as peculiar beyond the pale that so much effort and money is being expended on spying on the American public, in lou of sealing our borders against terrorist infiltrators, inspecting all incoming shipboard and air cargo, and keeping our National Guard troops here protecting the homeland?

      Or, for that matter, that the USA adopted a policy of pre-emptive warfare against a dictator that had already been kicked to the curb (but had a lot of oil), instead of a madman halfway around the globe already armed with ballistic missiles and a penchant for bravado about building WMD?

      It would seem to me that anyone not already caught up in either the grab at the Federal war funds, unbridled jingoistic patriotism, or as part of the neo-con movement focused on paving the way for the second coming, would have some rather serious doubts about the common sense and honesty of purpose of the current, ethically challenged regime in power.

      Or maybe it really is only me...

    5. Re:Sounds like a waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they really want quick results, it seems to me that our tax dollars would be better spent hiring Google to whip them up something instead.
      If you think this isn't already being done, you're naive. The US government is Google's largest customer in any number of arenas. groups.google doesn't archive binaries? Ha! Deleting email on Gmail actually deletes it? Ha! IP to searchterm histories haven't been available for years? Ha!
  53. what a ridiculous waste of time and money by cybersk4nk · · Score: 1

    It dosen't take a genius to take out an airliner. Most terrorists are stupid anyway, and keep thinking they'll get out alive. If one got onboard and was successful, well let's just say that's the end. All this big brother stuff just invades ordinary private citizens their right to talk about whatever they want. Actions of course are different. But here's my guide to take out an airline in 1 easy step: 1) Take a book of matches onboard (apparently so i've heard, only lighters are banned) and set yourself on fire. or, if in your evil country, they ban you from taking anything onboard including your shirt: 1) put the matches in a ziplock and swallow them. calmly wait till they come out the other end and do same as 1) above. Damn, governments are k-rad, huh?

    1. Re:what a ridiculous waste of time and money by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      An easier method involves your tray table. And it's fairly simple.

      The reality is that 98 percent of the measures used are totally ineffective if you know what you're doing. Which they do.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  54. It's already public by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Geesh, they're about 20 years behind the times.

    This might have worked back in the 80s, before the Net encompassed all the info that it does, but by this point it's just a big waste of money just so we can live in Fear.

    Sigh.

    Every day in every way the choices made are oh so clueless ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  55. Deciphers Intent from Internet Surfing!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's used to decipher the (possibly nefarious) intentions of Internet surfers. Look at Google's cache at UIR Alert Agent : An alert system for identifying suspicious web-site browsing. The full PowerPoint is at UIR Alert Agent : An alert system for identifying suspicious web-site browsing.

  56. The mideast matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Middle East matters and Africa does not. At least from a geopolitical perspective.

    For the time being the middle east is going to play a large role in world politics simply because it sits on an ocean of texas tea. The United States did not invade Iraq specifically for oil, liberty, humanitarian purposes, or to combat the spread of WMD. It was probably a combination of those and the fact that Iraq, no matter the leader, has a large influence on the geopolitics of the middle east. And to an extent from there, the entire world.

    It's in the United States' best interests to have a power in Iraq that is amicable to the American worldview. Especially one that is amicable to America's regional view.

    So really, take your pick as to why the United States invaded Iraq.

    1. Re:The mideast matters by Halvy · · Score: 1
      the reason is the same as the reason the usa couldn't win wwII without 'threatening' to wipe-out a whole race of people;

      the same reason the usa 'ran-with-their-tales-between-their-legs' when the chinx stood up to the usa in n. korea in the '50's;

      the same reason the usa made complete (deadly) fools of themselfs in vietnam (obliterating villages and people--- in order 'save them');

      and now of course iraq...

      but this may prove to be the last time that the 'powers-that-be' use their weapondry as 'penis-extentions'. 'The Isurgentcy' is just a taste of what is to come to 'The Beast'.

      because bush has his foot deep down his lieing throat, we are ALL asured to get a good sense of justice when the newly trained iraqi army turns it's bright shiny new weapons on the U.S. troops :)

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  57. Simpler solution: Lobotomize everyone by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    Since the fear is that somehow people are going to be able to put together information that lets them commit terrorist acts there is no reason to let people have any of the equipment that lets them commit terrorist acts. Perhaps the simplest solution is to lobotomize everyone so no one can think.

  58. 3 steps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Get government funding to build anti-terrorism search engine.

    2) ???

    3) Profit!!

  59. Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you type in "Weapons of Mass Destruction", it says:

    Did you mean: convenient excuse to invade an oil-rich country

    No standard terrorists containing all your search terms were found.

    Your search - "Weapons of Mass Destruction" - did not match any terrorists.

  60. What will they search for? by danharan · · Score: 1

    "Intelligence" services were warned about the previous attack on the WTC, but they lacked translators. They were warned about 9/11, but they couldn't prevent it because they lacked translators.

    They obviously need a search engine to solve this problem.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  61. Re:I don't know about you... by symbolic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but *I* sure as hell feel safer.

    Huge deficits, imaginary dragons, a new mecca for terrorism, the erosion of freedom, all this shiny new tecknarlogy to watch our every move...

    Oops, guess not.

  62. who said "we" didn't like communism? by Halvy · · Score: 1
    they arn't 'resorting' to using computers..in lieu of anything, because they dont' have any brains to start out with.

    remember--- they can't EVEN 'connect dots' from 911, that a third grader could have-- given the same data.

    but then again, even if they (government) are more dangerous than smart, i still say they worship the god of 'machiavelli' more than even money.

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  63. defending points of weakness by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

    The concept is that vulnerabilities in real life work much like many vulnerabilities in software -- doing one thing, like passing off help:// urls to a help application, is fine, and doing another thing, like running scripts in your help application, is fine, but put them together and it's an exploit. Lots of places could tell you either one of those facts, and once you know both of them you can defend yourself -- the premise is that this engine would be able to bring them together.

    So what kind of info might they be attempting to bring together? I must admit I'm not thinking of great examples, but it probably goes something like this -- gas pipelines run in known places, and electric lines run in known places, and internet lines run in known places, and water lines run in known places. Independently, that information doesn't help you much, but put it together and you can discover a few locations where a bomb would cause ten times the damage of anywhere else. You can then make sure that those places receive ten times the protection ...

    1. Re:defending points of weakness by Halvy · · Score: 1
      ohhhh, like the government(s) of the world (even with their armies) are going to beat (to the punch) 6.5 billions 'potential' terrorists with this (so called) new data mining?

      if the data is there already, and now is going to be possible to be mined (better) for terrorist (or for preventing terrorits) activities, how can anyone expect the (so called) good guys, to beat the (so called) bad guys to the punch with this data?

      seems to me if the gov was to truly have something like this, they would keep it to themselvs and try to catch terrorists instead.

      but instead what we have here is classic 'Machiavellian ' type government double-speak. in other words, the government is trying their hardest to show how stupid and bad they are, because that is both easier to do (than trying to be good, or right about things) and it instills more fear in the masses because we all think;" oh my God, these imbasils are in charge of nukes!!"

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  64. Nuclear Regulatory Commission already doing this? by Animats · · Score: 1
    I was looking at Nuclear Regulatory Commission incident reports today, when suddenly a pop-up appeared saying "You have been randomly selected to participate in a survey" to obtain information about their users.

    Never saw that before on a Government site. Anyone else seeing this? It seems to appear infrequently.

  65. First discoveries are on Slashdot by Fortran+IV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Combining "bits and pieces" from this posting and the preceding five (some slight allowance for tense and common words must be made), I find the following alarming statements:

    the Internet community / [is] publishing / anonymous / suggestions for / terrorism / [in] article[s] running on Yahoo News / AOL, MSN, and Earthlink

    rumored / revelation that / three recent / occurrences / (touches / 30,000 people / collectively) / will change the landscape / forever

    'hidden' information / [has] doubled / success in this endeavor / - "nearly everyone will go" / - about 10% of IBM's staff / is already / infected

    pro-freedom / dissidents / are looking for ways / to take down an airliner / for nothing

    commercialized / products/procedures/systems / [and] hardware / too risky / [at] exaggerated prices / as high as $950

    bits and pieces / at an unidentified / 'banned' sites / can be puzzled together / to improve / technique

    an unidentifed / spokeswoman for the / FAA / points out that / [their] staff / [has] commitment to / more mundane matters

    So Slashdot is advising the Internet terrorist community where to look for information on biological warfare and anti-aircraft weapons.

    Yipe!

    --
    I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
  66. And the sources? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I assume that once they 'piece together' these bad things, they go out and shut down the sites where the 'pieces' are, in the name of 'safety' ?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:And the sources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      There was a kid in the Valley [sfv], last year, who just linked to a site that had the "Cookbook".

      The kid is now wearing an orange jumpsuit on an island in the Caribbean with free room and board.

      As much as we joke about it, some real bad shit is going down right now.

    2. Re:And the sources? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Got a link? That sort of stuff needs to be spread ..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  67. eno2001 to Give Feds a Head Start on... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...searching for potential terrorist secrets:

    I feel it's my duty as a true American to give the Feds a tip on a concept that's widely dispersed in various places throughout the internets. This secret tehnology has been placed in everything from chocolate chip recipes to plumbing manuals, but if put in the wrong hands and used in combination with a few other technologies, it could be use to take down a jet airliner. In fact, it even appears to have been use in an indirect way during the 9/11 incident.

    Here it is: Take two objects (should be sticks or flints, but there are other objects) and rub them together until you get either a spark or smoke. You can tell if you're doing this properly because you should start seeing smoke before you eventually see this horrific technology make it's appearance.

    In other terms: "The secret is to bag the rocks together guys"! ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  68. Way to re-invent google. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I think google already does an excellent job of finding that information.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  69. doesn't anyone else see this but me? by dwntwnboi · · Score: 1

    for us to fight those who would destroy American freedom, we Americans must remain FREE ourselves, for to do otherwise would be to FURTHER the cause of our enemies. yet, those very politicians who claim to fight for our protection are doing so at the COST OF OUR FREEDOMS. with these politicians left unchecked, "live free or die" will soon no longer our choices. soon, it will be just "live or die." it seems to me that our enemies are winning without lifting a finger; OUR government is doing it FOR them.

    1. Re:doesn't anyone else see this but me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you feel like that how about using your right to bare arms for the purpose it is in the constitution? revolution! revolution! revolution!

  70. hidden message detected! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    The FAA and researchers at the University at Buffalo are developing an anti-terrorism search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' information -- like how to take down an airliner -- that can be puzzled together by grabbing bits and pieces from unrelated documents. Eventually, they say, the technique can be commercialized to improve search results on more mundane matters.`"

  71. Jihadster? by overeduc8ed · · Score: 1
    Srihari explained that the model generated by the system on the basis of the 9/11 corpus found that terrorists Binal Shibh and Mohamed Atta shared apartments in Hamburg, Germany; Atta and Nawaf al Hazmi were hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks and Hazmi found an apartment in San Diego with the help of Anwar Aulaq, an imam named at a mosque in San Diego.
    Hmmm... sounds kinda like Friendster for terrorists... Jihadster?!
  72. 1st Rule of Commie Mutant Traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you don't play PARANOIA XP doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

  73. You mean related information like by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 1

    1)TSA agents aren't allowed to squeeze breasts.
    2)Some breast implants can be installed and thenenlarged over time by injecting additional saline solution
    3)The chemicals required to make nitroglycerin are freely available and here's the recipe.

    Give me a break! It's more $ down the rathole is ALL it is.

    You want to take out an airliner? Pick a plane flying into HongKong and bribe a baggage handler to pour a jug of olive oil on the brakes.

    Hire some Nigerian heroin mules and substitute explosives in the condoms they swallow.

    Ship a large dog with 20lb of dynamite surgically implanted.

  74. I can see it now... by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Since airplanes obey the laws of physics

    The laws of physics could be applied in some way to bring them down.

    Therefore all web sites that cover any aspects of the laws of physics, Newtonian Mechanics, or Relativity, need to be censored, shut down, or require registration of all users with the federal government and background checks to protect the national security.

    In other words, a way of censoring not only harmless but useful material just because someone can aggregate it with many other things and put it to harmful use if they choose.

    1. Re:I can see it now... by planetoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read the article and I'm highly skeptical this thing would work as intended, anyway. The most results it will probably retrieve for the feds would be FAQs for the Grand Theft Auto games.

      --
      Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
    2. Re:I can see it now... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's good reason to be skeptical of the validity of results you might get by this 'conceptual chaining' idea.

      It's just that the results given by such an engine can easily be interpreted as saying something that's not justified.

      Maybe it's obvious to you that GTA FAQs are no harm, but when they turn up in the search engine's results, I'm afraid I can imagine a scenario in which they might be forced to shut down

      As an effect due to some naive person in the future assuming the search engine is holy and a result they see is therefore a threat, whereas, of course it is not (any more than it is a threat to have, say Libraries or Newspapers)

  75. this is funny and grandparent is troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously rated by different moderators.

    grandparent post.

  76. Truth is by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    as of late, any endeavor related to anti-terrorism and that looks remotely "intelligent" has a good chance of getting funded by the US government. I think that's as simple as that. Also, you wouldn't believe how many "anti-terrorism" devices and concepts have been granted a US patent the last 4 years.

  77. MS-Office can be lethal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever snap an MS-Office-CD in half? The edges can be lethal.

    1. Re:MS-Office can be lethal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as can be the shards that come flying off it as you snap it. a visit to the emergancy room can very easily end up as the highlight of your day.

    2. Re:MS-Office can be lethal by gtkuhn · · Score: 1

      Said the anti-terrorism agent.

  78. I can just see it now by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

    For posting this comment, 5 min. later at this guy's front door:

    *knock
    *knock
    *knock

    "Hello, just a friendly visit from your local FBI field office!"

    "Lawyer? Under the Patriot Act we can hold you for 72 hours without cause. Now get ready for the cavity search!"

  79. An Alternative Approach by terbo · · Score: 1

    Searching
    for random bits of data to make one point . . sounds a bit like
    schizophrenia, or at least a more `ecclectic'
    approach.

    --
    If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
  80. This should be YRO by Albinofrenchy · · Score: 1

    I'm usually not the first to shout "Conspiracy Theory" but this sounds dangerous.

    From TFA, it sounds like they are looking for secret messages in documents in much the same way those programs that gleaned "prophecy" out of the bible worked.

    The point is, this has all the engineering of a witch-hunt machine.

    --
    "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
    1. Re:This should be YRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so anyone who weighs the same as a duck is a witch, and therefore a terrorist?

  81. Spam by blueadept1 · · Score: 0

    who wants to spam the search engine?

    1)Register www.rpg.com
    2)Post the following: death to america, rpg, airplane into building, MISSLE, NUCLEAR, DIRTY BOMB, DIE BUSH, ASSASSINATE BUSH....

  82. Shai-Hulud by quokkapox · · Score: 1

    Any terrorist worth his salt is already walking without rhythm, to avoid attracting the worm (or CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.)

    In other words, surveillance strategies (especially those that get publicly discussed such as this one) will only catch the dumb terrorists. We won't find out about the smart ones until they WANT to be noticed. And any real search/surveillance breakthrough that actually works is not going to be announced by the FAA like this; it will be neither confirmed nor denied (sorta like Echelon).

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  83. Personal Liberty or Sexual Liberty? by Whyte · · Score: 1

    In the words of Ben Franklin, "they that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Whenever I hear this quote, I have to wonder which essential liberity he was talking about. Because he might have been discussing the virtues of maintaining a minstress over a wife. He was quite the lady's man.

    Maybe someone else can find that quote of his with him talking about the virtues of having an older mistress over a younger mistress. Classic stuff...

    --
    -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    1. Re:Personal Liberty or Sexual Liberty? by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Of the older mistress, he said something like,

      "They don't swell, they don't tell, and they're grateful as hell." Probably not an exact quote, but close enough to get into the mind of the man.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  84. yea, or maybe the other way around! by Halvy · · Score: 1
    like, creating 'gun laws' (ie taking away the 2nd amendment) is causing more people to 'stock-up' just incase the pigs (feds, army, etc) come to the door?

    wen are the arswhole (pigs, feds) going to realize that there are more dangerous items that threaten them than 'hand-guns'.. i mean, you can use 'anything' litterely as a weapon.

    but what does the governements usually come down hardest on? those that fight and attack with 'words'..

    why? cuz that is something the governement can 'really-sink-their-teeth-into', whereas, someone who will actually 'fight back', is someone the pigs are toooo 'yellow-bellied' to take on, for fear of a 'real-fight'. :)

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    1. Re:yea, or maybe the other way around! by KeensMustard · · Score: 1


      like, creating 'gun laws' (ie taking away the 2nd amendment) is causing more people to 'stock-up' just incase the pigs (feds, army, etc) come to the door?


      What precisely do you expect to do, should the feds come to the door, and you have a weapon? If you observe the outcome of any siege situation you like to name, you'll discover it never ends well for the guy inside with the gun and the hostages.

      Why is that?

      Because the police and (if worst comes to it) the military are better trained and better armed and they call the shots. Get over it. The government isn't cowed by the notion of an armed civilian population - that's politics afghan or papua new guinean style, and it simply doesn't work. The government is cowed by free elections and free press that actually expose their mistakes/corruption and by a judicial system free from political pressure.

      What are the part time pot shooters going to do if the goverment DOES call up the military against them? Fire their rifles at the stealth bombers overhead? Gun down the Navy Seals? Lay down cover fire that stops the cluster bombs in their tracks? The idea is childish and ridiculous.

  85. Hello false positives by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

    This technology has "false positive" written all over it. It'll just tie up our existing system by having agents investigate and track down innocent people.

  86. Red Herring by twodeadpoets · · Score: 1

    Just another bait and switch tactic... "Oh yea! great idea! I'm so glad the government is out to help us build better search engines," pbbbbbt

  87. Re:Interesting...but not in the way you may think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hmm, I wonder where that 20,000 comes from? It wouldn't be from some hysterical pro-gun (cough NRA) group, would it? Some group that routinly distorts or makes up quotes and statistics?


    In fact, if one goes on the internet (the very internet you are using RIGHT NOW) and Googles for "gun law total number" one finds this reference: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gun book4.pdf which says, as a practical matter there may be less then 300 statewide gun laws.


    The reason that there are so few laws is that the NRA has promoted state wide laws that preempt laws at a more local level. This is, of course, to keep local communities from controlling access to guns. Because the NRA belives that the freedom to own a gun is more important then the freedom to not be shot at.


    And before all the gun nuts start trying to find out where I live so they can drive over and shoot up my house, I live in LA and I commute on the freeway for 45 minutes twice each day. We have had a rash of freeway shootings over the last few weeks, on the very routes that I have to drive. This issue is not theoretical for me. Three or four people have died, and only one case has any progress. So when someone quotes a lie about the reality of gun laws, I get a bit angry. I have this funny idea that I sould be able to go though life and not have to worry about being shot at becasue I pull in front of someone of the freeway and they think I cut them off.

  88. Feds Fund Anti-Hungry Search Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The FAA and researchers at the University at Buffalo are developing an anti-hungry search engine that will hunt for 'hidden' food..."

    One researcher says: "This is a huge improvement to take over the hungry in the world. With this search engine, people affected by bombs can found rests of McDonalds hambugers in the ashes.
    At the moment we are discussing with our lawers about the patents of this system, and how to enforce our IP (you know all of those third-world people, are so corrupt that they don't respect the fair trade)."

  89. Has the US become one big Monty Python skit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What's on the Telly?"

    }}"Looks like a terrorist".

    }"I don't mean what's on top ot the television set, I mean what program is on!"

    }}"Ohhhhhh, I'll switch it on, then (dum-de-dum...)

    }"If he dropped a hand grenade, it would roll off..."

    }}"Ohhhhhh, we'll have to watch for that..."

    }]"Tonight on FOX: All the News That Fit to Fabricate - Good Evening: And now the terrorist on top of your telly will explode"

    }}"Oh, Look!! - is that Paris Hilt..."

    KA---BLAM!!!

  90. Or even ancient Palm games... by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    I was on the cell phone talking to a friend: he was stuck waiting in a gov't office to take care of bureaucratic paperwork...

    Suddenly he said "Wow, oh wow." I asked what happened. He said "something great, I'll tell you later." Wouldn't say anything more.

    Because he'd just scored 20 million points in Drug Wars, after Coke went up to some zillion dollars a kilo. "I was surrounded by security officials- didn't seem like a good time to be talking about dumping heroin," he later told me.

  91. Markov-chain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ten bucks says this search engine simply spiders web pages and builds markov-chains out of their content.

    Markov-chain is similar to, if not exactly, the algorithm that powers MegaHAL.

  92. Re:I don't know about you... by orionware · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ::Huge deficits

    Mainly moral deficits :: imaginary dragons

    Those two "dragons" that flew into the WTC you mean? :: a new mecca for terrorism

    Well at least you've pegged which religion is spawing the terrorists. :: erosion of freedom

    Now this is your true "imaginary dragon". Take off the tin foil hat and take your meds.

    --


    Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
  93. The Cheese Departs at 0900 Hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon the nightingale will sing again. Bring your own bottle. Nine diamonds fill the sky with stars.

  94. well said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well said flyingsquid! I wonder if the Russian and Chinese regimes can eventually create a more balanced world? After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  95. Your only friends are make believe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat Spam from the can
    watch late night C-Span
    And rock out to old school Duran Duran

    (jimmy pop does!)

  96. My stars, it's full of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gods!

  97. In 72 hours they can take anyone to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guantanamo Bay, where they can hold anyone for a couple of years and counting...

    1. Re:In 72 hours they can take anyone to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says hold them for 72 hours. It doesn't say anything about being allowed to move them wherever they please so long as they can do it in 72 hours.

      Exporting citizens would clearly be illegal.

  98. Buffalo, NY and terror by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Buffalo, NY was involved in a terrorist plan.

    And now the gov't is working with the University of Buffalo against terror. Ironic. Do those background checks throughly, Uncle Sam!

    More info on Buffalo and terrorism here:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buffalo+terro rist&btnG=Google+Search

    We don't have the anti-terror search engine yet, but Google turns up a lot.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  99. Government funded search engine? by Ecko7889 · · Score: 1

    www.google.gov

    --
    $sig$
  100. OMFG by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    You hava a hidden terrorist message in your post. This new search engine is truly needed.

  101. cool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who thinks this is cool? Everyone so far thinks its (a) a government tool to spy on everyone (b) a worthless idea that will never work or (c) both a and b.

    Sounds like they have plans for public use once its perfected.

  102. Re:I don't know about you... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    but that's the reason to visit porn sites and
    download images and videos. How cool is that?
    All terrorist plans, calendars, instructions for
    everything from bullets to bombs to WMD are all
    neatly encrypted and hidden through the use of
    steganography. And communications back up the
    chain of command can be done through much lower
    bandwidth SPAM.

    So when the neo-con Big brothers come knocking
    at the door to sift through your porn collection,
    it's really just a continuation of the fight against
    terrorism. No, really! It really doesn't have
    anything to do with the hypocritical religious
    fundamentalists trying to regulate your bedroom,
    honestly.

  103. yea, so by Halvy · · Score: 1

    wat about them? u trying to say the fed/army are going to drug 6.5 billions of us? or am i missing your point?

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
    1. Re:yea, so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that his point was that people breaking possibly unjust laws would not, of neccessity, result in a change in the law. Much like how drugs have not become legal despite the huge number of people that are sent to prison for using them.

    2. Re:yea, so by Halvy · · Score: 1

      true :)

      --
      I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  104. Oxymoron by l0b0 · · Score: 1

    They want to find hidden information on the Internet? Somebody please add this to the "Examples" section of the Wikipedia "Oxymoron" article.

    On a more serious note, after decades of AI research, maybe it's time to realize that we still have a looong way to go before being able to extract any meaning out of random combinations of piractical speech, baby language, franglais, etc., even when written in any form that most English-speaking persons understand. And once that feat is done, how about doing the same for audio or video, with an archaic arabian dialect as the base? And how about techniques like steganography and CAPTCHA?

    Bottom line: Human language is hard to decipher, and it doesn't take much imagination to make it even harder.

  105. On the unlikely assumption this would work? by smchris · · Score: 1

    Then what?

    Phrack is defunct so why don't they just start by raiding Palladin and Loompanics Press and assert that people in the U.S. do not have a right to publish "terrorist" material? That's the goal, right? Or is this just a neural net exercise?

  106. Patent! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    And then the department of homeland security can go through your site with every possible permutation of terrorist equipment and patent the resulting methods. Then no terrorist will be allowed to ever think of them again! Isn't patent law grand?

  107. Brain boost results by danila · · Score: 1

    how to take down an airliner?:

    Much easier way to take down an airliner: at night, fly a bunch of black kites with kevlar lines at the end of the runway.

    Considering that in congested urban areas you can stand on a freeway overpass or in long - term parking and easily take down an airliner, it s actually somewhat surprising that someone hasn t tried this yet.

    The WP fronts a piece pointing out that commercial cargo on passenger planes is rarely inspected and thus a big juicy target for terrorists looking to take down an airliner.

    If a wacko wants to take down an airliner, he sure will, no matter how many points you close.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  108. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What terrorists need is a reason. Another country invading theirs, for example. *cough*Iraq*cough*Palestine*cough*
    Perhaps it's their homes and family being destroyed for no reason they can comprehend (see previous cough)
    Religion is an excuse. People don't fight and die for religion. They fight and die for money, power, revenge. Some fight and die to protect their family, friends, homes.

    Unfortunately, some people fight and die simply because Fox tells them to. :o(

  109. Censoring /. next by rfunches · · Score: 1

    Next target to censor:

    Slashdot

  110. boy oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    geee i wonder if your one of those men who use his gun as a penis extention!

    you must think everyone is a moron 'like you'.. that is where your mistake is (correct it, or it can cost you your life someday man..). the only thing the u.s. government does fear is it citizens (i have heard this from several military men, and it's obvious the way they 'treat' it's own people.

    as far as them (gov) only fearing elections-- HA! elections and 'writing letters' to congress men is something the feds 'hope' the people continue to do, INSTEAD of taking REAL actions actions the scum.

    the ONLY time(s) the few scumbags in government (like you) ever change, is when the people RISE UP en mass and over-throw you (or, bring 'old fashion' justice to you). recent examples are; haiti, and now iraq (citizens welling up against the ocuppiers). sometimes it's even as easy as 'just standing up against' your evil arogance (stupity) and bluffing.

    as far as your question above about 'sieges' when one man is hold up in his home (with weapons).. well, the out come is almost AlWAYS on his side by the fact that 1). the government looks like fools by HAVING to expend copious amounts of money, time and energy puting ONE man down; 2) yea, they may wind up 'taking' the one guy out, but usually at the expense of several other deaths and causualties (including civilians).3) people are getting wise to this 'ambush' type mentality of the police and quickly adjusting. i quote the great Timothy McVeigh; "the score is now 247(?) to 1 !!! :)

    People are discusted at this type of actions by the government-servents!(and people's 'attitude' like yours).

    as far as your other remarks about 'armies' being able to bomb and inflict large casualties on the civilitan popluation--- well, these actions may warm your heart to know you can pull that crap 'sometimes' on your masters... but at what point does that become impratical?

    you can't 'get us all' man!!

    AHHHHNNNNDDD, last time i checked, there are PLENTY of people documenting and waiting to bring justice to the monsters that murdered millions of innocent japs and germans in wwii, vietnam, and now iraq.

    those 'scumbag' soldiers in iraq 'think' they will have a save life when their done 'blood thirst' murdering of innocent men & woman, but if 'I' don't get them, or someone else don't, .. GOD will!!!

  111. boy oh boy... by Halvy · · Score: 1
    i forgot to login before i posted that last post.

    just in cast you 'think' i'm afraid of (abusers like you).

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  112. Small-World Phenomenon by hugg · · Score: 1

    I've got a website that does something similar, but for two arbitrary Wikipedia entries. For instance, consider the case of Bin Laden to Henry Kissinger. The paths go through Cyrus Vance, Christopher Hitchens, and Donald Rumsfeld. Does this mean anything? Probably not. Are there longer paths that might reveal some sort of conspiracy? Probably not, but there are probably other, longer paths that might reveal more interesting relationships. I'd like to see what kind of metric they use for "interestingness", especially given the amount of data they plan to incorporate. What would happen if you ran such a thing against a Lexis-Nexus-sized database?

  113. Re:I don't know about you... by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


    Actually I was thinking the guys that thought up this idea were geniuses.

    Work at a three-letter-agency, and get caught surfing porn at your desk... "Uh, sure boss, I was checking for terrorist messages hidden in the images. You know I don't actually like looking at this stuff don't you?"

    --
    "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
    Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  114. B.I by dark+grep · · Score: 1

    So how did hijackers and such get on before the internet made all this information available? It seems very inlikely to me the internet is the source or the solution to the problem.