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