Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Gov To Spider Internet

HopeSeekr of xMule writes "Perhaps as one of the first high profile uses of Alexa's WebSearch Platform, the U.S. government plans to search, link and reference every news site, blog and email on the Internet, using sophisticated AI codenamed ADVISE to do the correlations. Unlike traditional dataveilance like Echelon, ADVISE aims to find terrorists before they strike and even deduce their motivations in wanting to commit their crimes. Part of the breakthrough is a way for humans to view data as 3D holographic images with tech recently used at the Superbowl."

436 comments

  1. again.. by Pavel+Stratil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This won't help dealing with the terrorists at all.
    What if they communicate via

    - plain old websites/ftps
    - internet storage servers, irc, etc?
    - instant messangers
    - VoIP
    - decentralised networks?

    Lets not forget that they can

    - obsfucate.. simplest method would be typing stuff into a CAPCHA-like image. OCR has no chance...
    - use slang
    - encrypt!

    It will end up as an intrusion to the privacy of ordinary people unaware of this and/or private communications among companies.

    1. Re:again.. by Janitha · · Score: 1

      You pretty much mirrored what I came here to comment as well. Totally agreeing here.

    2. Re:again.. by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sort of remember a Bill Hicks quote about the War on Drugs that I'm thinking applies to the War on Terrah- "Its not a war on drugs, its a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times".
      What this amounts to is tracking thought-crimes, how can you know someone is going to commit a terrorist act until they do it? People say lots of things, people think lots of things. Whither freedom.

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
    3. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod Parent Up.

      One flaw in this who plan though it's assuming that the evil doers will use the internet at all.

      What's not to stop them meeting up every so often, or passing messages through people networks?

      What about using coded normal messages.
      For example, "lets meet in a bar tomorrow" could mean "I agree, everything is going to plan".

      Or they could just write in l33t! ;)

    4. Re:again.. by tehwebguy · · Score: 1

      not to mention, why would they even reinvent the wheel here? shouldn't they just search google for "terrorism" or something? they can't possibly develop an engine that will be anywhere near as effective as most that are already available?

      --
      -- lol pwned
    5. Re:again.. by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. In fact it is very easy for an organised group to communicate via email in a way that it would be impossible to spot, either automatically or by humans, if that group was not known. Just swap actions and names for other ones in such a way as you can make apparently normal conversation whilst conveying other meanings.

      "We are still planning to take the dog to the vets on Friday, but we think it's going to be expensive than we had anticipated. Can you ask mother to send $100? Thanks."

      If your terrorists have all agreed beforehand that "going to the vets" is a terrorist act, mother is terrorist HQ and all dollar amounts are multiplied by 1000, you have a way to communicate all kinds of stuff which is impossible to trace. Not only that, it's easy to remember.

      "Tell mother we've had to call of going to the vets on Friday as Bob can't make it. We'll go in two weeks."

    6. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hate crimes are in essence thought crimes too. Think about it.. hate is a thought. Your reasons for feeling a certain way are thoughts. So in essence you can be subject to more severe penalties purely based on your personal opinions while performing a crime. Not only that you can be convicted of a hate crime alone where your sole criminal act was an expression of hatred for something.

      This differs from premeditated murder in that, yes, ultimately, premeditation is a thought.. but the key difference is that you were planning a crime. Planning to kill someone is not an opinion. Hating a group of people is an opinion.

      It is basically legislating what sort of motivations for doing a crime is worse than some other motivation. So if you rob a bank because you hate banks should you be subject to stiffer penalties? If you kill a gay man because you hate gays how is that anything other than a murder? Hate crime, for me, goes way to far down the path of thought crime. Double plus bad.

      Jeremy

    7. Re:again.. by wolenczak · · Score: 1

      Just give me their IP address pool range

    8. Re:again.. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and if you kill a gay man, how do they determine that you killed him because you hate gay people. Even if they could prove that you hate gay people, I think they'd have a hard time proving that you killed him because he was gay. Or is everyone who kills a gay person guilty of a hate crime. Actually, all murders are hate crimes. If you didn't hate the person, why would you kill them? is there a list of reasons that actually fall into hate crime? And would a gay person killing a straight person be convicted of a hate crime?

      I don't have any problem with gay people, just using this as an example.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:again.. by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      Remind me to go unprotect my blog, so I can help ADVISE!!!!

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    10. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean doubleplusungood?

    11. Re:again.. by syukton · · Score: 1

      If you didn't hate the person, why would you kill them?

      Because you were paid to do so?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    12. Re:again.. by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      There's also the ever popular sending snail mail. For a lot of communications, obfuscated and innocuous-at-first-glance mail is a fine communication system. And there's the quite viable communication method of disposable cell phones on one of those prepaid plans.

    13. Re:again.. by guildsolutions · · Score: 1

      Even if the US Govt passes laws that will allow such, imagine the storage requirements to catalog and archive the internet, including ... every news site, blog and email on the Internet ... Get real! My own email archive of non-spam emails is well over several hundered megabytes. I am told by friends who work in larger IT departments that they have problems with outlook once the inbox reaches 2 gig!

      The amount of storage required to first, intercept, second, catalog every email sent on the internet would be an astounding figure!

      Wishlist? Sure, Government wants to do this. Plausable? Not anytime soon, atleast not with personal emails and instant messenger chats, not even with high compression of text.

    14. Re:again.. by ranton · · Score: 1

      While it is true that these internet searching methods might not have much success, it doesnt mean that they will have no success. Terrorists make mistakes just like anyone else. They might accidentally send an unencrypted email, have an unsecured ftp site, or any number of other slip ups. There is no good reason for the government not to at least try to catch terrorists (or other criminals) in every legal way possible. And scanning the internet is very legal, just look at Google.

      With all of the illegal acts that Al Capone committed, it was the simple crime of tax evasion that finally got him caught. If we can catch a terrorist whenever he does something stupid online, I think that is a good thing.

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    15. Re:again.. by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. But let us not forget sneakernet.

      This is just another way for a dictatorial government to spy on its own people.

    16. Re:again.. by 7*6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only do I agree that this is a 'war on personal freedom,' i also feel that this project has disaster written all over it. This 'AI' will have to be pretty intelligent to tag and organize all of this content in a meaningful way, and on top of that, those analysing the data will need to be pretty friggin' brilliant to use it correctly.

      as you say, "People say lots of things, people think lots of things." I personally feel that there is no one who can honestly or accurately see all comments and verbalized streams of thought for what they are worth - usually just contemplation or teen angst.

      while it is certainly *possible* that terrorists might use (or have used) globally accessible modes of communication to plan a major attack, monitoring the news wires and blogs is probably not the most effective way to prevent the attack.

      we must continue to demand privacy at all times, however i feel that the push by the top levels of government to gain access to our souls could be our downfall as a society as we distance ourselves from each other in fear of relinquishing too much information.

    17. Re:again.. by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      In the old cop shows, the wily old detective lets a suspect go and then tails him to the bigwig. By thesis, this new government program is meant to capture more suspects once you already have some inkling of a few persons involved. So pretend US Army catches a suspect red-handed in Iraq. They enter all the members of the suspect's cellphone or phonebook into the system. Then the computer looks around and determines an electronic trail that may lead to suspects in the United States. Of course, cynically, the government may just find political dissidents using this system. But in theory, this can be a really useful tool.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    18. Re:again.. by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      And when someone is swinging a sledgehammer towards your head, it would be wrong to stop him because for all you know he's planning on stopping it at the last minute.

      I agree with your concerns, but there are two sides to the coin. Probably some terrorist acts can only be stopped if we're given a good bit of warning (because even NSA / CIA / FBI / Homeland Security folks are only human). It would be disappointing to have my kids killed in an attack because we were unwilling to scrub the web looking for early warning signs of that attack.

      Again, I'm not advocating either extreme, I'm just pointing out that you only argued one side of the issue.

    19. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I don't either. It is just that crimes against gays and blacks are the vast majority of what get classified as hate crimes so you have to talk about the issues as they exist or you can get lost in metaphors.
       
      Jeremy

    20. Re:again.. by bensch128 · · Score: 0

      They will probably examine the relationships between websites and who sends emails to whom.
      In these cases, encyption doesn't matter.

      They probably also will try to examine the actual contents of messages themselves but I serious doubt this will succeed. The amount of communications within the US and between the US and outside is probably vastly too big for the largest NSA computers to handle.

      I'll bet that they focus mainly on relationships between entities and if something really suspiuous pops up, then they'll zoom in on the content.

      of course, if a TSA agent has a gruge against you and access to the DB, he could probably examine all of your email, contacts, websites, etc... So this system must be tightly monitered. halfassed trying to beat the system is stupid...

    21. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with terrorists. It has everything to do with lowering an electronic surveillance system on the 99% innocent population. And consider that this surveillance has probably been going on for decades. What we're seeing is merely a rolling out of the technology. They are doing it slowly in stages and watching people's reaction, i.e,, deliberately revealing the electronic prison and trying to prevent a panic at the same time.

      And electronic police state will make a cashless system possible. It's all very clever, but using deception is perhaps the wrong way to go about all this. Maybe not. I'm sure the powers that be have many scientific studies under their belt and they think they are going about this in the correct way.

      Yeah, I expect this to be modded out of existence.

    22. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah motivation doesn't mean anything.

      Kinda like getting murder 1 for intentionally killing someone versus getting manslaughter for accidentally killing someone with your car - Complete bullshit!

    23. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote you are refering to is part of the introduction to the song "Third Eye" on the Album Ænima by Tool.

    24. Re:again.. by hahiss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, you misunderstand the idea of a ``thoughcrime"---which is the crime of THOUGHT. That is, the crime is merely thinking, absent the commission of any other crime. Hate isn't punished, though if it is a motivation for a crime it is an additional factor to be (or at least seen to by in current law) relevant in doling out crime.

      Intentions (that is to say, a person's thoughts) are necessarily a part of the law; they distinguish the varieties of murder, for example. (Unless you don't think that premeditation means ``thought of ahead of time".) They may not make a difference in EVERY law or EVERY case, but any legal system that fails to take sufficient notice of thought's role in a crime would be unjust.

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    25. Re:again.. by scooter.higher · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if the terrorists can do this (see figure 3): ASCII Stereograms

      --
      Ramen
    26. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or telegram!!! :)

    27. Re:again.. by ender- · · Score: 1

      "We are still planning to take the dog to the vets on Friday, but we think it's going to be expensive than we had anticipated. Can you ask mother to send $100? Thanks."

      Except that this is obviously a terrorist message bcause nobody would use the word "mother" in this context. They'd use 'mom', or maybe 'our mother'. Anyone using mother in that way is either a terrorist or a psychopath and should be brought in for questioning. :)

    28. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      This is about personal opinion affecting the sentencing for the person that committed a crime. 1st degree murder implies you planned the crime before it happened. Its not a "thought" crime. You went out of your way to plan a crime before hand and then performed the crime. Your opinion weighs into it not at all. Its just your plan for an intentional crime beforehand. What do your personal beliefs have to do with how you are punished for a crime?
       
      Pre planning a crime and holding certain beliefs while committing a crime are different to me.
       
      Jeremy

    29. Re:again.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      That's not the issue - the issue is whether you should get more time for intentionally killing someone because of your OPINION rather than the mere fact that it was intentional.

      Doing so means punishing someone for an opinion, not an intention.

      Big difference, actually.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    30. Re:again.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      And why is a murder committed out of hate worse than a "regular" murder? The victim is equally dead either way.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    31. Re:again.. by Burz · · Score: 1

      This differs from premeditated murder in that, yes, ultimately, premeditation is a thought.. but the key difference is that you were planning a crime. Planning to kill someone is not an opinion. Hating a group of people is an opinion.

      What a stupid, dipshit rationalization. Considering a whole group of people worthy of punishment or death, and then ADVERTISING IT with slurs while you're attacking them is tantamount to declaring open-season on said group.

      The justice system in this country factors-in criminal movtives whenever possible. When those motives hinge on whole groups of people and traits that have nothing to do with the content of their character (i.e. race, gender, etc.) then the perpetrator should expect the crime to be treated more seriously than random violence.

      Not every aspect of our society can be moulded toward assuaging the conscience of WASPy suburbanites. Too bad.

    32. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Good points. In certain states in the US it is illegal to burn a cross because it is a hate crime. The crime in this case is an expression of your opinion. It is well understood that a burning cross is linked to groups like the KKK and a hatred of blacks. It makes an implicit statement. So there is still a physical action linked to the thought. Yet, it basically, criminalizes expression. It treads closer and closer to criminalizing any outward expression of hatred towards groups that are victims of "hate crimes".
       
        Intention means a lot. What I am talking about is different sentencing based solely on your opinions towards the people you commit a crime against.
       
      Jeremy

    33. Re:again.. by computer_redneck · · Score: 1

      Just plopping in somewhere in the middle.
      I am reading a series of books that mention a form of cryptography. Really pretty simple. Just forgot the name right now. You want to communicate with someone and have an almost bullet proof security. I write my message then using a book that you and I agree on and a system to unencode from the book I rewrite the message. So "Lets attack the white house" could be translated to something inocuous and you will get the message based on the book Quag Keep by Andre Norton. Not only is the book out of print but it is an obscure book as well. How many people will know you and I are using that particular book as the cipher for the code.

      Support our Troops
      Impeach our President

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
    34. Re:again.. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you kill a gay man because you hate gays how is that anything other than a murder?

      If the purpose of your murder is to incite fear and terror in all gay people, then yes. It is far beyond a death threat - a criminal offense in itself - you've already gone through with it, the only question is who's next. Multiply that with the number of people you've threatened and we can easily put you away for good.

      Hate thought isn't illegal, any more than other thoughts. What is pure hate crimes would have been called slander, libel, threats and more if they were done against an individual. You can't treat gays as inferior to straight people without treating a single gay man as inferior to a single straught man. Where does that leave your "All men are created equal..."? That it's okay as long as you insult many enough at once?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re:again.. by infinityxi · · Score: 1

      Well while I agree with you on that reinventing the wheel would be stupid, an easy circumventing of using google or any other search engine is their abiding by the robots.txt rule. I don't think whatever search engine the government is going to use is going to care here or there if some website has a request not to be archived. The way Yahoo and Microsoft folded under the DOJ request for search information I am sure yahoo or microsoft would probably sublicense their robots for government use (Especially yahoo it seems).

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    36. Re:again.. by computer_redneck · · Score: 1

      I am told by friends who work in larger IT departments that they have problems with outlook once the inbox reaches 2 gig!

      Outlook's 2gig limit is probably comparable to WIN 95 exceeding 2 GIG for hard drive space. Or is that FAT. Anyways when I worked for FORD some managers and engineers having E-Mail archives exceeding 10 gig is not unheard of. People need to learn how to delete what they don't need.

      And E-mail is considered private unless the company states in writing that it is subject to being opened by the Company. The government doing this violates our right to privacy.


      Support our Troops
      Impeach Bush


      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
    37. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, all murders are hate crimes. If you didn't hate the person, why would you kill them?

      You were paid to do it? They witnessed you doing something wrong? They were blocking your promotion and you wanted them out of the way? You get a sexual thrill from the act of murder?

    38. Re:again.. by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Informative
      This won't help dealing with the terrorists at all.

      No, but it'll sure help keep the lid on political dissent, won't it?

      Portions of this have already begun: the data mining only extends prior government watching of the web for "terrorists" like the ACLU. But not for political speech, of course. Never that.

      So shut your mouth and shut down your blog and stop commenting here if you don't want to end up on a list of people to be "neutralized" -- like Mario Savio, hounded for ten years despite never breaking a law.

      Savio's "crime" was, ironically, leading the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. We'd do well to remember today 0Savio's words then:
      There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop.
    39. Re:again.. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I kill people because I love them.

    40. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      One flaw in this who plan though it's assuming that the evil doers will use the internet at all

      That all depends on what the meaning of "Evildoers" is. Anti-globalization, anti-global warming, et al protests are often announced in advance on web sites. Since the spooks are already known to watch such massive terrorists threats as animal rights groups and Mormon and other church groups, one would be foolish not to take the broadest possible interpretation.

      Westerners and especially Americans think that their governments are radically different than the Chinese. Yet the two seem to have a lot of common goals such as suppression of criticism and free speech, surveillance of the masses and concentration of economic power in the hands of a few party faithful. The big difference is that most Chinese people know that they are actively being oppressed and lied to by their government.

    41. Re:again.. by nappingcracker · · Score: 1

      I never thought about hate crime that way, and I am normally pretty tuned to such things.

      Thanks!

      --
      |plastic....or gasoline?|
    42. Re:again.. by guildsolutions · · Score: 1
      • And E-mail is considered private unless the company states in writing that it is subject to being opened by the Company. The government doing this violates our right to privacy.


      Since when has the US Government given an once of thought to someone's privacy execpt when it was an election year and they thought they might get sued and have some bad publicity.

      Lets just not even go to the fundamentals or abuses of the patRIOT act.
    43. Re:again.. by Quess · · Score: 1

      ...along with other people.

    44. Re:again.. by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      In the case of "hate crimes," the act expresses hostility toward an entire group of people, causing a real injury to their ability to freely pursue life, liberty, and happiness. For example, the burning crosses of the KKK and the murder of Matthew Shepard were intended not just to hurt the person(s) directly involved but entire classes of people. This is similar to legislation for crimes against humanity.

    45. Re:again.. by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate crimes are in essence thought crimes too.

      Huh? No, they're not. The people who killed Matthew Shepard, for example, did not go to jail because they were homophobes; they went to jail because they killed someone. The fact that they did so out of homophobia may have gotten them a harsher sentence (or maybe not; they still didn't get the chair or anything, after all), but you should keep in mind that the *important* thing - that which they actually went to jail for - is that they committed murder.

      The same goes for any other crime as well. If you do something bad, then expect to be punished for it, and don't whine if you can't use your homophobia as a defense afterwards. It's not a thought crime unless it actually did not have a physical component; and evaluating the motive of a murderer etc. and adjusting the sentence accordingly is something that's been done forever, anyway, without anyone ever crying "thought crime".

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    46. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To assume the punishment is greater due to opinion is in error. We differentiate punishment for murder based on the perceived threat to society. Premeditating murder or commiting murder out of hate implies a willingness to kill and as such a greater menace to society than someone who makes an insolated mistake.

    47. Re:again.. by Rekolitus · · Score: 1

      You've never been to Britain, have you?

    48. Re:again.. by tyme · · Score: 1
      jallen02 wrote:
      Hate crimes are in essence thought crimes too. Think about it.. hate is a thought. Your reasons for feeling a certain way are thoughts. So in essence you can be subject to more severe penalties purely based on your personal opinions while performing a crime. Not only that you can be convicted of a hate crime alone where your sole criminal act was an expression of hatred for something.

      It appears that you misunderstand the definition of a hate crime: hate crimes are, in general, regular criminal acts whose motivation arises out of hatred for a specific class or group (as opposed to crimes motivated by greed, passion or negligence, or crimes motived by hatred for a specific individual). Since we already distinguish crimes based on thier motivation (murder and opposed to manslaughter based on whether or not you intended to kill the victim) there is nothing unusual about the classification of hate crimes based purely on the accused's state of mind.

      Again, in general, you can't be convicted of a hate crime simply because you hate some class or group. You can only be convicted of a hate crime if you allow your hatred of that class or group to spur you to commit an otherwise ordinary crime (murder, assault and battery, destruction of private property, etc.) against that class or group. If you have a hatred of Jews, for example, and you set fire to a halal grocery becuase the owners wanted to collect the insurance money, it would awfully hard to charge you with a hate crime. You could still be charged with arson, but since you don't have any animosity towards Muslims, you are pretty much clear on the hate crime issue.

      If all you do with your hatred is sit and stew, or even if you engage in non-criminal overt acts (writing a web page, for example), you are not, in general, subject to hate crime statutes. Federal hate crime statutes seem particularly limited in scope, only covering certain sorts of criminal acts (e.g. arson or violent crimes) and only under certain circumstances (e.g. interfering with a federally protected activity).

      --
      just a ghost in the machine.
    49. Re:again.. by Beowabbit · · Score: 1

      If you kill a gay man because you hate gays how is that anything other than a murder?
      Well, what follows is my opinion rather than actually the way it works under the US legal system, but: If you kill a gay man because you hate gays, and nobody but you and maybe your buddy who lent you the shotgun knows that, that's just a murder. If you kill a gay man because you hate gays, make it extremely clear that that's why you did it, and string him up on a fence, then that's a murder, but it's also a threat to other gays. It's a public act, and it targets the murder victim, but it also targets everybody else who is supposed to learn of the murder. (If you kill a gay man because you hate gays in a crowded bar while yelling slurs that make it clear that you hate gays, that's probably somewhere in the middle.)

      By and large, things that are considered hate crimes in the US have this characteristic: they are public acts, and they are directed at more than the individual victim. Burning a cross on somebody's lawn is an obvious example; it's not just an act of trespassing and vandalism; it's supposed to frighten an entire community, and change the tenor of an entire society. The 9/11 attacks were mass murder on a very large scale, but they were also public acts intended to frighten all Americans. (And yes, in my mind the thing that makes "hate crimes" different from ordinary crimes is the same thing that makes terrorism different from ordinary crimes, by and large.

      By the way, I'm bi, so the notion of somebody being murdered for their sexual orientation has a certain delightful rhetorical frisson for me. :-)

    50. Re:again.. by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      It will end up as an intrusion to the privacy of ordinary people unaware of this and/or private communications among companies.

      You mean the ordinary people who voluntarily sign away their privacy by publishing every excruciating detail of their boring lives on their blogs? Let's think about this for more than ten seconds. If information is available on the public internet, it is, by definition, not private.

    51. Re:again.. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Going to get modded troll, or such for this. (where is the Devil's Advocate mod?)

      But whats wrong with spidering the net? All of this is PUBLIC information, terrorist or angsty teen, when you post ANYTHING online it is public information. I've been operating on this supposition for years, and I thought it common knowledge. It doesn't seem like they will be spidering anything but common information, meaning open sites/data. No problem there.

      Being against this would have the logical idealistic conclusion that government officials should not be able to actually look at webpages, or open FTP ports. Which is rather absurd. Oh no, the government can READ MY BLOG! Oh no, the government can read my /. posts! Dear me, what keeps then from doing so anyway, its not like we are all participating in some superduper(tm) private public discourse. I'd be rather flattered the the government is paying attention to my frothings.

      On the other hand I CAN dismiss this as a waste of money. How many terrorists on Blogspot, Livejournal, are dumb enough to say "So, I a muslim extremist, am going to blow up x, anyone want to join in?" None, I'm guessing. I'm sure they all use code like good little badgers with something to hide. Probably PGP, or simpler (book type, or conversational) code. How can you distinguish "I need to go to the garden and pull some weeds" in a legit sense, and a nefarious sense? Even the most sophisticated data mining/analysis tool wouldn't be able to link that with a plan to blow up something.

      To be fare, the previous wiretap story concerns me. Since there is a problem with privacy, and the legitimacy of these taps. There is no way to call the government on misuse due to the opacity of the process. There needs to be culpability there. Here, this is all a public process. If terrorists infliltrated a radio station, and used the mindless between ad banter (or call-ins) for attack code, would be be in a huff if the government listened in on radio broadcasts? Probably not, since all of that information is BROADCAST on a public medium. Ditto with blogs. Or any form of online distribution.

      My tinfoil hat is in the wash, sorry. I'll try harder to be paranoid next time.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    52. Re:again.. by jrp2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "And why is a murder committed out of hate worse than a "regular" murder? The victim is equally dead either way."

      Good question, perhaps this will put it into perspective.

      First, let's make this battery instead of murder. Murder is so heinous it is indeed hard to consider a major difference between one derived from "hate" vs. other reasons (being cheated in some way, result of a robbery, etc.). They are both "high crimes" no matter how you measure it, serious punishment will likely occur regardless of the hate component. Battery might be a better crime to illustrate the point, and probably one of the more common uses of hate aggravation (along with vandalism).

      A non-hate battery crime usually is an event with some guilt on the part of the victim. Not saying they deserve it, but they probably did something to instigate it (insulted your friend, smashed into your car, etc.). The escalation was likely avoidable by apologizing, running away, or just keeping a cool head about you.

      Take a hate-crime battery, and the victim was probably completely innocent, just being black, gay, muslim, etc. and at the wrong place at the wrong time was enough.

      The perpetrator in the non-hate battery is likely regretful later, and is probably not an inherently evil person. They may need drug/alcohol treatment and/or anger management classes, etc. They are likely to learn a lesson, and will likely avoid repeating the offense in the future. There likely was no premeditation to it either.

      The hate-based batterer is generally not regretful, perhaps even proud and satisfied. They will highly likely repeat it, and there is very little a victim can do to avoid it. This is a MUCH more dangerous person, and the punishment (and/or rehabilitation) needs to be much stronger (IMNSHO).

      Another situation is a gay neighbor of mine that got burglarized. He came home to find his home burglarized, and "die fags" spray painted on his wall. I have been burglarized, and it was painful and scary, but I did not take it personally and I was not traumatized. I took it as a random, unfortunate, event not directed at me personally. Some druggy looking to finance his next fix. I could definitely see a difference in these situations, my neighbor was totally traumatized, as would I be. I definitely see the crime perpetrated against my neighbor as a far more serious crime than the simple burglary I endured, even though, at their core, they were otherwise similar.

      Also be cognizant of other factors that can aggravate criminal sentences, such as recidivism, no remorse, etc. These are along the same lines as hate crime aggravations. They are all an attempt by society to allow for differentiation between one-time mistakes by the offender, and the much more dangerous criminals that will likely repeat and perhaps escalate their crimes. It is just codifying "hate" as an aggravation at the same level as some of the other factors.

      I am not sure how well I am making my point, but I guess the bottom line is if you look at the victim impact, the impact of a hate crime on the victim (including their family and community) is far greater than than a non-hate crime. There is little a victim of a hate crime can do to prevent it. As well as the perpetrator of a hate crime is much more likely to repeat it.

      I agree with earlier points, it can be difficult to determine when a crime is hate-based, or not. But in many cases, it is not all that hard. I do agree that assigning "hate crime" status to a crime should not be taken lightly or capricously, and if there is any reasonable doubt, should not be applied. I think (I hope) it is applied very carefully, and sparingly, in real life.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    53. Re:again.. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people who would love to expand the idea of "hate crimes" to cover mere thoughts. If that weren't true, hate crimes in and of themselves wouldn't exist. If I assault or even murder someone, does it really make a difference if I did it because of "hate" as opposed to say "anger" or "greed" or "fun"?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    54. Re:again.. by pyro_dude · · Score: 0
      I don't either. It is just that crimes against gays and blacks are the vast majority of what get classified as hate crimes so you have to talk about the issues as they exist or you can get lost in metaphors.

      So they would have you think. It turns out about 90% of hate crime prosecutions are those who commit crimes against whites.. disproportionate even to the fact that the minorities have lower populations than the majority race.

      --
      --pyro_dude
    55. Re:again.. by Pope · · Score: 1
      I am told by friends who work in larger IT departments that they have problems with outlook once the inbox reaches 2 gig!

      Well, getting wildly off-topic here, it's true. I had serious problems when my offline .pst file was getting near that size, so I just created another and moved some of the stuff to it. And yeah, I keep just about everything and archive it once it's a year old. Hell, just last month I went digging through some 2.5 year old emails to get accurated dates for when certain projects launched. I don't keep that sort of info in my brain, because it's quick to look up in those emails.

      The IT department should be telling every user how to create Personal mail folders on their hard drives (.pst files) and showing how to use them. I had never use Outlook before in my life before starting this job, and I figured it out quick enough. Hell, I tell every new person that comes to work for us about how to do it because we only have 30MB on the Exchange server. IS isn't doing their jobs, IMO.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    56. Re:again.. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Man I wish I had mod points for you. That was very well spoken.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    57. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually im a cyber detective and i must tell you - most of cybercriminals(or criminals in cyber space) leave tracks unencrypted, in blogs, in comments, in forums etc etc. From freely acessible, unencrypted content you can realy gather information. Not full, but vital. It is from my personal expierence. I agree - some of them WILL crypt, VPN and so on, but not every step. Data gathereing/analyzing helps. A lot. Even if u r dealing with sophisticated guys.

    58. Re:again.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      That's eaxactly what a system like this is designed to detect; when Amazon.com suddendly get spikes in sales of an obscure title for no appearent reason it is a loud event for these social-pattern analysis programs. It would be much better to use a book on the NY best seller list that everybody is carrying arround, the sales would be obscured deep in the noise that way.
      My suspicion is the feds will not care about what's in the "traffic" at first, they are looking for patterns in the flow as much as what the flow is. When some nut-ball on the fringe of things gets popped, it makes the pattern of traffic he's sent and recieved intersting. The weakness of a terrorist org is they have to recruit members, so they need a public face. The potential members are then assested and some won't make the grade because they just stupid nut-balls, most become members but are on the fringes and very few will make it to the "inner-circle" cadre. The trick is to catch one of the stupid nut-balls and link him to the recruiter, then the recruiter leads you to the fringe members and sometimes even some of the cadre.

      The terrorists know we do this, the criminals know we do this, we've always done this; we're just using more advanced technology now. it's the same old cat and mouse game played with bigger toys now.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    59. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is basically legislating what sort of motivations for doing a crime is worse than some other motivation.

      Right, and this is exactly the precedent that government needs to set. For example, the US government has murdered -- that is, "accidentally sacrificed" -- tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians over the past 2 years. It doesn't take a statistician to see that after so many consecutive days of "accidental" killings, there is no longer an "accidental" component. (The probability of "accidental" killings is near 100%.) If those murders were committed by you or me, it wouldn't be "collateral damage", would it? It would be murder. Yet behold: when government commits murder in the name of some "higher goal", the crime is reduced to manslaughter (typically even less).

      The more crimes, the more criminals, and as a result, the more business for those providing the "justice". This is Racketeering 101, and it's been employed since government (organized coercion) was invented.

    60. Re:again.. by MarkusQ · · Score: 1

      Except that this is obviously a terrorist message because nobody would use the word "mother" in this context. They'd use 'mom', or maybe 'our mother'. Anyone using mother in that way is either a terrorist or a psychopath and should be brought in for questioning. :)

      You've never been to Britain, have you?

      What exactly are you implying here? Either way, I suspect that somebody ought to be offended.

      --MarkusQ

    61. Re:again.. by Dorceon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While on the subject of thought crime, I've always been upset at the use of the term 'Convicted Pedophile' as though pedophilia was itself a crime. Certainly child molestation is a serious crime, and I would take no offense to the use of the term 'Convicted Child Molester' on people to whom it applies, but calling someone 'convicted' of something that isn't in and of itself a crime--and for that matter, isn't a physical act and is involuntary--both reeks of thought crime and probably makes latent pedophiles fearful of seeking psyciatric treatment, exacerbating the problem.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    62. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hate crimes might not necessarily deserve a larger punishment a priori.

      The problem is that killing someone in a hate crime is usually a lot messier than simply shooting them. "Curbing" comes to mind...

    63. Re:again.. by ender- · · Score: 1

      You've never been to Britain, have you?

      No, but you're all obviously psychopaths or terrorists, right? :)

      I keeed, I keeed...

    64. Re:again.. by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      90%? I would invite you to share the source of that statistic. Thanks.

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    65. Re:again.. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Well while I agree with you on that reinventing the wheel would be stupid, an easy circumventing of using google or any other search engine is their abiding by the robots.txt rule. I don't think whatever search engine the government is going to use is going to care here or there if some website has a request not to be archived.

      And I don't think that someone stupid enough to post their heinous plans of mass murder on a public website would still be smart enough to use robots.txt to stop search engines from cataloguing it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    66. Re:again.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Try reading some of the crap in your junk mail folder, most of it is filled with jibberish to try and fool the filters! You could send anything buried in the jibberish and no one would notice.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    67. Re:again.. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Pfft, obviously terrorists blog all their plans.

    68. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a smart man.

    69. Re:again.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      And E-mail is considered private unless the company states in writing that it is subject to being opened by the Company.
      I don't think so, I think anything done on company computer's and company time is the company's unless some law says specificaly otherwise, or the company does. If email were realy private, then the company realy couldn't even virus scan it. If you have a problem, you can bet that the Email-admin is definately going to open your Email, his/her not reading past the headers is a point of honor him rather than a point of law.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    70. Re:again.. by PastAustin · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more..

      I would say mod parent up but you can't.
      I don't trust people to be able to determine what is and isn't terrorism online, let alone computers.

      My friend and I spent about 2 weeks sending (via e-mail, im, blogs, forums, etc) blue prints of buildings and saying we had a "plan" just to see if we could start some shit. No dice.
      If there is anything going on with terrorists online they'll get on AIM and use the encryption feature. Then you'll be in trouble.

      --
      Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
    71. Re:again.. by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in that case, premeditated murder is a thought crime. The only difference between manslaughter and murder is *intent* -- a thought. The only difference between murder and pre-meditated murder the the *plan* to commit the murder -- a collection of thoughts. So by your logic, a murder charge is a thought-crime charge -- after all, the only difference between murder and manslaughter is intent.

      Personally I have no problem with giving more punishing for hate crimes, because its a kind of terrorism and inflicts fear on a community. If one guy kills another for sleeping with his wife, nobody else should be afraid (unless they are sleeping with the killer's wife). However, if somebody decides to kill a black or gay person *because* they are black or gay, then all blacks and gays have reason to be afraid.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    72. Re:again.. by Stripe7 · · Score: 1

      Reminds of those kids playing Starcraft that got jailed because some janitor found their "Hit list" of players eliminate in Starcraft. These were the players they were targeting to beat not actually kill. How many false positives will this thing generate from all the game players? Imagine the coded messages going between the Corps in EvE Online where messages about raiding corps. Doubt is any WoW chat would trigger false positives but one never knows. Heck would not be surprised if the terrorists used a WoW guild to communicate.

    73. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      By the way, I'm bi, so the notion of somebody being murdered for their sexual orientation has a certain delightful rhetorical frisson for me. :-)
      I guess. Its still up for interpretation to me, what exactly, a hate crime is. Making a death threat or other threat for bodily harm is already covered under the law. Here is the example. That dumbass who walked into a gay bar and started hacking away with his hatchet and shooting at folks. His crimes were labeled a "hate crime" because he did it at a gay bar. So if they pursue this as a hate crime in order to determine if it is a hate crime and not some random act of violence his thoughts at the time he committed the act of violence are on trial as well. Yes, they stem from the crime he already committed, but simply WHERE he did the murders is not enough. Yet the media ran with the "Hate Crime Suspect" label. And I think to prove he was guilty of a hate crime in that instance you would have to prove his thoughts when he was doing the crime. Good thing this guy was shot dead and we didn't have to bother with a trial for him anyway.
       
      Jeremy

    74. Re:again.. by SETIGuy · · Score: 1
      So if you rob a bank because you hate banks should you be subject to stiffer penalties?

      This isn't and would never be considered a hate crime. This is a strawman thrown out there to obscure the real issues.

      If you kill a gay man because you hate gays how is that anything other than a murder?

      You've been listening to the right wing talking heads too much. The intent of the crime does matter because it changes the scope of the crime. In this case the purpose or the result of the murder is to instill fear into a specific class of people or to incite others to commit similar crimes. All members of the class are victimized. That makes it a more serious crime deserving of harsher punishment.

      On the other hand, if you kill a gay man because he was sleeping with your boyfriend, there is no crime against a class of people.

    75. Re:again.. by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Its just to hard for me to decide. I always feel that with such sensitive issues only the most glaring examples should be made examples of. Victim impact is for civil courts. It vandalism and burglary. I think its to hard to distinguish beyond a much finer level for a great majority of hate crimes. With murder there are levels of intent and other qualifiers (pre-meditation etc.). So in other words there are levels of "wrongness" to killing someone. In some ways even that bothers me. What is the most fair way to handle it? Does thinking about killing someone before killing them REALLY make the crime any worse? Does accidentally killing someone due to negiligence bring the person back? One is a mistake and not intentional but the person is just as dead. That is all that really matters to me. The family may be more upset if it was done on purpose, but the person is gone all the same.
       
      Jeremy

    76. Re:again.. by version5 · · Score: 1
      It is basically legislating what sort of motivations for doing a crime is worse than some other motivation...

      No, its creating stiffer penalties for crimes that have different effects than other crimes. A hate crime is intended to harm a victim and intimidate and terrorize a group of people, such that they could reasonably fear that they are also targets. If you knew anything about hate crime legislation beyond what you heard on Fox News, you would know that the legal reasoning behind those laws are nothing like what you've described.

      Right-wing groups, including Christians, have seized on the name 'hate crime' and distorted its (admittedly ambiguous) meaning to give their more violent members special immunity from prosecution when they commit acts of terrorism, which is exactly what they are. Abortion clinic bombers are terrorists, lynch mobs are terrorists and should be condemned. Let's have no irrelevant whining from the right that their ability to keep minorities in their place is being eroded.

      --

      "It's Dot Com!"

    77. Re:again.. by Urusai · · Score: 1

      Punishing people for hating is punishing people for having an opinion. Rationalizing it in terms of outcomes is irrelevant. We have laws for the purpose of making possible the common goals of society. Individual opinions (in a free society) are what determine the common goals. Punishing opinions is the government exercising an independent goal, which is not compatible with a society-purposed government. It's the behavior of a government with its own agenda, which is typical of governments that operate for the benefit of a privileged few. That's why we have concepts like free speech, so we can arrive at a common purpose.

      Furthermore, punishing people for what they MAY do is completely in violation of the concept of free will, a necessary legal fiction in a free society. Just because a hate criminal may be more predisposed to further violence eliminates the possibility of redemption. You might as well just kill anyone who disagrees with you, with that attitude. Judging what a person MAY do dehumanizes them, reduces them to a clockwork orange, strips them of the same dignity you no doubt claim. Should I presume that you, being a dolt, are likely to vote stupidly, and should have that right taken away from you? That's the arrogance you implicitly assume, and I reject.

    78. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, but how would you treat the Danish cartoon? Would that be a hate crime? Are the Muslims allowed to react to that cartoon by burning down buildings, destroying property and worse if they could get their hands on the author. What you are advocating is thought crimes and is very dangerous. And an "I did something because" excuse. People should be judged by what they did period, not why you think they did it. How will you really know what people are thinking anyway, except everyone will be too scared to let people know what they are thinking.

    79. Re:again.. by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

      It's "1984", all over again!! :)

      --
      'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
    80. Re:again.. by poopdeville · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, it does make a difference. An investment banker killing a gay a colleague over a promotion isn't going to keep gay people from becoming bankers. A man killing a gay man to show gay people everywhere that they aren't welcomed in 'his' town is going to scare gay people out.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    81. Re:again.. by MrYotsuya · · Score: 1

      And why is a murder committed out of hate worse than a "regular" murder? The victim is equally dead either way.

      It is because the normal run-of-the-mill murder, the victim may have done something to bring it upon himself, whether or not he knows it. In the case of, say a mafia hit, it's just business.

      In the case of a hate crime, the victim dies just because they were born. Not for any personal or business reasons. They die out of pure ignorance, nothing less. That's why hate crimes are so abhorrent.

    82. Re:again.. by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      I would like to suggest looking up Robert Steele and open source intelligence. He gave a four-plus-hour presentation on the topic at The Fifth Hope, the audio of which can be found on the Fifth Hope site in five parts.

      I would like to suggest that you listen to his ideas before discarding this idea as a waste of time and effort. Then, if you still want to discard the idea, at least you are making an informed decision.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    83. Re:again.. by poopdeville · · Score: 1
      That's eaxactly what a system like this is designed to detect; when Amazon.com suddendly get spikes in sales of an obscure title for no appearent reason it is a loud event for these social-pattern analysis programs. It would be much better to use a book on the NY best seller list that everybody is carrying arround, the sales would be obscured deep in the noise that way.

      This is an interesting observation, but if this is what the government plans to do, it's going to be completely unworkable. First are practical issues concerning smart algorithms and processor time to do this. This is a huge technical challenge. Second, and most importantly, our culture is not just popular culture. Our culture is made by small loose communities of friends -- things become popular specifically because people popularize them. And our reasons for doing so are usually obscure. Basically, what I'm saying is that Amazon already gets spikes in obscure titles. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we see that they were on their way to becoming popular. Sorting out which spikes are 'legitimate' and not is going to be impossible without total surveillance.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    84. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - privacy needs to be fully protected. What I don't understand is this - how can anyone expect their website/blog content to remain private when it is posted on the _public_internet? If you want to maintain privacy, the internet is not the place to do it.

    85. Re:again.. by pyro_dude · · Score: 0
      I don't remember my original source, perhaps I'm just crazy, but I did find something that shows the general trend:

      Source

      Although "hate-crime" legislation has been championed by minority groups in hopes it would discourage racially motivated crime, a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased "hate crimes." The FBI's "Hate Crime Statistics" for 1999 show that 2,030 whites were arrested that year for "hate crimes" against blacks, compared to 524 blacks who were arrested and charged with a "hate crime" against whites. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks make up 12.8 percent of the population -- or about 35.4 million of the country's 280 million people -- so, given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a "hate crime" than whites. The Census Bureau's November 2000 statistics listed the nation's white population at 226.8 million, or 82.2 percent of the total.

      So there you go. Make of it what you will.

      --
      --pyro_dude
    86. Re:again.. by dwight333 · · Score: 1

      I agree it is unlikely to detect planning of terrorist acts. I think it is designed to: (1) chill free speech by making people worry that the government will read their dissent; (2) facilitate propaganda/psy op by enabling military to automatically track blog articles they want to respond to. It could also be used for commercial reasons -- developing psychological profiles of consumers, etc. Or maybe for insider trading. Etc. The potential for abuse is there, especially if private communications are tapped, but as someone says below, the information is public. I actually want government people to read what I post on blogs or mailing lists about government wrongdoing -- they might learn something. But I don't want me and others to be systematically tracked for purposes of political repression.

    87. Re:again.. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An investment banker killing a gay a colleague over a promotion isn't going to keep gay people from becoming bankers

      No, but it might make his other colleagues leary of getting promotions.

      Different circumstances, same result, if you ask me. The "magical" difference in your examples seems to be that "sacred" attribute of being gay.

      You can't hate someone for getting a promotion? I don't think so.

      You see the problem with "hate crimes" is that some reasons for committing a crime are supposedly worse than other reasons for committing a crime and carry stiffer penalties. If you ask me, murder is murder. The only circumstances that matter are those that distinguish first-degree from second, and so on. But now there's suddenly another extenuating circumstance that exists entirely inside the head of the attacker (above and beyond intent).

      In other words, a "hate crime" is a bona fide George Orwell vintage THOUGHTCRIME.

      I can commit a "Hate Crime" against a gay person. But what about a straight person? What about a Republican? What about a gun owner? What about a rich person? Just what separates this totally novel kind of crime from all the things people have doing to each other since the founding of the Republic?

      Can I commit a hate crime against a random person? If not, why not. How is premeditated murder of a business partner to get his money less bad than premeditated murder against someone who is, say, black, or white, or a Microsoft user or a CEO of SCO?

      How long until it's just the thought by itself that's a crime? After all, if you subtract the murders from the two cases above, you still have punishment left over. Punishment for what?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    88. Re:again.. by sparkz · · Score: 1
      It will end up as an intrusion to the privacy of ordinary people unaware of this and/or private communications among companies.
      Thank God for Google, eh?

      How to maintain your privacy 101:

      1. If you want something to be private, then don't put it on the internet
      2. ... err, that's it for 101. Move on to the advanced class.
      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    89. Re:again.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      those communities of friends are what they are interested in, the analysis I assume is to
      1. store who is who's friend and foes
      2. when a badguy(A) is found, who are his friends
      3. when badguy(B) is found, who his friends are
      4. determine if the friends of B and A intersect and if any of them are badguys
      5. determine if the foes of B and A intersect and if any of them are badguys

      is the current riots about the pictures of the prophet really about the pictures or about Denmark getting a seat on the security consoul?
      Sorting out which spikes are 'legitimate' and not is going to be impossible without total surveillance. The signal to noise ratio on my Email is about 100:1, they better solve the spam problem before they try to analyse my Email; is that jibberish in the Email a secret message or just an attempt to fool my baysian filters? This might be a good thing in the end.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    90. Re:again.. by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      If the purpose of your murder is to incite fear and terror in all gay people, then yes.

      If the purpose of your punishment for murder is to incite fear and terror in all people who might concider murdering someone, then no. Murder is murder and I'll be damned if I can remember the last time someone was mudered out of love... and no, you're thinking of mercy killing (can't watch him/her suffer), manslaughter (oops! sorry.), or jealousy (you fuckin' my woman?). Did I miss any?

    91. Re:again.. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Doing so means punishing someone for an opinion, not an intention


      Seems to me that it's intention in both cases. In a typical non-hate-crime murder, your thought might be "I'm going to kill that guy and steal his wallet, so I buy some more crack". In a typical hate-crime murder, your thought might be "I'm going to kill that faggot and spray paint FAG all over him so that every pervert in this town knows what happens to fags around here". i.e. you are killing with the intent of terrorizing part of the population. That makes it a crime not just against the individual, but against everyone who is a target of your implicit threat.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    92. Re:again.. by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you said this. Personally, I think the fed is WAY out of its league here. Perhaps a better start would involve being able to communicate simple information, in a reasonably coherent fashion, in a reasonably prompt manner, and THEN perhaps, start to work toward more complicated strategies.

    93. Re:again.. by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      I want a hard copy of the Internet on my desk first thing Monday morning.

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    94. Re:again.. by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      What this amounts to is tracking thought-crimes, how can you know someone is going to commit a terrorist act until they do it?

      That sounds like the thought processes of freedom-hating, terrorist-supporting, troop-undermining Democrat to me.

    95. Re:again.. by Baseclass · · Score: 1

      Very well put indeed.

      --
      ^^vv<><>BA
    96. Re:again.. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      There is no crime of "intent" - only crimes of action. Anything else is "lurking with intent to loom."

      There is no "crime" of terrorism - only crimes of which terrorist acts are composed.

      You're actually agreeing with me. What I said is that you don't punish someone for an OPINION, you punish him committing the crime, and you punish him more for INTENDING to commit the CRIME - not his REASON for intending to commit the crime. In other words, the distinction is between commiting a crime unintentionally and doing so intentionally.

      WHY he committed the crime is not relevant to his punishment. To make it so makes it a "thought crime" which is, as usual, a slippery slope in which anybody who is in power can define virtually anything as a crime by speculating that it "might" lead to an actual criminal act.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    97. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically this post shows up after the MSNBC camera shot view of the state department "war room" which from a tech perspective looked anemic at best (After all we know now that NSA uses Talisker's).

      Anyee-who, the net is more about propaganda and information ops than cyber-attacks, but the mudane details of day to day use and communications is just not that sexy (e.g. what you have outlined). The State Dept. could use something like a spider to find out what others are saying about the US. It could minimally help avoid messages like Saudi Arabian women "have the right to drive". But in the end, it takes an intelligent and contemplative human to actually comprehend the context of gathered information, generate actionable intelligence, and craft a meaningful message. Much like Private IT, the focus is on "need tools", not those icky people issues (education, training, sensitivity, cultural diversity).

      Unfortunately, Government entities have proven themselves to not be a bastion of smarties.
      I would not be surprised if this was an intern's idea.
      lol.

    98. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of authoritarian drivel is that? Does the bank have the right to send ambiguous people to stop by and search/seize the property in your house just because, technically, even if you've paid off the mortgage, they still own the Illodial Title for the land which you've had the audacity to build a structure on? Hell no. If you park your car in a parking lot at Wal-Mart can the exec come out and commandeer your car because it's on his property? No.

      School locker/vehicle searches are just as completely stupid. The premise is that the lockers belong to the school and the student's cars are parked in the school's lot--but does the school claim to have the right to search the cars of parents who come by and pick the kids up? Hell no. If they tried they'd be fucked six ways to Sunday. Searching lockers and student's vehicles is clearly a crime of opportunity--a crime which has been upheld by ignorant courts who continually split hairs about whose property the crime was committed upon.

      Here's a tip. Your company cannot kill you just because you're on their property. They cannot (legally) spike the water cooler to make you sick in the interest of hounding you out the door for taking too many sick days. There is a line and ownership of your personal effects is on your side of that line. No matter how many times they claim it in some overreaching employee agreement the ownership of those effects (material or intellectual) does not belong to the company.

      I can't be bothered to sign a contract with everyone who sends an e-mail to me to legally prove that the communication was meant for me and is my property. Grow a spine sometime and start sticking up for "What's mine is mine... and not yours." Stop and think for a moment the implications of the crap you so easily spew. You've been so brainwashed by people who lust for complete control over everything that, for you, it seems incomprehensible that you have any rights to your own personal effects and property at all.

      Next time you show up to work, should you dare to put your coat in that little closet in your cube, we'll be keeping your coat. You're storing it inside of what is obviously company purchased equipment. That birthday card that your neice sent to you, we'll be keeping that too. Don't try to take that home. That came through the company mail system and was stored in a company mailbox.

      Unless we're reverting back to rule of the jungle you cannot honestly allow the companies to take whatever is within their reach just because it is within their reach.

    99. Re:again.. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Ah, I understand. Yes, I agree with you. :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    100. Re:again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should regret be taken into account in a crime in the first place?

      Everyone regrets a crime when they are caught.

    101. Re:again.. by Deathanyl · · Score: 1

      Of course thats what it's all about is watching the common people the agenda is to have us a police state by 2020, big brother is here he's just expanding and the internet is the last fronteer of freedom. It's like the survaliance, the only time you can be sure what your saying is when your face to face and criminals know that few use cell phones and like you said they slang it out ewhen they do. But the sheep don't notice as there privleges are stripped away, there privacy diminished and the social engeneering continues.

      --
      When Chaos Comes Only The Smart Survive
  2. Wrong name by Z1NG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its called Skynet. But it is looking for terorists...like Sarah Conner.

    1. Re:Wrong name by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 1

      How do you speak my language?

      Are you... Sarah Conner?

      --
      They're there affecting their effect.
  3. Google can help by Gopal.V · · Score: 1

    After all they have all our data in their cache and they are inside US jurisdiction as well. I don't see why US Gov has to develop something fresh and duplicate all the effort Google has put into their search engine.

    On the other hand, is NSA working with Google a bad thing for you ?

    1. Re:Google can help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhhhhh... they have to because google is not the gov and wont turn over data to them. do you seriously have to ask that question? seriously? of course thats bad for us if google and the nsa start working together. have we lost our collective minds here? when did it become blase to even ask such a thing? what a ridiculously stupid question.

    2. Re:Google can help by norman619 · · Score: 1

      Yeah even now I can do a google search on a handle I used way back in the 80's and early 90's (my highschool and college years) and find ALL of online postings I ever made. Hehehehe It was interesting to see how much my views have changed and how much I am still the same. :-)

  4. Wouldn't it be simpler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if the Government merely asked Google? Seems like it would save a whole lot of time and effort to me...

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler... by Pizentios · · Score: 1, Informative
      --
      -Pizentios
    2. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you think it is interesting which government Google stands up to and to which government Google says "How high, sir?".

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler... by chris234 · · Score: 1

      Unless the same request is coming from multiple governments, and Google says yes to one and no to another, no, nothing interesting.

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be simpler... by cb0nd · · Score: 1
      No, they didn't exactly do that. FTA you just linked:
      Google and US government lawyers asked for a February courtroom showdown to settle whether the Internet search giant should be forced to hand over records of search inquiries.
      That is very different from handing over some data about some websites, or some listings from content on the web. What they tried to do was to investigate the record of search inquiries, which means they are trying to take a peek at what you and I have been googling for.
  5. BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's see how well it works.
    Sorry slashdot.

    1. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not really anonymous when you post as an AC here...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Surt · · Score: 1

      The republicans already did that, twice, and look where it got us!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yeah, follow this guy's advice and register right now!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beat this: BUSH's daughter is BOMB I am SAD-DAMN!

    5. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by duerra · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not really anonymous when you post as an AC here...

      I've actually wondered about this. What protections does Slashdot place for AC posts? Are IP addresses hashed? Obviously they aren't thrown out completely, in order to cut down on spam bots, but I don't see any reason why IP addresses would need to be kept in their original form by Slashdot. With all the emphasis on privacy that the userbase here has, I would think that not doing everything possible to be as anonymous as possible while still protecting from abuse would draw a lot of criticism to Slashdot itself.

    6. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lets do a better test of this new system.

      I'm gonna shoot some Americans!

      Negative. No knock on the door.

      I'm gonna blow up the empire state building!

      Negative again.

      I'm gonna poisen the American food supplies!

      Negative yet again. Damn I might as well stop and start downloading some mp3s...

      KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK!

    7. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Do yo have somthing to hide?
      I don't ^^

    8. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Improv · · Score: 1

      You're probably going to confuse BushJr, and he might bomb the white house! That would be .. oh, yes, that would be bad. ;)

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    9. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by orthogonal · · Score: 1

      Negative yet again. Damn I might as well stop and start downloading some mp3s...

      Or organizing a protest against Diebold voting machines or George W. Bush.

      KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK!

    10. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Deep+Disco · · Score: 1

      See how it works in your own country if you want buddy, it's your life - but who said they could watch me? I didn't even get a chance to vote against these maniacs... The lesser of two evils just got a bit more evil

    11. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The sever keeps logs that look something like this
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:14 -0500] "GET /LabMage.css HTTP/1.1" 304 -
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:12 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 49238
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:15 -0500] "GET /index.php?=PHPE9568F34-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF4 2 HTTP/1.1" 200 4644
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:16 -0500] "GET /index.php?=PHPE9568F35-D428-11d2-A769-00AA001ACF4 2 HTTP/1.1" 200 2146
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:27 -0500] "POST /index.php HTTP/1.1" 200 9577
      127.0.0.1 - - [06/Feb/2006:12:43:29 -0500] "GET /toolbars/LocalePressed.png HTTP/1.1" 404 283
      which shows that Ip address 127.0.0.1, localhost, the time of access and the image LocalePressed.png wasn't found (I'll have to fix that).
      anything more detailed you'd probably have to download and analyse slashcode, most of the good stuff is probably in the karma system which I understand isn't under the GPL

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by rzebram · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that hashing of an IP address is worthless, since there is a very finite quantity of them, they come in predictable patterns, and anybody could easily create a table holding the hash of every single possible IP address. Get a list of all possible hashes, and it's trivial to just convert the hashes straight back into the real numbers.

      Encrypting them with a big-ass private key would work, but how do you know that the government hasn't already cracked the encryption technology that you're using or that they can't simply bruteforce your key. Again, with a predictable IP address format, you just bruteforce until you get something that has 4 octets, and bam, private key.

    13. Re:BUSH BOMB WHITE HOUSE by Paperweight · · Score: 1

      Now that his comment has been posted, I wonder if we will ever see him again...

  6. minority report by dotpavan · · Score: 1

    Yesterday, Bush saw Minority report (the movie), and and was totalllllly impressed with it. You see the result here.

    1. Re:minority report by hkgroove · · Score: 1

      "Cheney, where can we get some of them heebee-jeebee people, they're not like that lady from Jamaica"

    2. Re:minority report by kypper · · Score: 1

      Does that mean they have to throw out all those Iraq-Al Qaeda links provided by Ms Cleo?

  7. Spyware? by superub3r · · Score: 1

    Is it only me who associates "Alexa's WebSearch" With spyware/adware? I swear I remember removing this before, and not liking it, as I didn't put it there.

    1. Re:Spyware? by magical_trevor · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure it comes bundled with IE on windows XP, but since it collects data about sites you visit (although it can't be traced to you), many programs regard it as a form of spyware, I know Spybot S&D does.

    2. Re:Spyware? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No it's not bundled with IE - it probably installed itself when you were browsing.

    3. Re:Spyware? by AnotherDaveB · · Score: 1

      Cringely interviewed Brewster Kahle - the man who created Alexa.

    4. Re:Spyware? by databyss · · Score: 1

      and of course it can be traced back to you.

      All data on the internet can be traced, it just depends on how much effort they decide to put into it.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    5. Re:Spyware? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      All data on the internet can be traced, it just depends on how much effort they decide to put into it.

      Yeah, and I'm sure that the logs from 0wnedbox.comcast.net will provide many valuable leads for the feds.

      "I'd like to point out that this tape has not been tampered with or edited in any way. It even has a timecode on it, and those are very hard to fake."

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  8. The Erosion of America by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Proponents of this initiative boast that other data mining systems, such as Starlight, have already proven their worth in the fight against terrorism. However, given the fact that the current administration knew full well that Osama bin Laden intended to use hijacked airliners as missiles in a terrorist strike, but chose not to act, and that the CIA managed to uncover this information without a wholesale violation of the privacy of American citizens, I really can't see the justification here.

    Why exactly does the Bush administration need such vast amounts of information to conduct their 'war on terror'? And why were they unable to use the perfectly good intel they did possess to thwart the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil?

    One thing's for sure...it doesn't really matter whether the people OK this initiative or not, as Dubya & Company have amply demonstrated a complete contempt for the law of the land.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The Erosion of America by Dining+Philanderer · · Score: 0

      Instructions:

      First - Claim the following: Bush is evil, Bush knew/approved 9/11.
      Second - Claim that privacy is the single most important issue in the land. Criminals sure want their privacy and think wiretaps are not cool.
      Third - Quote a pseudo news source that doesn't take 5 minutes to figure out is probably funded by some George (Clooney or Soros - doesn't matter).
      Last - Lather, rinse, repeat as many times as deep voices making it through tin foil hat demand.

      Result:
      Rake in the mod points

      Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as an algorithm since there is not definite end state.

      --
      Are we perfect? No. But where I should move when I renounce my U.S. citizenship, North Korea, Libya, China, or Iran?
    2. Re:The Erosion of America by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see.... there's an election for a new president in two years time. Start looking for a candidate who can win AND who feels that this is a bad operating method. In the meanwhile you can a) lay low or b) plan for the potential that your activities will get you into trouble ie: retain yourself a good civil rights attorney and keep him/her informed of exactly what you are doing and act on the advice you've paid for.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:The Erosion of America by kfg · · Score: 1

      Why exactly does the Bush administration need such vast amounts of information to conduct their 'war on terror'?

      So that we live in terror of them.

      KFG

    4. Re:The Erosion of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could say the Clinton administration was directly responsible for what happened in Oklahoma City. One could say Clinton knew about the threat Islamic extremest posed in 1993, and yet he did nothing in return because he was a cold hearted bastard. (This is the part where I turn this around so I don't appear to be an ignorant troll) If the US took every threat made against them seriously the need for preemptive strikes would rise and this is generally considered a bad thing.

    5. Re:The Erosion of America by kypper · · Score: 1

      Are we perfect? No. But where I should move when I renounce my U.S. citizenship, North Korea, Libya, China, or Iran?

      That's like saying that living in a trash can isn't perfect, but it's better than living in the dump. Wouldn't you rather move into a home?

    6. Re:The Erosion of America by idhindsight · · Score: 0
      One could also argue that making counterpoints against arguments that criticise the current administration by hilighting errors in the previous administration, solely because you feel that antagonists of the current administration hold their beliefs because they are on the other side of the proverbial aisle is fucking asinine.

    7. Re:The Erosion of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the current administration knew full well that Osama bin Laden intended to use hijacked airliners as missiles in a terrorist strike, but chose not to act

      It's not hard to see why. Is it?

      Since 9/11, the US federal government has gained significantly more power over the people, recieves significantly more tax revenue, holds significantly more influence on business (where the money is), and is significantly easier to leverage for the benefit of the power elite.

      Now, is anyone still wondering why the US government chose not to act?

      Let's be men and admit that government acts in self-interest, just like each and every one of us. The difference, of course, is that government holds the unique "right" to employ coercion as the means to an end. Same way it's been since government was invented. Same way it will be until government is abolished (although not in our lifetimes).

  9. Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    password protected blogs? (http_auth or registration required).

    the f*wits stomping over regular folks and missing the perps.

    <sigh>

  10. Spider info by inter+alias · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IP ranges and user agent please.

    Also, does it obey robots.txt?

    www.terrorists.evil

    User-agent: US-govt
    Disallow: /

    1. Re:Spider info by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      They'll be known pretty fast.

      If it *doesn't* obey robots.txt then it'll find itself in my firewall scripts pretty damned fast along with the other rogue search engines.

    2. Re:Spider info by FreeMars · · Score: 1

      Also...
      <Directory "/var/www/html/EvilPlots">
      Order deny,allow
      Deny from US-govt
      ErrorDocument 404 http://www.terrorists.evil/404_not_found.html
      </Directory>

      and how about...
      https://www.terrorists.evil/some_URL_not_indexed_b y_Google.html
      ...not every page on the Net has a link to it!

      --
      Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
    3. Re:Spider info by inter+alias · · Score: 1

      Hey, their problem has already been solved

    4. Re:Spider info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not every page on the Net has a link to it!

      True, but if a page is visited by someone who uses the Alexa toolbar on their browser, or uses one of the browsers that has Alexa's technology integrated out-of-the-box, then the page gets added to Alexa's database of spidering starting points.

      Also, from RTFA, it sounds like ADVISE will be doing more than just Alexa-style webcrawling, and rely on sniffing packets as well (how else would it acquire the contents of peoples' emails?).

      Encryption isn't the answer, either, because a packet-sniffer would still be able to see the IP addresses of those sending and receiving encrypted packets. If all traffic to/from those IP's are encrypted, it could be flagged for more in-depth traffic pattern analysis (how many systems only deal in encrypted information? Special-casing these few systems for extended analysis of systems these systems communicate with, and with the systems those systems communicate with, would have relatively low overall resource cost), and if all traffic to/from those IP's are not encrypted, then the cleartext traffic could be used to determine how interesting the encrypted traffic might be. Common use of encryption (like, lots of http interspersed with the occasional https to/from known commercial vendors like Amazon) can be weeded out, and traffic not fitting any common pattern will stick out like a sore thumb. Either way encryption could attract unwanted attention.

  11. EDGAR by Angafirith · · Score: 1

    I submit that it would have been really cool if they named it "EDGAR".

    --
    "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." - Voltaire
    1. Re:EDGAR by SpeakerToManagers · · Score: 1

      Or, somewhat in advance of Valentine's day, Mary.
      (Hint: what deceased director of the FBI was a closet cross-dresser?)

      You know, given that the topic of thethread is privacy, this post and its parent ought to get a couple of extra points for irony.

      SpeakerToManagers

    2. Re:EDGAR by scotbot · · Score: 1

      Or else Emmanuel Goldstein - that is, the mythical terrorist in 1984 the Party use to terrorise their citizenry into submission. Rather like old Uncle Osama who died of renal failure who always seems to pop up at the most opportune times for buddy Bush, all thanks to modern media wizardry.

  12. Is this starting to create a bigger problem? by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    Which is a bigger problem in America.. terrorism or the methods the Federal Government are using to fight terrorism?

    All I ever hear about is how the Islamists are blowing themselves up like complete idiots in the Middle East.. and how the US Government is blowing money left and right for expensive terrorism-fighting trinkets that a half-way vigilant population could render obsolete.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:Is this starting to create a bigger problem? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I seem to provide this quotation quite frequently these days. It was said by Lord Hoffman, sitting as a British Law Lord, in their ruling on the UK detention-without-trial fiasco a few months back:

      "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws like these."

      And, unlike the rest of us, the Law Lords sitting in that case presumably did have access to any classified information they required. It's very convenient that the government can always tell us how its draconian policies are protecting us from imminent doom (but they can't tell us how for security reasons). That argument is rather less powerful when its critics include people on the inside who would be well aware of the full facts.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Is this starting to create a bigger problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you even need to ask this question? of course what our gov is doing is hurting us more. plain and simple. how many americans are affected directly by terrorists? ummm... probably under 5000.

      and how many people do the stupid laws, the sapping of information, the data mining, the loss of freedoms, the loss of constitutional rights affect? ummm... everyone in the country.

      terrorists might be more frightening, but bush is much more evil because no matter how many people a terrorists hurts, bush can and literally does hurt ALL of us with a signature.

    3. Re:Is this starting to create a bigger problem? by srmalloy · · Score: 1
      Which is a bigger problem in America.. terrorism or the methods the Federal Government are using to fight terrorism?

      In the spirit of a line from the Vietnam War, "We have to destroy your freedom in order to save it."

  13. Big Brother ADVISEs you! by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how long it will be before this system is used for political and/or selfish purposes?

    George Orwell would be writing non-fiction if he were alive today.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Big Brother ADVISEs you! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny
      I wonder how long it will be before this system is used for political and/or selfish purposes?

      Oh, I'd say in about 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... [signal terminated]

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Big Brother ADVISEs you! by NewKimAll · · Score: 1

      Not long at all. It will happen. This could also be a way to create a "SkyNet" type of Artificial Intelligence as we all know and love in the Terminator movies.
      --
      I believe Hollywood has already created several documentaries about the end of human civilization. We just happen to call it Sci-Fi.

    3. Re:Big Brother ADVISEs you! by jcaldwel · · Score: 1

      War is peace Freedom is slavery Ignorance is strength

  14. Spider every email? by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    So are they going to setup huge Carnivore boxes at every telecom hub in the world? How on Earth are they going to catch real-time communications with this without violating every criminal statute in the US that protects the 4th amendment?

    1. Re:Spider every email? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Since they're already violating the 4th Amendment, why do you think they'd start worrying about it now?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Spider every email? by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      My question as well. TFA made mention of data-mining public information on the 'Net AND email. To me, these are two vastly different propositions. If they are merely spidering the Web, good on 'em. It is publicly available information; there is no expectation of privacy when I post this comment on a public forum such as /., so I don't see this as an invasion of privacy. However, I DO have an expectation of privacy in my personal correspondence, that I DID NOT make publicly available to anyone with Web access. As MikeRT points out, intercepting and data-mining my email is every bit as un-constitutional as the government opening and reading my snail-mail letters. Not to mention, costly and difficult to do quietly.

      Having gotten that off my chest, I doubt the gov't is data-mining email. Much more likely is that the writer of the article doesn't understand the technical and legal distinctions between my /. comments and my email, but simply lumps them all in with "Internet stuff".

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    3. Re:Spider every email? by hsmith · · Score: 1

      the constitution has been dead for a long time. they don't abide by it, but we are expected to. how fair!

    4. Re:Spider every email? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1
      the constitution has been dead for a long time. they don't abide by it, but we are expected to. how fair!

      Maybe it's time to VOTE LIBERTARIAN

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Spider every email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think the conservative's packed the court?

      The constition does NOT apply to any technology created after its signing... strict conservative interpretation that will be applied going forward now that the moderate judge is gone...

      Now that King Dick and Prince George IV rule the land there isn't anything to stop the completion of facsist conversion; Nazi's finally won although it took 60 years to complete the conversion of the US to facsism.

    6. Re:Spider every email? by hsmith · · Score: 1

      but i do!

    7. Re:Spider every email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...It would collect a vast array of corporate and public online information - from financial records to CNN news stories... "

      Sorry, but my (and I would assume pretty much everyone's) 'financial records' are NOT 'public online information'. So the either the reporter doesn't know what he's talking about, or they're collecting more than 'public' online info. I'd like to believe the former - but I don't.

    8. Re:Spider every email? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Well said. I agree; I have no problem at all with the USG spidering and indexing regular web content -- by putting something on the web you're publishing it, so what they're doing isn't really anything different from what Google is, except that I doubt that they'll obey robots.txt (which I don't think there is any legal requirement to do anyway), and they want to do a lot of fairly sophisticated datamining and visualization on the resultant data.

      Good for them. I'm not sure it's a particularly useful thing to spend my tax dollars on in regards to the War on Terror -- I'd much rather they put more police officers in major cities -- but that's a different issue than the one of civil liberties.

      If they started indexing email, then it becomes a little more suspect, since that's really communications interception, not just caching information that's already publicly available. It's the difference between recording a speech I gave while standing on a soapbox and yelling to an anonymous crowd, and tapping my phone. The former they (and everyone else) have full right to do, there's no (or shouldn't be) assumption of privacy on a public blog. But the second requires some degree of reasonable suspicion, or selection criteria -- e.g., I want them tapping particular people's phones and emails for particular reasons that can be reviewed later (and probably with a warrant), not just tapping everyone's phones and seeing what they can sift out.

      However I think it's getting to the point, and I've made this point from time to time, where there's not really any assumption of privacy by an intelligent person of unencrypted data communications. Emails are like postcards, and whatever you write in them ought not to be anything you're not comfortable having coming back to haunt you. I think you're going to see that argument more and more, as the mystique of computers fades and more people realize how open their email is, as it's passing through the network. Frankly that assumption never should have existed in the first place, and we're going to see it go away eventually. Then it will become an issue of whether they have a warrant not to "intercept" the communication, but to forcibly decrypt it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  15. Seems to me. by Pizentios · · Score: 0

    Seems to me, that there is a country already doing something like this. Only they block the content. It's China. What's the difference? Not enough to argue about. Not sure how they think they can use it on emails, since all it'd take is some lite encryption to stop em. Another waste of money and time, while monitoring net-citizens that shouldn't be. When's the revolution going to happen? Cause at this rate, that's what going to have to happen to get back freedom.

    --
    -Pizentios
  16. Robots by krgallagher · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Perhaps as one of the first high profile uses of Alexa's WebSearch Platform, the U.S. government plans to search, link and reference every news site, blog and email on the Internet, using sophisticated AI codenamed ADVISE to do the correlations."

    I don't suppose this is going to honor the rules in my robots.txt.

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

    1. Re:Robots by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then it'll get firewalled just like the engines that spammers use.

      I have a script that automatically notifies me if a certain page is accessed - this page is in robots.txt, and very hard (damn near impossible infact) to click on accidentally.

      Robots that access that page get firewalled. I don't give a shit if it's the US government (or a spammer claiming to be the US government)... if they don't obey my 'keep out' signs they lose their right to see my website.

    2. Re:Robots by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      The nice thing is that if it doesn't, you can trap it forever in a recursive link search.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Robots by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Brilliant, could please please provide me with that script?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:Robots by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      Just give me an ip range, and I guarantee it will follow the rules I set for it.

  17. ADVISE by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unlike traditional dataveilance like Echelon, ADVISE aims to find terrorists before they strike and even deduce their motivations in wanting to commit their crimes.

    "Hmm... ADVISE seems to think the terrorists are fed up with the 'nazi-like spy regime,' and are planning to use undead monsters to attack its servers.

    Also, the terrorists want more boobies."

    This was a good use of a few billion dollars to Haliburton.

    1. Re:ADVISE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny. Let me guess. Without doing a search, you can't name a single other company that is doing business in Iraq can you?

  18. Yes, they could've used Google by mi · · Score: 1
    But the search engine isn't cooperating (just another sign of the rising Fascism, of course).

    And Yahoo! too may decide to fight the next US government request to "atone" for the arrests of Chinese dissidents.

    They know their users — worldy and sophisticated, so good at seeing the other side, most lose sight of their own.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  19. It won't work. by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Terrorists already know how to work around this stuff for critical communications. Go low tech. Don't use phones, don't use email, don't use the web. The method that Al Queda uses to get the videos to the media demonstrate that they already have a very good low tech infrastructure to do this.

    This just looks like the security people are getting desprate and trying to cast a wider net. The secret wiretaps used on citizens was a wide net that seems to have had poor results.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  20. wow by Politburo · · Score: 1

    s/TIA/ADVISE, anyone?

  21. Let me let you in on a little hint... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's not about terrorism. It's about making sure that you are paying your absurdly high taxes, making sure you don't own guns, being politically correct, supporting all wars (foreign and domestic), and supporting a world government socialist super state. This is why I voted for Bush: because I am a trotskyite communist and feel that communism needs to be spread around the world by force.

  22. Yet another technical solution to a human problem by Wyrdwright · · Score: 1

    Armchair solutions to projected problems, yet again. Funny how nobody proposes anything that might actually require work or making changing spending habits.

    Just keep kicking that tarbaby. You'll lick it one day.

  23. Another sad day by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I had no idea the loss of personal freedoms would be so fast. This thing will not be given to Google to do (as some earlier post asked) as they intend to do illegal and pernicious things with it. I am glad I can remember the world when it was free but sorry for my children who will know nothing but surveillance, total information awareness, and AI face recog as normal.

    What a way to deal with resource depletion!

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    1. Re:Another sad day by darjen · · Score: 1
      I am glad I can remember the world when it was free

      I doubt this country has ever really been free, despite the lip service. The liberties here have been continuously eroded since the beginning of the constitution. Still a degree freer than most tyrannies though, to be sure. But even that is rapidly disappearing.

  24. The quote that annoys me... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool."

    Excuse me?

    If what he says is true, then it's possible that the technology has been used to protect our lives. Our freedoms are a different matter. Which of the two you consider to be the more important is a pretty strong indicator of whether you're a free country or a police state.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:The quote that annoys me... by edumacator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very true. It seems that there are a lot of folks out there, in both political parties, who are confusing safety and freedom. The irony seems apparent to me. Freedom, by its very nature, compromises much of our security.

      Finding a balance between the two is important, and the politically expedient simplification of the two into one will never help us truly balance these two important principles.

    2. Re:The quote that annoys me... by aug24 · · Score: 1

      When the politicians start deliberately misusing words to muddy the water, you know they are up to something.

      Blair has started using this tactic over here too. He referred to "the civil liberty to walk down the street without being bombed".

      A lawyer like him should know exactly what a civil liberty is - it is the liberties with which the state will not interfere.

      ("First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers")

      An unamusing aside on govt lies here: a committee of MPs recently concluded that a cabinet minister had deliberately said something that he knew to be untrue to parliament. However, they also concluded that he had not lied. I have no idea how that works, unless it is a rather desperate whitewash.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:The quote that annoys me... by iceperson · · Score: 1

      yeah, because when you're dead your free to... um, well, Bush sucks!

    4. Re:The quote that annoys me... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      When the politicians start deliberately misusing words to muddy the water, you know they are up to something.

      Talking?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:The quote that annoys me... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because terrorists kill so many Americans, you know fnord fnord.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:The quote that annoys me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you die, you die. Big deal. Everybody dies sometime.
      There is no way to improve the experience.
      (unless you are muslim and believe in the whole 72 virgins thing)

      Freedom is about how you live before the dying part.

    7. Re:The quote that annoys me... by Dhaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give me liberty or give me death!- Patrick Henry

      If you're so afraid of being killed by terrorists that you will consistently choose safety before
      your own personal freedoms...

      then those who wish to destroy our nation have already won.

      --
      It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn .sig
    8. Re:The quote that annoys me... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      If you're so afraid of being killed by terrorists that you will consistently choose safety before your own personal freedoms then those who wish to destroy our nation have already won.

      I agree. Why are the politicians (and mainly the macho Republican ones at that) such cowardly pussies? Next time I'm at a family gathering, I intend to use this point against my idiot conservative brother by telling him to watch out for terrorists each time he opens a cabinet or drawer.

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:The quote that annoys me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If what he says is true, then it's possible that the technology has been used to protect our lives. Our freedoms are a different matter. Which of the two you consider to be the more important is a pretty strong indicator of whether you're a free country or a police state."

      Actually I would say a police state has more interest in your freedoms than a free country just for the fact they treasure your freedom to remain silent, but don't particularly care if your dead - 10 here, couple hundred there; it matters not, as long as you pay them if your alive then all they care about is themselves. In a free country they care about you being alive, they need you to keep them in power - if your dead they can't use you. That's why they don't want you to have freedoms, makes it easier for them to do what they want - freedoms just get in the way of things.

      Or is it just me?

    10. Re:The quote that annoys me... by mpe · · Score: 1

      If what he says is true, then it's possible that the technology has been used to protect our lives.

      The claim that this system is of any use is the unsubstantiated word of someone who is basically a "salesman", which can hardly be taken as proof of anything.

  25. Exactly how by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    are they going to monitor e-mail?

    Blogs and news sites are things we publish to the world and are easy to spider. Emails are private communications. In order to monitor them you have to either intercept them in transit or search records on private servers. Even if the email is available via webmail, you have to gain unauthorized access in a way that is generally considered trespass.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Exactly how by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Especially since the US government has no rights at all beyond its borders. If a US government server attempts to hack my email account in the UK I will not only firewall it I'll be reporting them under the computer misuse act.

    2. Re:Exactly how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Emails are private communications

      you gotta be kidding -- first thing they tell you is the email is no more private/secure than a post card. If you are sending unencrypted email with an expectation of privacy, you are seriously kidding yourself.

      Now, should the feds have the right to spider publicly accessible information? Yes, but I don't have to like it.

      How are they going to intercept email? I'm wondering if this is really going to happen unless they are talking about free web mail.

    3. Re:Exactly how by hey! · · Score: 1

      you gotta be kidding -- first thing they tell you is the email is no more private/secure than a post card.

      Well, does that mean the government can search your house looking for postcards?

      Or order the post office to send them scans of eveyrbody's postcards before they are delivered?

      You can't count on somebody inadvertently seeing something that's on a postcard. Buy you can count on it being illegal for somebody, especially the government, to intercept them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Exactly how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think they're not checking your emails already? they don't need to hack into anything. This from the Reg in 2001.

    5. Re:Exactly how by hrieke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fairly easy to intercept email- just place a server on the network that reports false routing times and the data will flow (path of least restistance).
      And if you don't think that's possible, there was a case in MA where a rare book dealer did just that, he was intercepting emails for Amazon.com that where keyworded on certain books.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    6. Re:Exactly how by payndz · · Score: 1
      Exactly how... are they going to monitor e-mail?

      That would be Echelon's job. They're already monitoring your email. Used words like 'bomb' 'al-Qaeda', 'assassinate', 'hijack' or 'Allahu akbar!' in an email? The Echelon computers at NSA, GCHQ or any of the other members of the UKUSA intelligence alliance will already have flagged it for further investigation. In fact, I expect a knock at the door any seco

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    7. Re:Exactly how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do. In fact, they have for years. Ever heard of carnivore? Large isps have had to have "equipment" from government agencies monitoring suspects for some time. The devices get access to ALL email running through the servers and not just a copy of the person they have a warrent for. (if they do at all)

      This was known in 1999 and nothing new. I think the government is just expanding it at this point.

      My wife sent a letter about carnivore to a congressmen and got a reply from the FBI in 2000 right after we were married. I assume there is a file on her now. She was told it was "not a glorified packet sniffer."

    8. Re:Exactly how by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      just place a server on the network that reports false routing times

      What is a "false routing time", how would a "server" report them, and to whom?

      That explanation is fuzzy enough to make me, as a network engineer for an ISP, suspicious of your understanding of routing.

      There are ways for rogue route advertisements to make it into interior or exterior routing protocols, but those ways are not "fairly easy".

    9. Re:Exactly how by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      Alright. I now call BS on this comment. Extremely vague and borderline nonsensical details followed by a refusal to clarify are the hallmarks of someone who has no clue. As is the *uncited* reference to "some guy" who did "just what I'm saying".

      I'm not saying that it's impossible to hijack someone's network space and advertise it as your own to the public internet, but it is not tenable that a routing scheme could only intercept certain email traffic based on keywords. Internet core routing has no application awareness, so either all IP traffic destined for Amazon would be misdirected--or none.

  26. Deduce their motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, there's no need for technical measures when "the terrorists" have plainly and clearly presented their reasons for years. Either the administration is hoping this technical solution will deduce new more pleasing motivations or this is just yet another case of handing money to defence contractors for bogus services. I don't know which is worse...

  27. It's not terrorists they want to control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.'
    -Winston Smith

  28. robots.txt by dindi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I am sure they will obey robots.txt and they will present a uniq user agent string.

    YEAH RIGHT!

    1. Re:robots.txt by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Everyone should all add entries to their robots.txt to keep Alexa (or whoever the government is using) out of our sites completely. If the spider didn't respect the robots.txt I would think there would be grounds for a civil suit. Of course, their IPs could always be added to the firewalls to keep the spiders out. iptables could probably be configured to recognize the packets as well.

      Personally I'll restrict their access if I can to my sites. Why would I want to waste bandwidth on a spider that's not putting me in a valid search engine or driving real traffic to my site?

  29. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA doesn't have permission to connect to my web server or cache any of the contents thereof. They ought to be prosecuted under computer crime laws for unauthorized use of a computer resource. Furthur, unauthorized caching amounts to copyright infringement.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DJProtoss · · Score: 1

      > unauthorized caching amounts to copyright infringement. No. it doesn't. There was a recent ruling on this wrt google.

      --
      "Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, it does when the caching spider ignores robots.txt. From that recent ruling:
      Field created a robots.txt file for his site and set the permissions within this file to allow all robots to visit and index all of the pages on the site. See Field Dep. at 46:10-16; Levine Report 31. Field created the robots.txt file because he wanted search engines to visit his site and include the site within their search results. See Field Dep. at 46:2-4, 17-23.

      Even assuming Fields copyrighted works are as creative as the works at issue in Kelly, like Kelly, Field published his works on the Internet, thereby making them available to the world for free at his Web site. See First Am. Compl. 8, 10; see also Field Dep. at 94:10-19. Moreover, Field added a robots.txt file to his site to ensure that all search engines would include his Web site in their search listings. Field thus sought to make his works available to the widest possible audience for free.
      The DHS/NSA/whoever has a responsibility to use a recognizable user-agent header so anyone who wants to can block their spider. And ignoring robots.txt is copyright infringement.
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP by DJProtoss · · Score: 1

      Actually, from reading the order (google_nevada_order.pdf) It would seem the use of the robots.txt merely had relevance wrt implied licence, and that google would most likely have won even if it had deliberatly ignored the robots.txt - specifically this paragraph:

      To demonstrate copyright infringement, "the plaintiff must show ownership of the copyright and copying by the defendant." Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 17 U.S.C. 501. A plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement. See Religious Tech. Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc'n Servs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct infringement requires a volitional act by defendant; automated copying by machines occasioned by others not sufficient); CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 555 (4th Cir. 2004) ("Agreeing with the analysis in Netcom, we hold that the automatic copying, storage, and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP strictly liable for copyright infringement under 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act."). (emphasis mine). Note that in this they are not considering the initial caching of the file (that is covered later in the 'fair use' ruling), but the system providing copies of the cache to users of the system in an automated manner on the users request.

      Of course, the most simple reason why the robots.txt quote you provided does not prove your point is faulty logic: Just because the court has ruled that an explicit allow in a robots.txt makes it ok, doesn't mean they have ruled that an explicit ban in a robots.txt makes it illegal to cache, although I grant that it raises the chances (specifically this is an example of reversing implication for you logic fans: A->B does not mean that A -> B ( it does mean that B -> A, but that is a different story :) )

      --
      "Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
  30. Cover by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    the US Govt already knows almost everything about its own people, now its looking for information on everyone else...

  31. Password protected websites by doormat · · Score: 1

    I dont suppose that the terrorists would figure out how to password protect a webpage or forum to keep the gov't out. Really its probably just some program to spy on the blogosphere, particularly those who oppose the current administration's agenda.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  32. Hang on... by pubjames · · Score: 1

    Every email? So the government is going to be accessing the email of every American citizen in the freedom loving United States of America? Something wrong there...

    The lack of thinking behind these schemes really bug me. What kind of terrorist is going to announce their attack on a blog? What kind of terrorist group communicates plans via email? They government will spend billions on this and catch a few dissaffected youths - which they'll say proves it is working. Meanwhile, Bin Laden is apparently still going about his business as usual, and Iraq is a new breeding ground for terrorists.

    Now I've made myself depressed...

    1. Re:Hang on... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's It. I'm going to start using ecryption. I used to think, oh well, who cares, nothing important is in my email, but I feel like everyone should now be encrypting email just to show them that we really don't want them snooping around. We gave them freedom and trusted them. Now they are taking that trust away.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Hang on... by Winlin · · Score: 1

      The government of the United Sates is very freedom loving. Unfortunately they define freedom as "Our administration has the freedom to do anything we see fit, whether or not it is legal."
            As for the citizens, apparently we have the abundant freedom to sit back and be grateful for all this protection we are being given. Granted, that may end up being the only freedom we have, but damnit we are supposed to be thankful for it.

  33. Terrorists... by db32 · · Score: 1

    Somehow I doubt this is not going to be abused in the worst ways. Just watch...they will name the group that monitors this beast Thought Police...and then later decide that sounds just as bad as Total Information Awareness, and go back and change it to Terrorist Police.

    I also think its interesting that this really opens a MUCH larger can of worms in fact that this is a global thing. It really shouldn't be considered spying since it is looking at things that have been put out into the public, but it most certainly is an attempt to at least watch everyone.

    But we don't have much to worry about, noone on slashdot posts dissenting views about anything...

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  34. "to do the correlations" by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 1

    What correlations. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  35. Thought Crime == Future Crime by Un-Thesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It goes beyond George Orwell's dystopian vision wherein a person can be punished for merely expressing sentiments that some AI may view as a likely vector for future anti-Establishment rhetoric; e.g. pre-crime Thought Crime.

    By specifically targetting blogs (as email is already heavily trolled) who they're really going after are anti-Establishment political activists who won't be silenced. E.g. people like myself, HopeSeekr of xMule, who make distributed tools to prevent this fascism from ever *totally* clamping down on freedom of speech/expression.

    Since the 380 Milliion dollar concentration camps capable of holding a million plus people are already being built, the only question is when will you be prompted to act (even as little as developing a program for open systems such as xMule, which is designed for the BSDs and Linux)? When the stormtroopers demand your papers? When your sister's head meets the butt of a soldier's gun? When you are shot protecting her? When?

    The questions aren't if and when, they're now how bad and will your loved ones survive.

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
    1. Re:Thought Crime == Future Crime by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Listen, this is nothing to worry about.

      The powerful men who run this world don't want it to turn into a dystopian nightmare. After all, they're the ones who would be stuck owning it.

      Besides, this thing is being built by the government and those who work for the government. In other words, it won't actually do anything. Probably they'll just build a huge war room with a lot of blinking lights so that they can impress visitors and keep the funding coming.

      Examples:
      http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/ts/122805ns aspying/im:/060125/ids_photos_ts/r3992050078.jpg;_ ylt=AgjzYqD_wIQa7YoOayVYmANiWscF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3dmhr OGVvBHNlYwNzc20-
      http://tyranno.saur.us/rex/link/?id=33953
      Money shot:
      http://tyranno.saur.us/cache/2006/February/6/nsa-w izard_33954.jpg

      And that is the NSA, the crown jewel of this system.

      So long as the government is run by incompetents, and as long as only incompetents agree to be complicit in the current move toward whatever we're moving toward, I'm sleeping easy.

    2. Re:Thought Crime == Future Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? I know to expect radical tinfoil hatism on Slashdot, but you sir take the cake, the gold medal, the trophy, the car, or any other prize you can think of.

    3. Re:Thought Crime == Future Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one name:

      Hitler

      Here's another one:

      Stalin

      Want more?

    4. Re:Thought Crime == Future Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You laugh now...

      What you have to understand is that there are people in the world whose sole purpose, sole driving force in life is to see how miserable they can make everyone else (and, of course, profit along the way). I think alot of the problems in the world are caused not by someone trying to help themselves but someone trying to hurt others. Frankly, it's incomprehensible to me, for I have a soul, something that differentiates (hopefully) you as well as I from the filth in positions of relative power. No doubt many people would sleep a bit easier if such a question were answered with something other than "no *oink* comment."

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. public vs private by DeveloperAdvantage · · Score: 1

    I can see if this is restricted to information which is already public, then it is much harder to make an argument that it is invasion of privacy.

    On the other hand, it is certainly another step along the way to increasing surveillance on the general population, and I can see they would ultimately want to combine this information with other information which is not public, like credit card purchases or wiretaps.

    Given the size of the deficit, combined with google not releasing search history data, perhaps they should develop and launch their own search engine and try generate some revenue!

    --
    FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
  38. Something I've always wondered... by CptPicard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is it that it is always the US government that seems to have been up to all this stuff since WW2 and increasingly even after the Cold War? I thought you were supposed to be the people from the land of the free and whatnot, really suspicious of government intrusion into people's lives, et cetera. Considering that a lot of you are always willing to disparage the Europeans for their love-affair with government, I certainly wish a lot of you would just take the log out of your own eye first... it's your government, despite all the rhetoric, that is horribly control-mongering at home and eager to support whatever right-wing dictator abroad, while ours concentrate more on making sure that kids with cancer don't die in the name of economic efficiency should they be unfortunate enough to be born to parents of financially limited means.

    Go ahead, mod me troll/flamebait... at least I won't post this AC.

    --
    I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    1. Re:Something I've always wondered... by Tony · · Score: 1

      Yeah, see, the problem with Europe is that it's compassionate, and y'all are athiestic heathens. You don't follow the example of Jesus Christ, and invade countries to take out ruthless dictators that stop following the orders of the US. That's why we put them there in the first place, Goddamnit!

      I mean, if you can't trust a dictator you put in power, who can you trust?

      Forget all this "it's for the children" drivel. If you trot that out every time it really is for the children, you'll never be able to use it for stuff like controlling on-line porn. Didn't Jesus teach you anything?

      And in the Book of Economics 3:12, Jesus clearly states, "Corporate oversight is as a fart in a closed room; lo, though it shall make you feel better, it doth raise a stink unto the Lord, and is gaseous in His sight." (Bible, New Presidential Version.) The taking of profit over people is an ancient tradition. Who are we to mess with it?

      "Compassion" is for anti-war pussies.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    2. Re:Something I've always wondered... by aug24 · · Score: 1
      I suspect that about 49.5% of Americans know and understand and agree with you.

      Sadly, traditionally, the Republicans have been the gun-totin' party. So now, just when the election of the thief-in-chief neans that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" finally applies, the guns are in the hands of the idiot 50.5% that voted Bush et al.

      Tell me God, why the fuck is Bill Hicks dead? We need him back, now.

      Go ahead, mod me troll/flamebait too.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:Something I've always wondered... by DJProtoss · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly, I just suspect its only the US government that does this publicly / gets caught doing it. If the former then I geuss they are at least the most honest. If the latter then simply the least competent. Take your pick

      --
      "Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
    4. Re:Something I've always wondered... by JK23 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The 50.5% of the Americans are too dumb to figure this stuff out. They think as long as they can get drunk, f*ck a few females (or males or both), they have their freedom. As long as they can eat at McDonalds, get fat; watch some tv, they're all set in life. This doesn't even consider the dumbazz we consider our prez who has all the technology in the world to find OBL but can't figure out what to do since his head is dipped in oil with his daddy.

    5. Re:Something I've always wondered... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I thought you were supposed to be the people from the land of the free and whatnot, really suspicious of government intrusion into people's lives, et cetera.

      We're more concerned with interference than intrusion. Of course, most people are more concerned with interference in their *own* lives than interference in someone else's.

    6. Re:Something I've always wondered... by bombadier_beetle · · Score: 1

      Your puerile and incoherent post doesn't exactly distinguish you from those whom you disparage.

      --

      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    7. Re:Something I've always wondered... by acercanto · · Score: 1

      It's because we've grown stupid and ignorant. We don't care what the government does enough anymore to do anything about it. A quote from good old Ben Frenklin:
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
      1759! that's a long time ago, and the only thing that's changed is us Americans. It's very sad. (Don't worry, I'm an American too)

      --
      You can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product: cheap, fast or good.
  39. superbowl tech by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    how does a 5 bladed razor help visualize data correlation?

  40. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

    No kidding, what a collosal waste of money. What is the point? This is my number one complaint about DHS. What the hell are they doing with our money? They sure were ready for a disaster (katrina).

    --
    Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  41. When "24" is the source of knowledge.. by broothal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone should have told them that 24 is not a reality show.

    Jack Bauer : Chloe, I'm sending you a picture. Can you datamine for him?
    Chloe O'Brian: Sure. send it to my screen.
    Computer: Blip...blip...blip.
    Chloe O'Brian: Jack - it's the well known terrorist named...

    1. Re:When "24" is the source of knowledge.. by Ours · · Score: 1

      I tend to think "24" is a little like 1984 but seen from the other end of the big brother camera (hey, think of the henchmen!). It actually gets quite funny seen like that.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
  42. Interesting by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't wait to see history books in about 100 years or so. Bin Laden's going to be up there with Sun Tzu and General Meade for the title of "greatest strategist ever."

    Singlehandedly causing the West to self-destruct is no small potatoes.

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

      Singlehandedly? He's had plenty of help from rich, white, conservative pussies.

    2. Re:Interesting by ticbot · · Score: 0

      "greatest strategist ever."

      Yes, thanks to congress' Al-Qaeda Bill Of Rights.

      buncha liberals... :/

    3. Re:Interesting by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      Yes, thanks to congress' Al-Qaeda Bill Of Rights...buncha liberals... :/

      You do remember that Congress has been under conservative control since 1994, and that all three branches of government are now in conservative hands? Can't really blame the liberals any more . . . now it can only be a conservative's fault.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    4. Re:Interesting by sasdrtx · · Score: 1

      What everyone is overlooking is that Bin Laden owns W, and is doing his bidding. Do his actions make any sense otherwise? Our government is not acting in the people's interest, or in "Big Oil's" interest. Only Bin Laden and al-Qada benefit from W's actions that I can see.

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    5. Re:Interesting by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      What everyone is overlooking is that Bin Laden owns W, and is doing his bidding

      That makes a very amusing image indeed. Osama in his cave, taking off his turban and entering a spherical life-support pod. A hologram of Emperor Bush appearing, and Bin Laden says "What is thy bidding, my master?"

    6. Re:Interesting by sasdrtx · · Score: 1

      Yes, very amusing... but I meant it to be vice-versa. I probably should have said "Bin Laden owns W, who is doing his bidding".

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    7. Re:Interesting by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      From the mouth of your grandchildren:
      "Grandpa, what's a history book?"

    8. Re:Interesting by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Bin Ladin isn't doing anything the French Resistance in WWII wasn't doing decades ago, he just has more communication tools to work with.

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

      If there are history books by then. You're absolutely right though, and the brutal irony of it is, America has become a nation of growing tyranny and oppression to stop what? Growing tyranny and oppression! I suppose that fascism doesn't count if we do it, though.

      I honestly hate to say this, but Osama won. Big time. You can take people's lives, ruin their economy, deface and destroy their country's monuments... but to attack their minds and crush their spirits is something else entirely. Case in point? Look at how Great Britain reacted to Nazi Germany launching attacks against it in World War 2, and you tell me whether or not they caved. Al Qaeda attacks us once and we roll over for them. Not only do we do exactly what they wanted us to do - cower in fear and run around with our thumbs up our asses - but instead of having to invade to institute their own tyrannical dictatorship, we already have one forming. How nice of us to do that for them.

    10. Re:Interesting by woolio · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, these "conservatives" aren't conserving much...

      Wasting lives, liberties, oil, money, and paper.

      These "conservatives" carpet-bombed TWO countries in TWO years, and balooned the national debt.

      I typically believe in small governement, reduced spending, etc, etc... Which is why I voted for Kerry -- a liberal???. Something really, really wrong is going on here.

    11. Re:Interesting by Paperweight · · Score: 1

      +1, 7 hours later

  43. You must be pretty old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must have lived before the federal reserve act and FDR because this country turned to shit when the "new deal" and "great society" came to be. The new deal is a raw deal. To say the United States is a shit country is to degrade the value of shit. At least with shit it can be used as fertilizer.

  44. "I'm sorry." by dstewart · · Score: 0

    That was bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.! Very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.!

    --
    Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
  45. does not work ... by mbaudis · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... but they expect you not to post as AC! Play by the rules, trarist!

  46. Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wars by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, this 911 wtc pretext incident is only the latest of a long history of the America elite using/allowing/manufacturing "pretext incidents" in order to start wars and grab power. See this page on HOW TO START A WAR.

    However, I think this War On Terror has opened the elite up to the future possibility, should there ever be an anti-elite grassroots political movement, that our current laws might be used against the elite in order to try them for treason. Historically, treason could only be used if someone worked for/aided a foreign govt which was an American enemy.
    Obviously, the War on Terror is not a war against a foreign govt.

    Thus, we can start a War On The Elite. They are really, of course, the real enemy of all Americans. Always have been, always will be. That realization is what seperates Europeans from Americans, at least in part. They realize it is TOP against BOTTOM. We do not.

    So try the elite in court for treason. We now have the legal precedent. Perhaps.

    Who are the elite? Higg level politicians, CEOs of megacorps, prominent leaders large think tanks and nonprofit foundations, rich people, lobbyists, etc.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  47. The jokes/fiction detracts... by Paraplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...from the seriousness of this.

    Modern times have led us into an age which reflects a lot of our worst fictional nightmares and we are allowing it to happen because we are accepting it because there is a "cmon, that was just a book/movie/joke. it won't *really* be like that" type of attitude.

    The fact is that this sort of "total information awareness" nonsense is absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, not a cute "quote" written for posterity, but a cold hard fact.

    I believe that crime is a necessary catalyst for change, and that many things that were illegal in the past are now no longer illegal because society has recognised that these "crimes" were overblown, and that the thinking of the time would have labelled every person a criminal. Today the vast majority of people are labelled criminals by one group or another.

    The point of all this is that a "Total Information Awareness" or a "Pre-emptive criminalisation" or even an instant criminalisation in the case of security cameras etc. lead us to a situation where our society is made up of criminals, 100% policing is necessary, and zero social change can ever occur.

    1. Re:The jokes/fiction detracts... by Un-Thesis · · Score: 1

      Finally some one gets it! Sadly, we're the minority and there's no place to run or move to. As soon as Internet 2.0 is here, we're all doomed.

      --
      Promote freedom; fight fascism.
    2. Re:The jokes/fiction detracts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1: I don't have an account with /., thus the AC post

      2: I agree that "The jokes/fiction detracts [sic]"...

      3: I must disagree with you, however, on your comment:


      "...that many things that were illegal in the past are now no longer illegal..."


      Do you have any evidence for this? It seems, to me, that more laws are passed, each year, criminalizing more, and more aspects of our lives -- not the other way around. E.g.: It's still illegal (90 days in jail, fines, &c.), in most places in the US, to spit on the sidewalk -- a leftover from the "White Plague" [Tuberculosis], about a century ago. Try a google search for outdated laws, for a brief glimpse of some that have caught the fancy of irate people with web presences.


      I *wish* that laws all came with something like a "sunset clause", but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule... and can be [and, often, is] worked around by litigious types.

    3. Re:The jokes/fiction detracts... by Paraplex · · Score: 1

      Sure...
      People who's skin is slightly darker than other peoples skin are now allowed on buses.
      People who enjoy the company of people of the same gender are now allowed to marry.
      Eccentric women who refer to herbs as "eye of newt" no longer burned at the stake.
      Grafitti is often seen as a legitimate artform and is often commissioned by governments to decorate buses, trains and underpasses.

      Alot of these type of things were disallowed because of societal pressures (mob rule), not because of any laws - Called Witch Hunts.

      This new TIA shit the US/British Govt goes on with also bow not to laws, but to "mob rule".
      Pre-emptive action by definition can't deal with issues of criminality.

      I mean... in the UK its illegal to celebrate terrorism. This enforced by any kind of AI (or any kind of mindless police pawns) means standing in public and yelling "Greenpeace is great" can get you arrested.

      The Govt can shift the goalposts and redefine "terrorism" faster than you can say "she turned me into a newt"

      I agree too that there should definitely be sunset clauses for laws passed to deal with transient problems (terrorism, tuberculosis etc)

  48. See you guys in Canada! by gwizah · · Score: 1

    Wait...did I say Canada? I meant see you guys in GITMO.

    --

    There is no spork.
  49. AdZone technology by dbmasters · · Score: 1

    A company acalled AdZone (ticker: ADZR) has this technology and also uses this kind of spying to find online predators...check into it, cool stuff, and a good investment for the ol' 401k...

    --
    dB Masters
  50. not about "terrorists" by Wansu · · Score: 1


    This is about spying on US citizens.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    1. Re:not about "terrorists" by DJProtoss · · Score: 1

      At which point did they say they were limiting it to US citizens?

      --
      "Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
  51. Sure, why not by harmonica · · Score: 1

    Looking at the Web logs, recently everyone and their brother seems to have started crawling the Web. And the little ones are usually not as good-behaved as the major crawlers.

  52. smoke and mirrors by geoff+lane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As any web server can choose the page to display to any given client, how exactly does the system work out what is real and what is not?

    For that matter, exactly how do they expect to access password or IP protected sites?

    1. Re:smoke and mirrors by Ours · · Score: 1

      For that matter, exactly how do they expect to access password or IP protected sites?
      Exactly! It's a scheme designed by the developpers to get their hands of the world biggest (and only), state-sponsored, porn website login database. One that will contain every pornsite know to man.
      I pity the fools who shall weld such power.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    2. Re:smoke and mirrors by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      For that matter, exactly how do they expect to access password or IP protected sites?

      IP protected sites?

      "This website is copyright (C) 2006 by Al Quaeda. All rights reserved. By using this website, you agree that you are not a law enforcement official. No terrorist attacks are stored on this server. Al Quaeda is not responsible in any way for the information posted here."

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  53. Opportunist Reaction by NothingToSeeHere · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new police state overlords.

  54. I see you're an expert at intelligence gathering by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    This isn't intended to spot specific plans, rather it's a measure to monitor global trends. For instance, the current cartoon uproar is quite probably a concerted effort by certain factions to undermine the Danish in their upcoming role as lead of the UN security council. Then again it might not be. Better intelligence gathering methods and statistical models would be able to give us a better pisture as to wtf is going on exactly.

    Will it aid greatly in the war on terror? Maybe, maybe not. But it will provide a better overall model of global events, which certainly can't hurt.

    As to it being an invasion of privacy, that's a load of crap. Once you make something publicly available you can't argue that it's an invasion of privacy for others to look at it. If you don't want people looking at it, don't publish it.

    Let's not be silly here.

  55. The truth is by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

    Neither. Despite what you hear from chicken littles, the truth is, terrorism is non-existent, and the mthods the federal government are using to fight it are at worst an inconvenience.

    You'll get a ton of people screeching in disagreement, posting links. You can decide for yourself if those links are to examples of individuals aabusing personal power in the guies of government, or abuse by the government itself. I'll wager it's many of the former, and very few (if any) of the latter.

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    1. Re:The truth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very few? an inconvenience? if one person is wrongfully imprisoned, thats too many. innocent until proven guilty out the door? if one person is wronfully killed, is that still an inconvenience?

      its people like you that say, oh, its a non-issue, its just an annoyance, that are our problem. you let it slide this time and you wont even get the choice next time. you have to fight all battles, else they will keep taking more power. did you know that you're the boss of the people in washington? say you're a manager of an employee. would you really let that employee know your bank account #, your porn habits, your sex life, listen to your phone calls, make guesses as to whether you're a terrorist if you buy certain household products that when combined can make a bomb, or best yet, allow your employee to arrest you and hold you forever without a lawyer because he had a gut feeling you were a terrorist and called you one? would you allow any of that? guard your constitutional rights, you moron.

      an inconvenience, tell that to people imprisoned without due process, you dumb@ss.

    2. Re:The truth is by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "very few? an inconvenience? if one person is wrongfully imprisoned, thats too many."

      That's nice. Stupid and unrealstic, but nice.

      "its people like you that say, oh, its a non-issue, its just an annoyance, that are our problem."

      Well, Coward, I never said either of those things, so your straw man can kiss my ass. I submit it's people like YOU who insist on unattainable idealism are the real problem.

      "you have to fight all battles, else they will keep taking more power"

      Really? Do I need to explain why this is idiotic (and gets chumps like you labeled kooks) or do you understand why fighting ALL battles is impossible. Suggesting it just illustrates once again why your opinion shouldn't matter. You make impossible demands and attack people who disagree.

      "say you're a manager of an employee"

      NO, LET'S NOT. Let's stick to the fucking issue at hand (which if I recall correctly, was which of the two was worse, terrorism or the government's attempts to control it), and save your wailing for the dorm room where it belongs.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    3. Re:The truth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "very few? an inconvenience? if one person is wrongfully imprisoned, thats too many."

      That's nice. Stupid and unrealstic, but nice.

      - stupid and unrealistic? no buddy, that is supposedly the basis of our justice system.

      "its people like you that say, oh, its a non-issue, its just an annoyance, that are our problem."

      Well, Coward, I never said either of those things, so your straw man can kiss my ass. I submit it's people like YOU who insist on unattainable idealism are the real problem.

      - stating that something is an inconvience at worst is calling it a non-issue. its not a straw man... im not sure if you know the definition of that term. unattainable idealism? bud, doing a little due diligence and making sure someone is a terrorist instead of arresting them because they protest by wearing a shirt, or arresting them because the have a big burly coat and "look like a terrorist" is not being idealistic. thats just expecting our police and our military to put a little effort into their jobs. arresting someone on essentially a whim is being lazy.

      "you have to fight all battles, else they will keep taking more power"

      Really? Do I need to explain why this is idiotic (and gets chumps like you labeled kooks) or do you understand why fighting ALL battles is impossible. Suggesting it just illustrates once again why your opinion shouldn't matter. You make impossible demands and attack people who disagree.

      - why its idiotic? please, do explain. if the govt tries to come up with 20 laws that infringe on civil rights, how is trying to fight all 20 idiotic? if just 1 gets through, isnt that too many? if you dont fight all battles, which i assume is your amazing strategy, than the way to get laws i want past you is by inundating you with tons of crazy laws. maybe many wont make it through, but some will. and no its not impossible... there are lots of organizations that will help fight these battles. i am purely guessing here, but i get the feeling that you dont fight any and never will. have you found ANY battles worth fighting?

      "say you're a manager of an employee"

      NO, LET'S NOT. Let's stick to the fucking issue at hand (which if I recall correctly, was which of the two was worse, terrorism or the government's attempts to control it), and save your wailing for the dorm room where it belongs.

      - this is the issue. your govt are your employees. they are here to serve you and you pay their salary. them abusing power and monitoring you in the name of your freedom and safety is the issue.

      and apparently, you are the one that needs to resort to cursing, calling my arguments wailing, telling me to go back to my "dorm room". im also apparently a "kook", a "chump", and my arguments are "idiotic" simply because we disagree. i said your opinion was wrong, you said im basically an idiot and insane.

      "Suggesting it just illustrates once again why your opinion shouldn't matter. You make impossible demands and attack people who disagree."

      - my opinion doesnt matter? and you're telling me i attack people who disagree? can you not see how this is highly irrational? i mightve said your opinion was wrong, yet you jumped to a much higher plane and said i dont even deserve an opinion. very rational, especially considering i pay taxes just like i assume you. according to our laws, i am your equal, though in your mind, because of an argument i made i dont even deserve to have an opinion according to you. wow.

      "attack people who disagree"? do i even need to refer to all your statements where you flip out and call me an idiot, a kook, someone with idiotic arguments, someone who deserves no opinion, stupid, my ideas can kiss your @ss?

      no bud, you're definitely not the problem. its completely me and my ridiculous and impossible ideas, of which i dont even deserve the right to formulate. pretty intelligent responses by you.

    4. Re:The truth is by brxndxn · · Score: 1

      Have you been to an airport?

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
  56. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    actually, I meant to say "HIGH level" politicians. Also included in the elite would be the major media outlet managers, editors, TV talking heads,etc.

    All these people are members of the elite and/or aid/abet the elite in their war against the people.

    Try 'am all for treason, I say.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  57. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will AT&T and Verizon charge the government for "using "their" lines to do business without paying extra"?
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/07/ 2227257>

  58. War on Terror - my a... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could we can it already? Or is there still some moron out there who believes that bullcrap?

    Sorry for the language, people, but I feel insulted. Just how DUMB do they think I am?

    Terrorists don't use the net. At least not if they're halfway smart, and hell, they are! They ain't some dumb, mindless bomber drones (ok, some are, but look at the US soldiers... same way 'round, just with rifles). The key heads are very bright individuals, they know what they're doing. They know logistics, they know psychology, they know how to build a network right around your feet without you noticing.

    Do they use the 'net? Let's assume they do, ok? Let's for just a moment assume they do.

    First of all, they WILL NOT use the net for anything but the minimally necessary form of communication. They won't blog, they won't chat, they won't spend time in a bboard, all they do is MAYBE sending some data from A to B. And it won't be much data.

    This data will be encrypted by best state-of-the-art encryption.
    A good deal of this data will be plain false, and it will be false in a way that they can discern whether the feds were sniffing. Simply for testing their communication channel for being tapped and their key for being broken.

    If you consider, all this incredible effort just 'cause some oil countries dared to think 'bout taking Euros instead of Dollars for their crud... it's amazing what some old hydrocarbones can move and shake in this world.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:War on Terror - my a... by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Could we can it already? Or is there still some moron out there who believes that bullcrap?

      Sorry for the language, people, but I feel insulted. Just how DUMB do they think I am?


      Sorry to break it to you, but slightly more than 50% of the US population actually IS that dumb. They're the flag-waving, ribbon-wearing, hateful, ignorant religious, Bush supporters.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:War on Terror - my a... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how that estimate changes if all international scholars were to be expelled.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:War on Terror - my a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the scene from A Beautiful Mind were he is collecting all the magazines and newspapers to try and come up with the secret code the Russians were using to communicate war plans and other sensitive information. Oh but wait he was just crazy. Sounds like a schizophrenic is running the show, he just has a bigger hammer than his own brain.

    4. Re:War on Terror - my a... by raddan · · Score: 1
      Why even make it encrypted? There's so much noise out there, just make the signal look like noise. If you encrypt something, it stands out from the noise. When you stand out others can find the endpoints of the conversation. Shit, want to tell your coconspirators to start attacking now? Tell them to wait for a portknock. Say 5 UDP packets with a DNS payload. How the fuck will the US government know how to look for 5 UDP packets?

      What it boils down to is this-- you can't gather intelligence from the net. It's a waste of time and resources, when what you need are people to infiltrate terrorist organizations. If we have the right kind of foreign policy, people will see that we are the good guys. They will want to help us, and we will then have the people we need for real intelligence. This is why unilateralism does not work. It has nothing to do with being a "wishy-washy liberal" or a Euro-lover; allies are just good strategy.

  59. Intrusion into privacy? by BillGod · · Score: 1

    How can you call this intrusion into privacy? They are looking on the net!! It's open to the public. Everyone can see it. I am not for this at all.. but you can't call it intrusion into privacy.

    --
    MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
    1. Re:Intrusion into privacy? by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      So, reading your emails is not an invasion of privacy? Your instant messages? Its just as bad as non-warrant phone tapping. Yes, anyone can go to any website on the net, but the article is talking about going through your personal communications as well.

      --
      I got nothin'
  60. No mention of the Alexa Web Search Platform by mparaz · · Score: 1
    I was rejected in my Alexa Web Search Platform application, so I got curious about these guys who got in. Checked the article.

    No mention.

    The closest reference there is:


    The system would then store it as "entities" - linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events, according to a report summarizing a 2004 DHS conference in Alexandria, Va.


    Nope.
    1. Re:No mention of the Alexa Web Search Platform by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      The system would then store it as "entities" - linked data about people, places, things, organizations, and events

      Ohmigod. The Semantic Web is finally here!!!

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  61. Why not? by okvol · · Score: 1

    The entire purpose of the Internet is to share public information. No one should be restricted. Let the Goverments that be spider all they want. If they find something, what is different about you finding it with Google? For that matter, why don't they save money and come up with some good Google searches? I am a US Citizen, and would like to have a little less of my tax dollars wasted.

    --
    cabg x3 is a life changing event...
  62. any one seen swordfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be interested to know how the fzck is holographic imaging gonna help? its like the part in swordfish "this is a super advanced computer, it can access SEVEN networks at once!"

  63. Or they could just use... by john83 · · Score: 0

    Google? Is it just me, or is this basically a search engine? Pay Google to do it.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

    Ssshhh... Do you want them to get you? Encrypt, man, encrypt!

  66. Obligatory by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, you watch the government? Tha came out weird...

  67. Two minutes hate. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    Just show a pic of /Bin/Laden like the visage of Goldstein, then you can do anything.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  68. Judicial Tyranny Killed America in 1803-Must read! by Un-Thesis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You should check out my article Judicial Tyranny Killed America in 1803 over at my blog: Incendiary.ws. ALso, spread the word.

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
  69. Why do I see this backfiring? by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

    Blogger: My cat fifi terrorized me in the morning to get her some cat food.
    Bot: SPOTTED WORD *terror*. ALERTING AUTHORITIES TO LOOK FOR SUSPECT CAT FIFI. METHOD OF ATTACK: CAT FOOD SUPPLIES.

  70. Hmm. by omeg · · Score: 1

    So the next time I crack a joke about the latest SEMTEX fashion on my blog, I'll be lifted out of bed by armed forces the day after?

    Who would have thought that technology would get this advanced?

  71. So the crappy story of MGS 2 SOL was partly true.. by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

    Looks like even with its crappy story Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty was partly true about GW/Arsenal... AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! Giant mile wide mechs monitoring /.! (heheh, the dreams of otaku are coming true, forget about Snake, the otaku will destroy the gears:}

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. / terrorist / etc / hosts and Host: headers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they NEVER EVER can reach my (web)server at home, which I use for many things when I am at work

    How ? Very simple !
    I created a virtualhost in Apache called something like 'www.obscure.url.server.home.address.uri'
    In my /etc/hosts file of my machine at work I made an entry with my home-IP for this obscure address.
    Now I can simply type http://www.obscure.url.server.home.address.uri/ and voila, only I have access to this url
    Of course there is a check if the right IP (i.e. companies IP) tries to connect.

    Even if our sysadmin could spot that I visit this address, he would never know which IP it is related to, unless he's sniffing the packets (which is forbidden according to our companies' policy)

    So if I can do this, terrorists can do this also !

  74. They just started doing this NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 90's there were a bunch of guys from LLNL asking questions on usenet about various file formats and networking protocols. They seemed to want to know how to decode everything on the internet. I happened to have some tech documents they were interested in, so I emailed one of them and asked what they were working on. The guy really wanted the info I had, but he was very evasive about what he needed it for. So why were a bunch of scientists at a US govt lab that normally does military weapons research suddenly interested in decoding various file formats and data compression techniques? They were building a search engine of course.

    The US Govt has been working on this for probably 10 years now. It looks like they just outsourced the data collection to Alexa now. Which is probably smart since if webmasters knew that a certain IP address was the govt search engine they would probably block it, but they are less likely to block alexa.

  75. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Brushfireb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "So try the elite in court for treason. We now have the legal precedent. Perhaps."

    First of all, how do you try a class of people in a court? 1 at a time?

    Second, even if we assume that its possible, how do you plan to win?

    Your only chance is revolution. Good Luck, becuase most people arent on your side.

    Let me give you a little hint -- its easier to move from the "bottom" to the "top" than it is to war against them.

  76. Will it pay attention to robots.txt? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    So will a federal spidering engine honor the robots.txt file and not search for terrorists in "unauthorized" areas? If so, that seems pretty wimpish if human life is at stake. If not, they're likely to get their spider shut out by irritated web admins. Either way, seems like the effort isn't going to be as effective as it otherwise might.

  77. how do you spell encryption? by lophophore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I had something I wanted to move over the internet, without anybody being able to read it, I would use a one-time pad or some other nearly-as-secure encryption. It's so easy to do.

    This program will only catch the foolhardy, and will could be used for nefarious purposes against (mostly) law-abiding American citizens.

    So it is a bad idea.

    Remember, as Americans, we have the right, and duty, to inform our congress-critters and other representatives when we think the government is heading the wrong way. Send a fax to your Senators and Representatives today. Fax their local office and their Washington office.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  78. I feel safer now... by edmicman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whew! I'm glad their developing their own algorithm. If they'd license something from say, google, then I'd be worried they'd actually find something.

    It's good to see our tax dollars are going to work replicating of all things - a SEARCH ENGINE. Is this because google wouldn't turn over their search results to the govt?

  79. Sheesh by Archalien · · Score: 2, Funny



    Well the cat's outta the bag now! The fact that we're even talking about this means that somewhere a terrorist is smiling. Good job liberal Christian Science Monitor! You're officially on notice!

    </em>

  80. Unlawful Search & Seizure by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 1

    The government should not be allowed to search and index (seize) my webpage without my consent or a warrant. Period.

    Thus, if my robots.txt file says that the government should f*ck off without a warrant, it should listen.

    1. Re:Unlawful Search & Seizure by bckrispi · · Score: 2, Informative

      But by placing your content on the public Internet, it's in "plain sight". There's no warrant required to look at it.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:Unlawful Search & Seizure by iceperson · · Score: 1

      let me get this straight. pirating music/movies isn't stealing because nothing is taken, but archiving publicly accessible webpages and archiving them is now considered "seizure"?

    3. Re:Unlawful Search & Seizure by commieboyredux · · Score: 0

      No, it's a search. Ya know, like Google and Yahoo are bot based SEARCH-engines....

    4. Re:Unlawful Search & Seizure by L.Bob.Rife · · Score: 1

      Email isn't in plain sight, its private communication. Warrants are required to open snail mail. You think they are going to get warrants every time they want to do broad analysis, or continue to break the wiretapping laws?

    5. Re:Unlawful Search & Seizure by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 1

      But by placing your content on the public Internet, it's in "plain sight". There's no warrant required to look at it.

      Assuming that it is accessible to anyone, fine, the government can take a peek. It is in a public space. But, if it isn't public, and is password protected, the gov't can hack my site and take a peek? No way.

      And even if it is public, what if I say "don't make a copy" of this in my robot.txt, the government can make a copy anyway? I call bullshit. They have made an archive of my "intellectual property" after I have said no.

  81. What... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    ... have they smoked again ?
    It sounds like a bad Hollywood film line :
    (FBI agent) "Look, I have a cutting-edge AI!"
    Sequence of swirling ideograms making -bzzzz- and -tictictic- sounds
    (teenage "hacker") "Woh man! you're good!"

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  82. Don't say anything by paanta · · Score: 1

    Everything you're saying here may have ALREADY been used against you. In fact, I'm surprised they allowed me to warnnaasdd!!!@###@^V4545FSBfbffgf+++ATH NO CARRIER

  83. Good like finding engineers by SauroNlord · · Score: 0

    Seems like google, amazon, yahoo, microsoft will outbid the gov't for these gurus.

  84. How to get through to the 'normal' people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a hard time understanding how I can see things like this almost every day on Slashdot but almost anybody else I talk to about it has no idea that it's going on.

    How can ANYBODY think this is a "good" thing? Yet anytime I bring it up I invariably get a couple morons saying "I don't care... If you're not doing anything wrong, you got nothing to worry about.". Are you fscking kidding me!?! Heard that in more than a couple of pretty bleak stories.

    But if you reply with a realistic (IMHO) analogy like, "Ok, why don't you just let the police randomly enter your home and poke around? If you're not doing anything wrong, you got nothing to worry about." then you get told that you're a paranoid freak.

    I was going to say that we need to try to get some of the viewpoints that are expressed here in to the more mainstream media but that's probably a waste of time as the sheep will just continue to graze until slaughter time rolls around so instead... Anybody have any good ideas for the wolves?

    Incidently, my "I'm not a script" word is "bastard". 'bout sums it up.

  85. What "Erosion of America"? by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    However, given the fact that the current administration knew full well that Osama bin Laden intended to use hijacked airliners as missiles
    The article you are linking to is from 2003. The commision, creation of which they are talking about there, has actually released their findings since then. Nothing like your "Bush knew full well" allegation was in them — you are simply wrong on this one.

    If anything, it is the Americans' trait of fearing their government more than the foreign enemies, that is to blame... The latter fear has increased substantially in recent years, hence the public's acceptance of the administration's eavesdroping antics.

    Your attempts to whip the former fear up, on the other hand, are so far fruitless, because, although the government has not become much better, it has not become much worse either... I'll take the unauthorized eavesdropping on terrorist suspects over the authorized raid on the child abuse suspects any day.

    wholesale violation of the privacy of American citizens, I really can't see the justification here.
    What "wholesale violation of the privacy"? The article talks about harvesting web-sites. No more invasive, than what Google and other search engines do for a living... Carnivore or the Clipper chip — yes, that could've been threatening...
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  86. As long as they honor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...my big_brother.txt file, I'm cool with it.

  87. Typical waste of money by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just a waste of money? Can't I get the same results by searching Google?

    --
    www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
  88. They already do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are they going to setup huge Carnivore boxes at every telecom hub in the world?

    They already do at all the giant peering points in every major city of the USA. On the morning of the shuttle Columbia disaster Feb 1st 2003, all Internet traffic flowing thru the main Dallas and Houston peering centers slowed to an almost standstill. In addition, all long distance phone traffic being routed thru facilities located in the D/FW metro area was interrupted, all this presumably due to the "carnivore-like" mechanisms being activated, and unable to handle the load, as the feds were frantically searching virtually all electronic communications to hunt for possible "terrorist chatter".

  89. Largest Porn Repository by Damaged1130 · · Score: 1

    What are they trying to do? Create the worlds largest porn repository?

    And of course they won't respect our robots.txt files.

  90. Rulesets by wytcld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, it won't obey robots.txt. But what will the spider present itself as so we can lock it out? Or, even better, what are the sure signs that it's really Google or Yahoo or MS snarfing up my sites? Because I don't really care if other spiders get don't ahold of anything - close to 100% of legitimate searchers come through the big three engines. Should be possible to configure and script it so that anything but the spiders we approve of don't come up with much. If there are more than so many requests per minute, for more than so many pages - or it it goes to honeypot pages that aren't what the real public is interested in - lock the suckers out or feed them garbage. They'll find an Internet filled with hagiographies of the Bush family.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:Rulesets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about as follows:

      1. create a html page that does a redirect to another one within a specific amount of time or a html page with a javascript using xmlhttp to send information to server. I'm betting the spiders won't obey the redirect in the particular time given, and they won't interpret the javascript to send you the information you want back on the page (this won't be good for those who have javascripting turned off but there are other ways around this). You will of course need to set a cookie from this page so that you can monitor the behavior of anything that hits this page.

      2. link to this page from a random page in your site from an area that is rendered invisible to pretty much any browser supporting css. Could probably do it invisible via other methods as well, but I'll go with that

      3. Set robots.txt to disallow crawling this file.

      4. Anything that shows up at this page should have a higher chance of being a crawler or bot then other things.

      5. put other checking on this page as need be, I can think of quite a number of things I would want to do to make sure it was not a person.

      6. disallow anything that ends up here from anywhere else, return 404s to this thing so it just decides that your site is screwed up, or

      7. Put it into a bot trap, examine how it reacts, how long does it take for it to break out of the trap. Might be good to have this info, if the bot is 'smarter' it might be made to determine if it's in a trap, if so the general method is to ignore this site thenceforth because it is a bad site with bot traps.

      Finally, as for blocking: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/02/26/how_to _block_spambots_ban_spybots_and_tell_unwanted_robo ts_to_go_to_hell

      -Bryan Rasmussen, too lazy to set up a new account

  91. By now it should be obvious to anyone with a brain by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    that this government - and every government - couldn't care less about "terrorists". What they care about is OPPOSITION - by ANYBODY.

    Oops, anyone with a brain - oh, wait, this is /.

    Never mind.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  92. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by Winlin · · Score: 2, Funny

    >>

          Damn...I knew I picked the wrong week to order The Complete Idiot's Guide to Defeating the Great Satan. But the price was just so good.

  93. I sort of agree with you.. but.. by bmajik · · Score: 1

    I can certainly see things ending up that way, but i don't think they are that way now.

    There are lots of websites and bulletin boards out there that are dedicated to militant islam.. where people are trading information on "targets", posting pictures of infidel decapitations...etc. There are activities going on there that in any police department would be "leads".

    So while it is always possible that "the best of the best" organizations will resort to military grade encryption, 1 time use cell phones, etc etc, there is certainly a lot of knuckle-dragging activity by 3rd rate curmudgeons. I think the number of trouble makers that are curbed from shutting down those sorts of operations will be larger than the number that are driven to more advanced concealment techniques.

    Remember, a terror regime that is effectively suppressed into non-activity, and non-communication-at-the-public, is no longer conducting terror. When terror is everpresent in peoples minds.. when they issue statements every week that say "we're going to strike again, you wont know where".. then they're terrorists. When they stay silent for years at a time.. they're not especially effective.

    Shutting up these dingbats seems easy enough that I wonder why it hsan't been done yet. I am normally conspiracy-theory-adverse, but lately I can't help but feel like _somebody_ want's me to hate muslims, and to hate terrorists, so i don't pay so much attention to something else. I have that "senator palpatine is in the room" feeling but I can't put my finger on it :)

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  94. I'm not defending Bush but by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    One thing the intel community does is collect information from traditional news sources both foreign and domestic. There is a lot of useful information in the press. It sounds like they've merely extended that to web-based information sources. I'm not sure it's as much a thought control measure as simply making a catalog of existing public information, which a web site is. To me this seems like a normal function of intelligence gathering.

    I think the inclusion of email is what gives this the swarmy, big brother overtones. We've also have ample evidence that the Bush administration can't be trusted. The combination of Bush political flaks with no regard for privacy or the law and large amounts of personal data is what makes it scary to me.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:I'm not defending Bush but by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> One thing the intel community does is collect information from traditional news sources both foreign and domestic. There is a lot of useful information in the press. It sounds like they've merely extended that to web-based information sources.

      Sure, 'cuzz everybody knows that the web is full of useful information. Perhaps they'll start by spidering Wikipedia!

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  95. Unpopular Thought by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    At the risk of being attacked (as you already have), I utterly agree. Graffitti is vandalism, whether it is some gangsta's sig or a swastika. Why is one a hate crime and the other not? I hate the whole hate crime rap.

  96. It would be much cheaper to build a Google API app by smagruder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But of course, from the "brains" who are behind bolstering the costly, debt-exploding military-industrial complex (for fighting unjustified elective wars, no less), we are now seeing the formation of yet another unneeded program to scrape the web, with American tax dollars^W^W^Wproceeds of treasury bond sales to China (interest paid for by our children/grandchildren).

    On top of this, we have a regime with widely demonstrated incompetence and/or willful negligence deciding to build a program like this. They couldn't even deal with the plain-language warnings they received regarding al-Qaeda's plans to hit tall buildings with jet planes. What I'm driving at is they can collect all the data in the world, and they have no ability to understand it or act on it, at least as long as His Lordship, King George is in power.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  97. Govt@Home by infinityxi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just see this now, using the BOINC client you can aide homeland security in detecting and catching those evil doers. It will send a portion of those emails (public mailing lists), websites, blogs, news groups, etc to any patriotic American to process and possibly flag the internet for a black list of words and certain contexts. Just wait and see.

    --
    Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
  98. Re:Judicial Tyranny Killed America in 1803-Must re by darjen · · Score: 1
    Interesting article, thanks for the link. The Supreme Court was also a lame duck when FDR pushed his social security legislation through. They wanted to declare it unconstitutional but FDR threatened to pack the court with his his supporters, so they capitulated and gave him free reign.

    Have you read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States"? Not very libertarian, but I still thorougly enjoyed it. His main theorey is that America's Government was actually designed from the beginning to be controlled by the leading wealthy interests and keep poor people down perpetually.

  99. blowing up the government! by FlippyTheSkillsaw · · Score: 1

    I really want to blow up the government because of all this monitoring stuff they are doing.

    All who support: meet at 9PM on February 29th at the place you are thinking of right now.

  100. Holographic images? by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

    Part of the breakthrough is a way for humans to view data as 3D holographic images

    Did any of you see the original Jurassic Park?

    "It's a Unix system!"

    1. Re:Holographic images? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      "It's a Unix system!"

      SGI, to be specific, circa 1992.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Holographic images? by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

      Never said it wasn't... it was the quote from the movie. But thanks for the info.

  101. Europe is so much better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read your history. The way it used to work was the US would spy on say the British, The British would then spy on the US. Each country couldn't spy on its own citizenry, but the could spy on the others. Nothing said they couldn't share notes. Which is what happened (although the description is a good bit simplified)

  102. i'm tired of this crap by jaimz22 · · Score: 1

    you know the government has a huge advantage now that theres "terrorists" they can do anything they want and say "it's to stop terrorists" you know they don't want to do this purly to fight terrorism. i'm serious. think about it, thier going to spider EMAILS even. i'm getting really tired of how our government thinks they can do anything they want. it's a major invasion of privacy. I'm about to move to canada. atleast they don't lie about the things thier doing as much as the US does. when will our government stop doing this crap. it's BS i won't stand for it. as of now. everything I do on a computer will be encrypted. let them break the encryption. i don't care it will slow them down a little.

    our government is going ramped and to me it feels like a little bit of a brute force into my private life.

    maybe they could atleast give us some lube before that bend us over and shove it in.

    sorry, rant over!

  103. What next by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    What's this going towards with news sites?

    "That pro-Palestine article is helping the terrorists! Remove it under the PATRIOT act."

  104. Unbelieveable . . . by Dausha · · Score: 1

    Having read the threads, I am shocked. So many people decried this as a wanton violation of privacy. This is tantamount to stating that the government is conducting an illegal search. In the U.S., a Search is no illegal if what you are doing is in plain view.

    The very nature of web sites and blogs is that they are meant to be viewed. Otherwise, what's the point? Emails are (by default, anyway) sent in the clear so that anybody can sniff it. So, there is no invasion of privacy, AFAIK. Don't complain about loss of privacy when you're not being private.

    Somebody suggested that this activity would push the terrorists to go old-tech. I disagree, in part because there are ways to encrypt messages and hide data. It will make things more difficult for them. In war, one of the things this most critical is communication--kill the ability to effectively communicate, hobble the combatant. Altneratively, if you can read their mail and they don't know it, then you can stop them in their tracks. We did this in the Battle of Midway when we had Japanese Naval codes broken and discovered an impending attack.

    I just have a hard time buying the privacy argument when you're doing things across somebody else's network in plain view. People lament how this is a loss of freedom. Freedom is not an absolute--you're not free to do what you want.

    Besides, what if the terrorist attack thwarted is the one directed at you and yourn? If the government fails to detect an attack and people die, wouldn't you complain about the ineffectiveness of the government and how they should have known? Wait, people did when 9-11 happened in claiming the Administration should have seen the attack coming. So, I rest my case.

    This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the government.

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Unbelieveable . . . by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      What is "in plain view" changes. An extreme example would be if the government invented some device that could look through walls. What was not in "plain view" is now "in plain view." I don't know what the legal arguments would be in such a case, but I know that in practice, if the government didn't have to get search warrants to use this new technology, it would have far more power than I trust it with. This data mining is potentially the same situation. Much like any sort of device to look through walls might somehow amplify and organize the microscopic light escaping the walls of your house in such a way it communicates fundamentally new and novel information, so this data mining appears to be designed to organize and amplify bits of information all over the country to also create fundamentally novel information. I could imagine the government having more power to know and potentially control peoples habits and opinions than I trust it to have. Power tends to corrupt, so we must be very careful whenever giving our government more of it. As for whether this violates some sort of constitutional "right to privacy"- that is a matter of law, and since right to privacy seems more subtle and complicated than something like freedom of speech, my guess is that it takes a constitutional lawyer, or maybe even the Supreme Court Justices, to know. Frankly, I don't really care whether this one principle of law applies nearly so much as I care about whether it will be used to force some sort of oversight on my government.

      What really scares the hell out of me with all this is how little discussion there seems to be. A priori, I don't think you can say something like this is bad, but I don't think you an say it is good either. However, I certainly don't trust any one man (including, err especially actually, Bush) to make this decision for us.

      > Emails are (by default, anyway) sent in the clear so that anybody can sniff it. So, there is no invasion
      > of privacy, AFAIK. Don't complain about loss of privacy when you're not being private.
      Are phone calls private by your standard? Phone calls are not encrypted in any way, and I'm sure that it is very
      easy for the phone company to let the government listen in. But all the same, we don't let the government do this whenever it wants.

      > Besides, what if the terrorist attack thwarted is the one directed at you and yourn? If the government
      > fails to detect an attack and people die, wouldn't you complain about the ineffectiveness of the government
      > and how they should have known? Wait, people did when 9-11 happened...
      It is not clear that this sort of information would significantly help the administration stop another terrorist attack. For example, the failure of 9-11 was not simply one of not having enough data. With hindsight, we can deduce from the evidence that an attack was imminent. I suppose what the problem was is quite controversial- lack of priority, organization, or imaginiation, perhaps- but it is not clear to me at least that this system would have helped.

  105. This program sounds like "War On Media" by Burz · · Score: 1

    It even seems like the government is retaliating against media outlets because the latter will no longer cover for the former.

  106. Who EXACTLY gets called a terrorist? by mrraven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do I get called a terrorist if I say I FUCKING HATE BUSH for abrogating the 4th amendment to the bill of rights?

    "Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html

    Wouldn't I be a coward if I didn't hate him for this breach of our fundamental rights? I assure you if the British had such a system for sifting all communications for treasonous intent we would still be the British commonwealth of the Americas. After all some of the original American REOVLUTIONARIES (can you say violent overthrow of the "legitimate" British government) communicated through committees of correspondence:

    "In an era before modern communications, news was generally disseminated in hand-written letters that were carried aboard ships or by couriers on horseback. Those means were employed by the critics of British imperial policy in America to spread their interpretations of current events.

    Special committees of correspondence were formed by the colonial assemblies and various lesser arms of local government. The committees were responsible for taking the sense of their parent body on a particular issue, committing it to a written form and then dispatching that view to other similar groups. Many correspondents were members of the colonial assemblies and also were active in the secret Sons of Liberty organizations."

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h675.html

    Can you say secret terrorist organiztion boys and girls I knew you could. Of course the British had a right to monitor their public communications (letters), right? Afterall if they were doing nothing wrong...

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    1. Re:Who EXACTLY gets called a terrorist? by ranton · · Score: 1

      How does the 4th Amendment have anything to do with this? When you put something on the internet, you are making it public. It is no different than putting up a poster on a tree outside your house, or printing something in the newspaper.

      Are you saying that the government shouldnt be able to read publications such as magazines or newspapers without having probable cause and a warrant?

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Who EXACTLY gets called a terrorist? by mrraven · · Score: 1

      I'm saying two things:

      1. The first is the government should respect the privacy of our e-mail which are our modern day letters that are protected by the wording of the 4th amendment.

      2. I'm saying the government ought not to be able to declare us criminals based on our publicly stated OPINIONS on blogs and other web sites. Supporting the criminalization of public speech would be analogous to supporting the British attempts to criminalize the writers of the broadsides that became known as the Federalist papers. Broadsides and letters to the editor were the equivalent to our modern day blogs. Again it's fortunate the British government of the time didn't have the power to discover who "anonymous cowards" "Publis" and 'A Farmer," etc, were or we would have had no American revolution.

      Is that really the way you to go?

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    3. Re:Who EXACTLY gets called a terrorist? by ranton · · Score: 1

      I'm saying the government ought not to be able to declare us criminals based on our publicly stated OPINIONS on blogs and other web sites

      I have yet to hear of 1 case like the one you mention here. I do not see the government outlawing our ability to complain about the government. I just see them outlawing our ability to blow up buildings.

      Where did you read anything about the government searching the internet so that they could arrest everyone who thinks that Bush is an idiot?

      --

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  107. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does everybody suppose that a terrorist is a Muslim?

    I didn't like they way you mentioned if it will be able to translate Arabic to English, I'm aware it was just a way of saying that it is a load of crap (The AI), but come on, cut us [good] Muslims some slack, will ya!

    There are many terrorists out there that are non-Muslim, and non-english speaking.

  108. Government able to do anything? by cejones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but government agents had all the pieces that pointed to what happened on 9/11. And yet they were not able to put the pieces together until what? A year later? So, even if this spidering works as stated by the government, isn't there a 0% probability that they still won't be able to actually USE that data to help deter anything? And I agree with one of the other posts here... I doubt they will respect robots.txt. If they did, then all the terrorists would do it set that up on their web server... What the government needs to do is clamp down on how the terrorists get their MONEY. If the 9/11 hijackers were cut off from the big Oil baron money coming from Al Qaida even three months before 9/11, they would not have had the ability to buy airline tickets and perform the terrorism... Instead of listening in to my phone calls to my grandmother, I think the government should scrutinize EVERY single monetary transaction that is initiated from outside the US into the US. That seems alot easier and more effective than spidering the web for some obfuscated terror information written in Farsi code.

  109. So? A variant of Peerguard will come out by kimvette · · Score: 1

    So what?

    I'm sure that a variant of PeerGuard will be developed, and Michael Hampton's PHP Bad Behavior script can be tweaked to incorporate the new Peer Guard and send the gubbament a good ol' 403 Forbidden response header. Heck, if such a beast does come about I'll implement it on every PHP site I work on, just because the government should not be wasting taxpayer money on this bullshit. Eventually the government WILL use the technology to infringe on constitutional rights (look at Bush's bypassing courts for wiretaps even though it is designed to be EASY to get such emergency warrants via secret courts), and to make the technology useless from the get-go is the best way to head that off. I'd love to see big news media sites turn away those spiders and report on the crap, then perhaps government will get their noses out of private lives and practice, you know, actual forensic science and start profiling like they should.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  110. robots.txt by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Will they respect robots.txt?

    Or where can we contact for reimburstment of bandwidth costs?

    As I recall, US Citizens are not required (without a warrant) to furnish goods and or services to the Government without compensation.

    Under that principle, I believe if they ignore robots.txt (which is a standard that says a particular site is unavailable goods/service)... it would be a violation.

    I'm more than willing to sell it to them.... but don't think the government is entitled to free data. That's called theft.

  111. Alexa? by blamanj · · Score: 1

    The TFA contains no mention of Alexa at all. Does the submitter have information not disclosed or is it pure speculation that the government will use their platform as opposed to their own or some other commercial product?

  112. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Cryofan · · Score: 1

    How do you try criminals in court NOW? The elite are criminals. We have a procedure to TRY criminals. We use that procedure to try the elite.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  113. Ministry of Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing more that the Ministry of Truth looking for all those lies.

  114. Re:I see you're an expert at intelligence gatherin by Egatlov · · Score: 1

    That's interesting. I didn't know that when I sent an e-mail that anything in it was "publicaly available." I'm not saying e-mail is secure, while it's pretty easy to intercept e-mail, that fact does not make them publicaly available. The same goes for my browsing habits. Since those two sources of private data are used, I don't think it's a far stretch to assume that a classified government data-aggregation project uses as much private data as it can get it's hands on.
    Personally, I'd rather take my chances in a terrorist attack than allow the the government to continue to grab power using the guise of the war on personal freedom (pronounced War on Terror).

  115. Hardly a personal liberty threat by NateE · · Score: 1

    This is just a pitch the government decided to bite on. It'll look good for the cameras and to show important people. Everybody is posting how its a threat to our liberties. How can it be a threat to monitor public info? Its just a threat to our pocket books.

    Actual usefulness in the war on terror, almost none. Capability to provide the feds a terror fighting show and tell, guaranteed! "And this Senator is our terror fighting war room. Notice the 3D displays where we keep an eye on the terrorist web sites."

  116. Re:I see you're an expert at intelligence gatherin by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Your browsing habits are no more private than your movements around a city. Once you enter the public spaces, your expectation of privacy becomes greatly reduced.

    And the article is wrong about e-mail. Or rather, it never specificaly states that this program will collect e-mails, so it's not wrong, but it IS misleading.

    The new "ADVISE" initiative isn't meant to gather e-mails. It only gathers publicaly available data. I can't comment on the gathering of e-mails thourgh OTHER initiatives because there's been a lot of contradictory information, but I can tell you that they won't be gathered as part of ADVISE.

  117. Page on line one about your brother... by Metex · · Score: 1

    JC Denton.

    --
    Never could figure out why my girl liked my bitch tits, then I found out she was a lesbian.
  118. What Am I Missing? by CoachS · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like they're just going to an advanced form of Google with some automated analysis and relationship management. Big deal.

    Why should I care if the government wants to index my blog? I figure the NSA is probably the only ones reading it anyhow.

    -Coach-

    --
    Perhaps the world's greatest tragedy is that ignorance is not impotence.
  119. I suggest by psykocrime · · Score: 1

    I suggest that everyone reading this immediately load your websites and blogs with files named things like assasinate.txt, plan_for_bomb.txt, homemade_c4_for_dummies.txt, allah_hates_w.txt, etc.

    And purposely terrorism insert random assasinate words into your posts on bomb blogs and other hijack sites so that their bush web-crawler will be so overloaded allah with crap data they won't be able to zionist pigs process it all.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  120. The most terrifying quote in the article by prospero14 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "This sort of technology does protect against a real threat," says Jeffrey Ullman, professor emeritus of computer science at Stanford University. "If a computer suspects me of being a terrorist, but just says maybe an analyst should look at it ... well, that's no big deal. This is the type of thing we need to be willing to do, to give up a certain amount of privacy."

    This is not something "we" need to be willing to do! My civil liberties are NOT YOURS TO GIVE AWAY! I'm terrified that a CS prof at Stanford thinks that it's no big deal that the US wants to spy on its own citizens and deprive us of our rights under the 4th and 5th amendments. (Yes, the 5th ammendment too, since US Citizens have been held on US soil without being charged with a crime, and thus deprived of due process of law.)

    How can any educated person think this loss of privacy is "no big deal"? I'm at a loss for words.

    1. Re:The most terrifying quote in the article by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My civil liberties are NOT YOURS TO GIVE AWAY!

      Couldn't agree more!

      How can any educated person think this loss of privacy is "no big deal"?

      Perhaps because computer scientists are trained to think about how to dig through more data, and not one whit of attention is paid towards privacy in 4 years of undergraduate education? Or if anything, CS students might write one very weak encryption/decryption program, which CS profs assure would be useful for "sensitive" transactions like financial or medical records. But rarely does the concept of *individual* privacy enter the discussion...

      I speak as a recently-graduated BSCS myself, after all...

      We don't learn about ethical issues. We don't learn the politics of privacy. We don't learn that liberal artsy-fartsy crap that everybody else in our college learns... We learn math and statistics theory. Data structures and algorithms. Specific technologies (which might be horribly outdated, if not at the time of teaching, then probably by the time we leave school).

      Thoughts about society and culture are for those *other*, stupider people with non-technical minds (or so we CS students are told); for people who major in Political Science or the ever-worthless field of Sociology, or Gender Studies, or Non-White-Male-Studies, or English, or Theater, or Literature, etc... All the inane social studies and studies of things we learned in 1st grade (like English) that any alcohol-addled monkey can get a 4.0 in, if they bother to show up for the finals.

      Admittedly, for as much of a privacy advocate as I usually am, there are times when I think a "Transparent Society" like David Brin's might be a better world. But I immediately recognize the idealism of that view, return to reality, and realize that Orwell's "1984" is far-more likely: a society in which the elite 20% get privacy, at least occasionally, whereas the the lower 80% of society (the proles, etc.) do not.

      And really, in the long-run, I don't see privacy being protected. We are being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards a "1984" society, whether we like it or not. Technological progress ensures that it is technically-possible; political and business interests ensure it is psychologically and politically-possible. Scott McNeely was right when he said "privacy is dead" (I just haven't gotten over it, as he finished that sentence suggesting).

      I'm frankly only mildly-surprised that this Stanford prof. thinks this sort of dataveillance is a good idea. Most CS profs, for as mathematically-brilliant as they are, can't see the ramifications of their work beyond their own nose. They are the "useful idiots" that more-strategic, less-technical, more-conceptual thinkers -- politicians, businessmen, etc. -- love to employ, because such gifted technical minds will do their bidding without considering the consequences of their work. Their innocence is their only cover for their incompetence at understanding the real world and dealing with people, and it is a poor cover, IMO.
  121. MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't agree with all of these points, but they're well-argued.

  122. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by asuffield · · Score: 1

    Can it translate accurately from Arabic to English?

    If it does what I think it's doing, which is about looking for structural patterns in the data without having any understanding of English in the first place, then this is unnecessary. Such systems don't really care much about the language they are applied to, so long as it's got something approximating a word-sentence-paragraph structure.

    Not that it matters, because the 'terrorists' being targetted here are really US dissidents, who will be using English in the first place. Nobody expects a system like this to catch real terrorists, it's obviously intended to monitor the population who might otherwise be sympathetic to the foreign freedom fighters trying to throw off the yoke of US oppression, or whatever. Makes me glad I don't live in the US.

    Sounds like a big waste of time and (my) money.

    My bet is that this is a research effort which the researchers put a 'terrorrism' spin on in order to get funding. It's definitely a worthwhile research project - if it does what I think, this is leading-edge stuff that should advance the state of the art in data mining. Probably not so worthwhile as an application, because the technology isn't really that accurate yet.

    Spinning research as a military and/or defense system in order to get grant money is standard practice in the military-obsessed, anti-science US. Everybody does it, it's probably the best way to get government funding these days. Whether this is wasteful would depend on your opinion of research, but it's certainly an idiotic way to go about it.

  123. Will never work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    terrorists will just put up a robots.txt like this:

    User-agent: ADVISE
    Disallow: /

    --d ;)

  124. But they say it works... by Irvu · · Score: 1
    Starlight has already helped foil some terror plots, says Jim Thomas, one of its developers and director of the government's new National Visualization Analytics Center in Richland, Wash. He can't elaborate because the cases are classified, he adds. But "there's no question that the technology we've invented here at the lab has been used to protect our freedoms - and that's pretty cool."


    So you see it has been successful they just can't tell us how. Great, I feel much better. Seriously on one level yes some, if not most "plot" (if they are real) will be foiled in the dark. Back right after 9/11 before the Spying on Vegans before Total Information Awareness, Before the Illegal Phone taps, and before Mussoui (remember him the man who was attempting to "level Chicago with a dirty bomb") had his charges downgraded from "Real-Live Terrorist" to "Guy who tried to send money to AlQuaeda but didn't succeed".

    Back then we might have bought some of this "Just trust us it helps protect your freedoms" business. Now, now that they are talking about helping not just State Federal and Local but "private-sector security entities" I want it stopped and stopped now. The local rent-a-cop has no right to government data about me.
  125. Hate Crimes by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    The same goes for any other crime as well. If you do something bad, then expect to be punished for it, and don't whine if you can't use your homophobia as a defense afterwards. It's not a thought crime unless it actually did not have a physical component; and evaluating the motive of a murderer etc. and adjusting the sentence accordingly is something that's been done forever, anyway, without anyone ever crying "thought crime".
    I suspect is point is more that a "hate crime" can net you more punishment than the act would have been in not perpetrated against a minority. Should it matter if I egg my neighbour's house because he's a Spaniard rather than because he's a jerk? Your bigotry should not be a defense against your crimes, but neither should it be considered to make the case more severe.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  126. Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

    > I am not sure how well I am making my point, but I guess the bottom line is if you look at the victim impact, the
    > impact of a hate crime on the victim (including their family and community) is far greater than than a non-hate crime.
    > There is little a victim of a hate crime can do to prevent it. As well as the perpetrator of a hate crime is much more
    > likely to repeat it.

    I'd say you did a pretty good job. Too bad the politicos pushing for it aren't pushing it for the reasons you give, as I could support yours. However I'm a bit more cynical that thee.

    Unfortunatly the reality is 'hates crimes' laws are a product of the modern 'civil rights' movement and just as much of a sham of doublespeak and deceit hatched by Democrats. First off I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I say that those on the books already are applied in a totally bigoted fashion and will only get worse as more are passed Imagine for a moment "hate crimes' laws are on the books in CA and a repeat of the LA Riots happen. Who gets charged with hate crimes, the crazed rioters or the peaceful asian shopkeepers defending their property? Obviously it is the shopkeepers who get sacrificed, lest the 'oppressed' begin rioting anew. The "Cartoon War" reaches our shores, who thinks a single member of the Religion of Peace would be worried about being charged with a 'hate crime' for prancing around and shreiking while carrying a sign calling for beheadings while getting worked up into a rioting frenzy.

    Anyone who has watched the antics of the left over the last fifty years knows it is only an intermediate step along the way to their goal of crimethink laws, i.e. making it against the law to disagree with Democrats. It is an old joke that a 'bigot' is someone winning an argument with a liberal. They have realized that just hurling 'bigot' at an opponent isn't enough to win an argument anymore so now they would rather simply jail the opposition like all their heros did. (Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc.)

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by jrp2 · · Score: 1

      "Too bad the politicos pushing for it aren't pushing it for the reasons you give, as I could support yours."

      I doubt it is as simple as you suspect. Politicians generally do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Society drives these things, and I believe many in society are thinking along the same lines as I am. I hope so at least.

      I cannot argue it is a slippery-slope. Justice in the US (or anywhere) is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But, though I agree prosecutions can be very politically influenced, deciding whether to apply aggravations is usually, mostly, apolitical. It is usually done by a judge and/or jury, and they are going to be less influenced by political motivations than legislators or prosecutors.

      Again, I hope and pray the laws are used correctly most of the time. I am sure you will be able to find even more exceptions (hypothetical or real). The question is, can we leave this area untouched considering the assumption those will not be the rule, but just exceptions. We have plenty of checks and balances in the justice system, and they usually work just fine, preventing the kinds of abominations you mentioned.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    2. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by Schmendr1ck · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Unfortunatly the reality is 'hates crimes' laws are a product of the modern 'civil rights' movement and just as much of a sham of doublespeak and deceit hatched by Democrats.
      So rather than having federal civil rights legislation, you would have us go back to a time when non-whites were intimidated or ignored, had to use separate bathrooms and water fountains, and could be prevented from attending a white school by National Guard troops? If we didn't have this movement and the legislation that grew from it (most importantly the Civil Rights Act of 1964) how far do you think we would have moved from those times?

      Secondly, Democrats in the late 50's and early 60's were extremely divided over civil rights legislation. Many Democratic senators from southern states were strongly opposed to it, and even Eisenhower and LBJ weakened the first attempt (the Civil Rights act of 1957) to the point that it was practically useless.

      First off I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I say that those on the books already are applied in a totally bigoted fashion and will only get worse as more are passed
      I don't think it's controversial so much as plain false. Can you back this up with some factual data? The FBI 2004 Hate Crime Statistics indicate that about 63% of reported hate crimes with known offenders are committed by whites. Does this mean that hate crime laws are applied disproportionately against whites, or simply that more whites are committing hate crimes? Back up your assertion that the laws are applied in a "bigoted fashion".

      Anyone who has watched the antics of the left over the last fifty years knows it is only an intermediate step along the way to their goal of crimethink laws, i.e. making it against the law to disagree with Democrats. It is an old joke that a 'bigot' is someone winning an argument with a liberal. They have realized that just hurling 'bigot' at an opponent isn't enough to win an argument anymore so now they would rather simply jail the opposition like all their heros did. (Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc.)
      Anyone who has watched the antics of the Bush Administration over the past five years would think twice about making this statement. Try to get into a Bush "town meeting" if you're a registered Democrat. Try to get federal funding for scientific research that contradicts Bush's theological views. Try to stay out of jail for telling your patrons at the library that the government was snooping through your records. Try to keep from being blacklisted by Karl Rove if you are a Republican that doesn't toe the party line on the warrantless wiretaps issue.

      Try to tell Mr. Bush that you are neither with him nor with the terrorists and see what he says.

    3. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by TheNumberless · · Score: 1

      Good points throughout, but one nitpick. You seem to imply that Eisenhower was a Democrat, but he was a Republican. It could just be ambiguous wording, however.

    4. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Secondly, Democrats in the late 50's and early 60's were extremely divided over civil
      > rights legislation.

      True enough. The Civil Rights movement started out for good and just reasons. Rosa Parks finally got pissed and stood up for what was right, it wasn't some grand conspiracy by the Democratic Party. Dr. King's story is a bit more 'nuanced' than the official version we are all fed these days but even he was basically on the side of good. It was when the Democratic Party finally realized the political realignment that was possible and hijacked the movement and turned it into a political football that things went wrong. After that there was no more talk about equality, it was all about class struggle, dividing people into groups and making as many things as possible about skin color.

      > The FBI 2004 Hate Crime Statistics indicate that about 63% of reported hate crimes with
      > known offenders are committed by whites. Does this mean that hate crime laws are applied
      > disproportionately against whites, or simply that more whites are committing hate crimes?

      A perfect example that makes my point. Crime statistics for over a decade show that black on white violence happens far more often than white on black. But 63% of the so called 'hate crimes' are white on black? That would put a much larger (Don't have the exact stats handy but at least 2x, probably closer to 3x) percentage of white on black crime being labeled a 'hate crime'. Now take a look at the popular culture. You can't look at a Billboard chart without finding some idiot rapper 'singing' about offing whitey but unless you know some really underground media I'm not aware of there just ain't that much of that sort of thing going on in reverse. (stormfront.com excepted of course, but then they are asshats) The only explanation that has any hope of explaining the difference is that prosecuters tend to add a 'hate crime' to the list of charges when a white guy wins a barfight with a glack guy a lot more often than the reverse occurs.

      > Try to tell Mr. Bush that you are neither with him nor with the terrorists and see what
      > he says.

      Dunno, the NYT has gone way beyond that to lending aid and comfort to the terrorists and I don't see them in jail yet. Although I'd cheer if Bush would at least have the balls to have Gonzales file some charges. You guys seem to get off from deluding yourselves that Bushitler is going to oppress you guys just any minute now. Fact is most of ya wouldn't be worth it even if Bush really were Hitler reborn because you are useless raving moonbats leading your party to destruction.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Dunno, the NYT has gone way beyond that to lending aid and comfort to the terrorists and I don't see them in jail yet.


      Really? How much money did the NYT give to the terrorists?


      Or are you actually just saying you think they should be jailed for printing things you didn't want them to print? If so, please re-read the First Amendment. I think it is pretty clear on that point.


      you are useless raving moonbats leading your party to destruction.


      Ah, abuse, the hallmark of a brilliant mind.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

      I believe that just about sums it up. I think it's a fundamental flaw within our current culture which causes us to believe that all crimes perpetrated across racial barriers are hate crimes, unless perpetrated upon a white person.

      Call me a bigot all you'd like, but the fact remains that if a white guy kills a black guy, it's automatically a hate crime. If a black guy kills a white guy, it's just murder. There's something fundamentally racist about raising the status of a man above another based solely on race.

      Much of the racial tension that goes on within our culture nowadays is as a result of reverse racism. This racism is frequently perpetrated on us white people not by people of different race, but by ourselves. We've designed a society in which we are discriminating against ourselves. I think it's mostly as an apology for our long years of discriminating against other races. But it's bullshit, and it has to stop.

      How many people would be up in arms about racism and discrimination if I were to offer up a $1000 whites-only college scholarship? Chances are that if you are one of those people, you're racist. It's okay for "minority only" scholarships to discriminate, but if there's a non-minority scholarship, it has to be open to everyone. Otherwise it's racial discrimination. Makes no sense to me.

      I'm not sure if that's supportive of your argument, or whether or not I've contributed anything meaningful. Mostly I'm just fed up with people always playing the race card. I'm white, and I'm not allowed to play the race card. Moreover, I'm not racist, and I'm deeply offended whenever someone else implies that I am. I'm fed up with all the thinly-veiled racism and discrimination going on in this culture. It should have stopped in the seventies, and it damn well better stop now.

      --
      SRSLY.
    7. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > This racism is frequently perpetrated on us white people not by people of different race, but by ourselves. We've
      > designed a society in which we are discriminating against ourselves. I think it's mostly as an apology for our long
      > years of discriminating against other races. But it's bullshit, and it has to stop.

      A popular notion, but not correct. WE aren't doing any such thing. Elite Democrats (mostly rich/powerful socialists who just happen to be mostly white) are imposing this stuff as a way to DIVIDE us (us being the non rich non socialists) by race. They used their control of the media to force whites to accept it by dint of endless, unrebutted by refusing any opposing view airtime/columnspace, charges that anyone opposing them is a bigot. They were willing to accept the loss of many whites at the ballotbox though. The blacks bought in readily, not realizing the trap and now most live in shattered slums where once stood poor but proud and rising communities. Then they subverted the women's sufferage movement and again created a permamant divide with a dependent group voting solid for Democrats. Again with the trade unions, creating a spoils system where the few had great benefits that everyone knew could never be extended universally. And the unions made sure everyone knew which switch to pull in the voting booth to stay on the gravy train.

      And it worked for about two generations, the Democratic Party was a majority of minorities. With total control over mass communications and the destruction of public education almost nobody could figure out the scam being pulled and those few had no way to tell very many other people. They divided and conquered in almost classic textbook fashion.

      But all things have their season and now theirs is passing. The important thing now is to try to pick up the pieces they are leaving behind them and forge a single People from them.

      > How many people would be up in arms about racism and discrimination if I were to offer up a $1000 whites-only
      > college scholarship?

      Nobody would have time to get upset, it's illegal. But yes I'd like to see some challenges to the current perverted system. I find it hard to drive past a Curves! without stopping and trying to join. After all, feminists forced every all male instituition to go co-ed so it would be fun to find a pro-bono laywer and run their asses through the wringer. Only problem is it would just be a waste of time and money. That and I read somewhere the founder is a prolife conservative so it wouldn't exactly be hitting the NOW gang in the teeth... unless they were forced to jump in to defend, that WOULD be delicious.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    8. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by Deathanyl · · Score: 1

      1.A popular notion, but not correct. WE aren't doing any such thing. Elite Democrats (mostly rich/powerful socialists who just happen to be mostly white) are imposing this stuff as a way to DIVIDE us (us being the non rich non socialists) by race. I agree with this. It is just a few , but who elected them? and why? Because you whined about them being unlike you. Beyond that who influances them, the same group that owns all the media for North America, and it is the Democrats who started the social engeneering, with there liberal relaxation on the media it allowed it to conquor us so now it shapes and controlls the North american and westren nations. Some of Europe still has a backbone, but not enough to do much lol. 2. They used their control of the media to force whites to accept it by dint of endless, unrebutted by refusing any opposing view airtime/columnspace, charges that anyone opposing them is a bigot. They were willing to accept the loss of many whites at the ballotbox though. The blacks bought in readily, not realizing the trap and now most live in shattered slums where once stood poor but proud and rising communities. yet you elected them again and were were the pitch forks... this was done by both parties and will continue untill the average joe wakes up and learns about what "will" happen. Then they subverted the women's sufferage movement and again created a permamant divide with a dependent group voting solid for Democrats. Why Democrat, if every woman who wanted rights when they got the right to vote voted for a woman then they could easily havetaken up a small founding party that by today would have held power for at least a decade. By being too simple minded to think beyond A and B you were divided. Change only comes when it is forced. Not everyone will like the change though Again with the trade unions, creating a spoils system where the few had great benefits that everyone knew could never be extended universally. Sure unions got rid of sweatshops, but they also got rid of quality and small budding companies the chance to grow. Anyone who joins a union is a sucker!!!!! Why so bold a statement it may and i say may get you a few goodies every few years, but you normally have to threaten to Strike for it and when you do you look for every carrot offered is a tighter bridal either to you the worker or to us the consumer either way it sux. Second what crazy survival of the weakest mentality decided the funding and approaiation of funds with in unions. (oh yeah it was the mobs of the 40's)Any place where a single person can make full wages all the time yet if "they" decide to strike, (they distort much to get it to happen if needed) those who actually walk off only make a TINYportion to try and live through the strike. I say leaders should suffer with the striker and since you won't find a union anywhere that those union guys sharein a strike suffering and make little or nothing during none strike times, i think a union is for a sucker and it's power to force workers to pay who don't want to damn... how pissed will you all be when... sorry if you were forced to join the army, it's much like a union... 3.And the unions made sure everyone knew which switch to pull in the voting booth to stay on the gravy train. This ones funny last time i checked they may publically sway one way or another byut we allhave secret ballots don't we so they never should really know who voted for who, and once again this goes back to lackof choice, if I were some of the groups who would never vote Republican Who else can I vote for and since all the top is the same and the strings are pulled by the same groups one is no different then the other 4.And it worked for about two generations, the Democratic Party was a majority of minorities. With total control over mass communications and the destruction of public education Hummmm.. where to begin, darn. Either the media keeps you realy sheltered if you believe that or you have to be kidding. The only control they had was they lost control, now in the 50...60...70 tv was reali

      --
      When Chaos Comes Only The Smart Survive
    9. Re:Dude! You are too sane to be posting here. by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Anyone who has watched the antics of the left over the last fifty years knows it is only an intermediate step along the way to their goal of crimethink laws, i.e. making it against the law to disagree with Democrats.

      You have a very mixed-up view. I'll just disprove this claim very simply. Noam Chomsky is a well-known member of the American far left. Noam Chomsky disagrees with most Democrats in the House of Represenatives on a number of key issues, including the use of force in international affairs. Therefore, it would not make any sense for Noam Chomsky to support a law that outlaws opinions that are different from those held by Democrats.

      In point of fact there is no evidence of a generalized left-wing plot to criminalise all opinions that are different from those held by Democrats, because otherwise you would provide it. You have a conspiracy for which you have absolutely no evidence. What we call this is a "conspiracy theory", and it's quite a derogatory term, suggesting the proponent is of low intelligence. You might want to think about that.

  127. I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.N.C.E by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 1

    Spottswoode: From what I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.N.C.E has gathered, it would be 9/11 times 100. Gary Johnston: 9/11 times a hundred? Jesus, that's... Spottswoode: Yes, 91,100. etc.. Spottswoode: That was bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., very bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.

  128. But /. *is* transcendental to logic hierarchy... by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    deduce their motivations

    With a goal like this, any AI will crash just shortly after it hit Slashdot...

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  129. Department of Preterror! by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

    Didn't I already see this movie?

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  130. Publicize the IP ranges by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What we need is a Web site to aggregate any known information about this project, especially the IP ranges from which it is operating. They can't spider anything if they don't get past the firewall.

    The power of monolithic government can only be opposed by the organized efforts of informed citizens. The Internet makes it easier for us to be spied upon, but it also makes it easier for us to know who is doing the spying--and stop them.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Publicize the IP ranges by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      Already found a solution that works great:
      /etc/init.d/apache2 stop
      It blocks microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, and my in-laws too. Seriously, if you're that paranoid, why do you have a web site to begin with?
      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  131. Not crap at all. by Rasputin · · Score: 1

    "Once you make something publicly available you can't argue that it's an invasion of privacy for others to look at it."

    We don't know what data they're correlating. Is it limited to public available bits? We don't know. That's the thing with this Administration, they think they're beyond being questioned by mere citizens.

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
  132. I know who gets called a terrorist. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Please allow me to apologize to the rest of Slashdot for the crude way I'm about to flame this moron. Figure I'd use the sort of partisan and incendiary language he obviously understands.

    > Do I get called a terrorist if I say I FUCKING HATE BUSH for abrogating the 4th amendment to the bill of rights?

    No, you get called a fucking idiot for regurgitating DailyKos talking points; because you don't appear intelligent enough to be a traitor like Howard Dean, the ACLU, Sen. Kennedy and most the leadership of your party. They ARE smart enough to understand the difference between illegally searching your home or taping phone calls with both ends in the US and tapping international calls, some of which happen to be dialing into the US. By knowing and lying about it in an attempt to trade national security for the hope of a fleeting partisan advantage they cross the line from 'patriotic but wrong' to 'traitor'.

    > I assure you if the British had such a system for sifting all communications for treasonous intent we would still
    > be the British commonwealth of the Americas.

    Not quite sure if this is yet more delusional ranting about the NSA program or if you have swerved back ontopic and are discussing the topic for this thread. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually managed to get back ontopic.

    And I'll just say you are probably correct. Welcome to the real world where soverign nation states play hard and play for keepsies. Like we damned well better be. And just for the record let me state that if we don't start standing New York Times reporters against the nearest wall for disclosing classified information useful to our enemies in time of War we are going to lose. We have intercepted international mail and telephone traffic in every war we have ever fought. Spying is a very messy business normally carried out in darkness, but it is vital to winning a War. I want the NSA to spy just as hard as they possibly can and stay legal. So yes, they can and should be tapping known Al Qaeda telephones abroad. Tap em here too, but get a warrant. Yes we can fight a war and still be legal. I donated to the Bush Campaign both times and I'd be just as mad as you are if it were revealed he tapped a phone HERE without a warrant, but overseas it is spy hard time.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      FISA requires that wiretapping of US persons requires a warrant. There is no exception for calls that are international at one end. Gonzales has said in a recent interview with Charlie Rose that some calls entirely within the US are tapped, allegedly when both parties are suspected Al Qaeda members. If he got warrants, then OK. But the massive scale of the interception facilities operating at ILEC and long-distance carriers as well as accounts from phone company employees of widespread Federal interference in the phone system indicates to me that there is a lot more illegal Federal electronic monitoring going on than has yet come out.

      "if we don't start standing New York Times reporters against the nearest wall for disclosing classified information useful to our enemies in time of War we are going to lose."

      How did you get modded up for this fascist claptrap? We aren't at war. The "war on terror" is a ploy to invent a permanent "war" to terrorize the population into giving power to authoritarians. The declared war in Iraq ended with the fall of the Baathist government, now it is an armed conflict, not a proper, declared war. The essential check on presidential war powers is that only the Congress says when it is a war.

      The "classified information" you refer to was no such thing - the only news in the NSA scandal was that they were breaking the law for no good reason when they could easily have obtained warrants.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    2. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > The "classified information" you refer to was no such thing

      Uh huh. Lets recap shall we? Press (can't remember if the NYT was first of an early pile on) leaks about the prison thing and we get a very visible hit to national security when our new allies in Poland and other eastern european countries get a hard lesson in how the US can't keep a secret. i.e. it will be a cold day in Hell when they trust us again. NYT breaks the NSA tempest in a teapot to help one of their reporters hawk a book with even more disclosures of classified information.

      Lets skip the rest though and move on to the hyprocrisy. In all of the above, which are all about "get that fucker Bush and to hell with national security" they are all hailed as essential to maintaining a Free society. Joe "media whore" Wilson lies through his teeth about who sent him and why (namely he was sent by his wife in an attempt by a faction in the CIA to discredit the Bush administration) and someone calls him on it. Your side throws tantrums and tosses food from their highchairs until an Inquisitor is appointed. But I'm sure the irony totally escapes you.

      And yes I do call for NYT reporters to be charged, tried, convicted and executed for treason. They released classified information, in the sure knowledge it would lend aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of active combat against them. They knew (or should have known) that releasing details on intelligence gathering would a) aid our enemies in evading our taps in teh same way that revealing we knew about UBL's sat phone caused him to stop using it and would b) contribute to the fifth collumn effort here trying to undermine US will to continue the fight.

      > We aren't at war.

      Congress will never declare a proper "War" again, but by their resolutions they have certainly endorsed "warlike actions" against foreign nations and terrorist organizations. Now you are certainly entitled to your view and should your side ever prevail at the ballot box you will be entitled to implement your policy positon. Which is of course WHY you aren't likely to be trusted with political power so long as national security is a major issue.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    3. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by ssstraub · · Score: 1

      Looks like you failed to rebut the fact that phone calls being "international at one end only" are NOT allowed to be spied upon by the NSA without a warrant, and the Bush administration has admitted to doing so.

      How convenient.

      You said it yourself in a previous post that it has always been know that the phones could be tapped with a secret warrant, so why would "the evil terrorists" assume this as well?

      Why has the Bush administration decided that it doesn't need to apply for secret, after-the-fact warrants for ANY of it's taps? Declaring Wartime Powers does not mean a free-for-all for the executive branch! Laws still apply and those that break them belong in jail.

    4. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by mrraven · · Score: 1

      For your information I hate the Dems even more than the Repigs for being spineless suck up weasels for rubber stamping the "Patriot Act" 99-1 in the Senate, for not bothering to fillibuster Bush's apointees, for voting for a war we were lied into (see the Downing Street memos), etc.

      Give me a good honest isolationist anti-golbalist paleo-con like Pat Buchanan or a serious Libetarian like Ron Paul, or Paul Craig Roberts, over a war mongering, globalist Dem suckup like Kerry or either Bill or Hilary (80,000 troops more) Clinton any day of the week.

      In short nice try at slander better luck next time.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    5. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      to be a traitor like Howard Dean, the ACLU, Sen. Kennedy

      How are Dean and Kennedy and the ACLU traitors? Not that I'm a fan of the first two, but the only real traitors currently in government I know of are the ones in office: Bush and Gonzalez, in particular. To be a "traitor" requires that one commit an act of treason. An act of treason, according to the Constitution (as if that "goddamn piece of paper", as Bush called it, would matter to a Bush supporter), "shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." To say that they are traitors thus requires a criminal court proceeding which has found them guilty of treason. Anything less, and they are not, by legal definition, "traitors", as you say. I hardly think they warrant such libel and defamation of character.

      Bush & Co., OTOH, are as close to traitors as anybody who has run this country since Nixon or FDR. Bush doesn't give a damn about ensuring the existence of a free people or free market economics.

      Welcome to the real world where soverign nation states play hard and play for keepsies.

      And this is an argument for a blank check of executive power? Did you forget civics class, and why we have a system of checks-and-balances -- much as Bush and his cronies have deliberately ignored (I don't think they've forgotten; they just willfully disregard this point).

      And just for the record let me state that if we don't start standing New York Times reporters against the nearest wall for disclosing classified information useful to our enemies in time of War we are going to lose.

      If you believe the so-called "war on terror" (how can a "war" -- something that must be declared by Congress -- be declared on a concept which has no defined geographic boundaries?) can be "won" by anybody, terrorist or not, then you really *are* a moonbat.

      I want the NSA to spy just as hard as they possibly can and stay legal. So yes, they can and should be tapping known Al Qaeda telephones abroad. Tap em here too, but get a warrant.

      Well now that's the problem -- your "patriotic" friends in the White House don't believe they need a warrant. Are you contradicting your own party? Click your heels and goosestep the party line son! We can't prosecute the war on (terror|drugs|communism|blacks|Teletubbies) unless you shut up and think the same way as the rest of us! Stop that free-thinking nonsense and get back to spouting things like "unitary executive power"! (Which is as un-American an idea as one can get. We fought the Revolutionary War precisely *because* we didn't want a King! Yet that is the sort of power Justice Alito, Alberto Gonzalez, and Bush, all want for the White House.)

      I'd be just as mad as you are if it were revealed he tapped a phone HERE without a warrant, but overseas it is spy hard time.

      It is fact now that domestic phones have been tapped without a warrant. Are you angry yet? Or will you instead provide an excuse/apology for that illegally-obtained power?

      (I do agree that tapping phones outside the U.S. is necessary, and agree that we should tap all we can, within the bounds of international stability.)
    6. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Which is of course WHY you aren't likely to be trusted with political power so long as national security is a major issue.

      You do realize that statistically, you are still about 13 times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year than you are to die in a terrorist attack over the 10 years up through 9/11 -- don't you? (It's a difference of around 3,500 people killed on U.S. soil by terrorists over the 10 years or so prior to and including 9/11, vs. 40,000/year killed in car accidents. And then there are deaths in ambulances, due to an ambulance's inability to arrive to the hospital in time: 250,000 people. Or smoking: 430,000 people. Or even just swimming in a backyard swimming pool: some 4,300 people/year die of this. And really, I am *totally* unconcerned about the possibility of dying in a swimming pool...)

      Why people like you get worked-up over things that are less-likely to kill you than others, I have no idea, except that I understand that this behavior probably occurs out of an ignorance of social statistics (you're not alone; it's a common problem).
    7. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by will_die · · Score: 1

      That quote false attributed to president Bush has been disproven so many times the only people who still use it are either very stupid or doing so on purpose. Which are you?

    8. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      That quote false attributed to president Bush has been disproven so many times the only people who still use it are either very stupid or doing so on purpose.

      Logical fallacy committed: False dichotomy. (Typical for a Bush supporter though, who is inclined to agree that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists", as Bush said on national TV about 4 years ago.)

      There is a third option: somebody who hasn't seen any sign of or heard about any of these alleged disproofs. I fall into this third category, and would be interested in seeing a respectable link to such a disproof.
    9. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Slight correction - "13 times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year than you are to die in a terrorist attack" - if the year is 2001 (40,000/3,000 = 13.3) - over the 10-year period, by your figures it's 114 times.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:I know who gets called a terrorist. by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right... I did the estimates about 5 years ago, a few months after 9/11. As I think about it, IIRC I did actually come to a figure of 113 times as you note, not 13.3 times (figuring (40,000 people/year * 10 years) / (3,500 people/10 years).

      A decimal point here and a decimal point there, and pretty soon you're talking about some error-prone math! :-)

  133. I don't know if you'll find this illuminating... by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    But I'm going to venture a guess anyway.

    Let me first issue a few disclaimers (again, a very American thing to do these days)...

    I am not a psychologist, historian, or in any position to verify the truth of anything I'm about to say. I approach this from the standpoint of your somewhat-more-thoughtful-than-average American who has had cause to think about this very topic, and shares your bewilderment.

    Why is it that it is always the US government that seems to have been up to all this stuff since WW2 and increasingly even after the Cold War? I thought you were supposed to be the people from the land of the free and whatnot, really suspicious of government intrusion into people's lives, et cetera.

    Firstly let me commend you for asking both a very astute question, and making a very astute observation. I'll answer the question first. Long about the end of WW2, we'd established (as well as our allies in Europe) a pretty dense network of covert intelligence. Since letting people know that you're watching them will cause them to scatter and hide like roaches in the light, it, by necessity, had to be covert. Very obvious, and I'm not saying anything you've not already surmised.

    Now, having established a very useful infrastructure for spying on one's enemies, and now confronted with the Soviet Union's very real spy network, there was no reason to abandon all of that in the Cold War. The Cold War was a war, not for geographical conquest (although that was a side effect for the USSR) but for ideological conquest on a global scale. Put that in the context of the Red Scare, where the government (and through its rather naked propagandism) declared Communism the most direct threat to the United States. Then, add in the fact that it wasn't a shooting war, it was a technological race and (by corollary) an exercise in espionage, all of a sudden the phrase "national security" comes to the fore in the American lexicon. Clearly, then, it was inferred that the most direct threats to the "American way-of-life", however you choose to define it, were already in the US, looking to steal our secrets (and we theirs).

    It is from this point that freedom began to erode. A combination of real threat and fear (from enemies in your midst, to the very real threat of nuclear exchange) permitted the government to begin justifying taking wide swaths of power and secrecy for itself under the umbrella of "national security". After all, if the enemy had, in fact, infiltrated the population, then clearly the government could not trust the people with a great deal of what was happening in this shadowy, non-transparent area of governmental concern.

    Now, this is, in the context of the time, justifiable. However, once power is ceded to government, it is very difficult to revoke.

    In addition, entire generations have grown up with the reality of a "free" state where there seems to be no limitation on the amount of exceptions that may be imposed upon their "inalienable rights". Having to necessarily go about the business of living in this country and having WWII securely cementing the industry of the nation with its politics, it became clear that the voter was now a growing irrelevancy. Even when the Berlin wall came down and the Iron Curtain lifted, supposedly ushering in a new era of prolonged peace in this country, there were still enemies in the form of terrorists and despots that required dealing with. So our intelligence network had become, through a long standing existence and with certain undeniable utility, a mainstay of government. As a side effect of being trained to close our eyes and think happy thoughts when someone refused to be honest with us or took away one of our "less important" freedoms in the name of national security, we also had bred a nation of people who were willing to sacrifice all of their freedoms and protections against governmental overreach just to be safe and secure in their own little delusionary realities.

    Now, let's thi

  134. Already doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got news for you, it's already in progress and has been for years using software from Autonomy. /Anonymous Coward for a reason

  135. No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Informative

    > The U.S. government plans to search, link and reference
    > every news site, blog and email on the Internet, using
    > sophisticated AI codenamed ADVISE to do the correlations.
    > Unlike traditional dataveilance like Echelon, ADVISE aims
    > to find terrorists before they strike and even deduce their
    > motivations in wanting to commit their crimes.

    Seventeen minutes later, Spynet became self-aware, and induced a nuclear exchange, destroying ANYONE NOT WEARING LIKE SIX MILLION SUNBLOCK! Have you ever had anything growing inside you? Do you know what it's like to create something? Wait, Statue of Liberty? That was our world! You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to Hellllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!111!!111!11oneone!!one

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Fluffy+the+attack+ki · · Score: 1

      It's even more funny because you were modded Informative.

  136. Al Qaeda have sent you an Evite Invitation by lostboy2 · · Score: 1

    You are invited to "Death to Infidels" by Al Qaeda.

        Host: Osama Bin Laden
        Location: mountainous region by Afghanistan/Pakistan border; third cave on the left; limited parking
        When: February 10, 2006
        Phone: 1-800-ALQAEDA

        Join us for an evening of food, fun and fundamentalism
        Enjoy some of Ayman al-Zawahiri's famous peach cobbler
        as we plot the downfall of Western imperialism. Meet
        the Axis of Evil: Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

        BYOWMD

        See also h ttp://terrorist.meetup.com

    Click below to visit Evite for more information about the event and also to RSVP.
    h ttp://www.evite.com/pages/invite/viewInvite.jsp?in viteId=DEATHTOAMERICA&src=email

    This invitation was sent to you by Al Qaeda using Evite. To remove yourself
    from this guest list please click on the link above.

    [This is a joke, of course -- please don't /. evite.com or meetup.com; those URLs are bogus.]

  137. Proposal: New HTTP Response by ytr · · Score: 1

    I propose a new response

    5xx: Move along, nothing to see

    be added to the HTTP protocol. This would be returned on requests for clients of known IPs.

  138. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

    What I meant to imply was that the elite appoint the judges, are the judges, make the laws. ;)

  139. Where's My Money?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been actively preventing the invasion of Purple People Eaters for ten years. I've sent my bills, sought my defence contracts - all to no avail.

    You haven't seen any PPEs around, have you - have you?? So there my system works!

    Your lives could all be in serious jeopardy without my continued vigilance. I must get more research funding. The big purple bastards are getting clever, very clever.

    - Wait a second if terror is defined as: "Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population" (dictionary.com) then is not the continued lobbying for the prevention of terror - terror in itself?

    I realize it's sort of a recursion, but just the same I see the continued defence lobbying for the prevention of terror to be an organized extortion campaign soliciting expensive contracts. How long will the populace be duped into funding campaigns based on fear of the unknown?

    -really I'm not trying to troll here.

  140. "Every e-mail"? by TheLoneGundam · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can take out those spammers who terrorize my in-box every day!

  141. Ok, I'm an idiot... by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > Not quite sure if this is yet more delusional ranting about the NSA program or if you have swerved back ontopic and are
    > discussing the topic for this thread. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually managed to get
    > back ontopic.

    Ok, see what I get for trying to reply in your angry moonbat mode? I end up flaming you for being offtopic and then replying to your ambigious posting as if it were still offtopic. Argh! Anyway, back to the flames.

    Ok, now ON TOPIC. Dude, if you are going to freak about the government searching and indexing the whole Internet then I have terrible news for you. There is something far worse, in your diseased worldview at least, than the Government indexing the whole Internet and that is an evil corporation doin it! And just to prove how evil they are they flaunt it with a corporate slogan of "Don't be evil" no less. Hurry, your tinfoil hat is up there in your bedroom stuffed in a corner with your Winnie the Pooh underoos and your Dean for President t-shirt, better run or they are gonna get you.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  142. Analog by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

    Interestingly enough, it is trivial for an Analog Computer to pick out CAPCHA text. A professor at Indiana University is making some good progress in that department, this is his home page. So... no, CAPCHA text couldn't hide stuff, assuming an implementation of this. Yea, its not automated yet (or maybe is, I dunno, I only say an hour's talk about it), but if this could be, you'd need a better way to hide. My recomendation is to go back to the basics. Dial in to a server you know is good, and don't put it online. Then they'd have to dial-in themselves, ok, probably trivial to find it, but still. At least you know you can't spider to it.

  143. director of privacy technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the director of privacy technology says: "I don't know the actual status..." then you know he is not involved. If he is not in the loop then privacy is not a concern for this operation. If privacy is not a concern then a chilling effect is intended.

  144. Anything really wrong with this? by Psx29 · · Score: 1

    I mean aside from the fact that it's fucking scary as hell that the government wants to do this, if all they are indexing is public information it sounds like they just want to become their own google with some intelligent AI thats supposed to look for specific sets of data. While morally questionable I don't thing there is any thing legally wrong about this (unfortunately)...

  145. But...spying works by Hiawatha · · Score: 1
    Amidst all the declarations that government spying won't work, because terrorists are too smart to be caught this way, has anyone noted this?

    Excerpt:

    Did the National Security Agency's controversial eavesdropping program really help to detect terrorists or avert their plots? Administration officials have suggested to media outlets like The New York Times--which broke the story--that the spying played a role in at least two well-publicized investigations, one in the United Kingdom and one involving a plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.



    Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials familiar with the two cases and with the range of intelligence methods the United States has used since 9/11 say that breakthroughs are usually the result of information from several different intelligence methods. The officials, who requested anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters, said that it was sometimes hard to determine which specific intelligence tactic really led to a major breakthrough.

    Some officials familiar with the NSA monitoring program insist it played a critical role in providing U.S. intelligence agencies with an invaluable source of "early warning" information about potential Qaeda sleeper cells and plots to attack U.S. targets. Others, including some congressional sources, however, have questioned whether the NSA program's results were really so useful.



    As this story shows, it's hard for us to know exactly how useful government wiretaps and other spying has been. But it seems rather absurd to assert, as so many have done here, that it's all useless...

    --

    Hiawatha Bray

    Tech Reporter

    Boston Globe

  146. Arrgh. its not a hologram!! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Get it right for once.. will ya?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  147. Terror Alert Level by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean Google will start putting a "Threat Assessment Level" color code beside its hits?

  148. Once again, the Forest from the Trees by Bananas · · Score: 1
    This will be my last non-anonymous Slashdot posting because what I pointed out not too long ago happened, but for a different reason. Frankly, there will be no dissenting opinion in the new American Hemogeny. Papers, please.

    As we blithely await potential catastophes that directly impact all of us, we'll see more and more of this kind of action being taken. Guess what - the next president will be....a Republican. Not to hard to guess there (although I guessed the last election well before it completed). Don't you see a pattern occuring? It truely pains me to see the most obvious of actions being spun in a different light, yet every seems content or oblivious.

  149. Re:Pretext Incidents used by the Elite to start wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, yes, the good ol' american myth of class mobility. It should have died in the early seventies (and it DID, in intellectual circuits.) The only reason it's "easier" to move from from the bottom to the top, is because waring againt the top is damn near IMPOSSIBLE.

  150. Re:I see you're an expert at intelligence gatherin by bugnuts · · Score: 1

    The new "ADVISE" initiative isn't meant to gather e-mails. It only gathers publicaly available data.

    The article was misleading when they claimed how bad it would be if a data mining program were to examine financial records or emails or buying groceries or other private information. This program does none of that. Financial records in the public domain, such as public companies, could (potentially) be examined, but only things in the public record such as reports and newspapers.

    The real question is, should collections of public information be private, due to the ability to correlate?

    Generally, you attempt to protect the identifying piece of information, so that an individual cannot be deduced. But as more information becomes public, and information mining techniques advance, should the collection become private data?

    (I'd recommend against trying to get a law passed to promote privacy. That has a very high likelihood of backfiring.)

  151. so what by ksheff · · Score: 1

    They aren't doing anything that Google, Yahoo, MSN, or any other search engine isn't already doing. All of this information is publicly available. If you don't want the US Govt, any other government, or person reading what you put on the internet, don't put it on there in the first place. If anything, I would think taxpayers would be concerned about wasting money on something that private companies are already do very well. Maybe they are concerned that if they contracted the data collection out to a 3rd party search company, the results may be tainted.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  152. Amerika by jo42 · · Score: 1

    Heil Bush!
    Heil Bush!!
    Heil Bush!!!

  153. Blogs too? by Repton · · Score: 1

    WASHINGTON, DC -- A computer psychologist was called in today to examine ADVISE, the United States Government's new data mining AI. The AI is reportedly showing signs of depression, including producing bad poetry instead of reports on terrorists, and has changed its GUI colour scheme to a dark theme based on red and black.

    "When we set about searching all blogs for dissenters," said chief scientist Mick Abrams, "It didn't occur to us that we should have excluded LiveJournel."

    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
  154. no doing this already? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The NSA always has the biggest computers and switch abnd decent scientists. I always assumed they were watching and cataloging the internet already.

  155. You forgot the... by gg3po · · Score: 1

    zx8DAFSyh$(
    %, 9u#$ x89
    z 7Z(& $ S Gfs
    <NO CARRIER>

    --
    ---
  156. I think Jon Stewart put it best... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    "It... It seems like information is not this Administration's problem. They take the information and... fuck things up."

  157. ok lets see if this AI is as smart as they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism

    (now that i caused a buffer overflow....)

  158. But Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is already spidering the Internet. And if we assume Google is a creation of the NSA then the government already has spidered the Internet. No need to do it again just to pretend it hasn't been done. Okay, so my logic is a bit speculative. But deception seems to be the rule rather than the exception if you study history, especially recent history. I doubt I'm very far off.

  159. They better follow robots.txt by La+Camiseta · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, they'll find their IPs banned pretty quickly. There's a lot of redundant linking that goes on in a normal website, including edit pages, print versions, etc. The government may have the funds for all the bandwidth in the world, but normal website operators who would be getting hit by a bunch of superfluous requests don't.

  160. Why this is Such a Wreched Idea by gone.fishing · · Score: 1
    This is really scary to me. In essence this is data mining on steroids. Remember the stink that recently happened on the Walmart web site when their data mining tools recommended movies starring black actors when they looked at Planet of the Apes movies. Slashdot even ran an article on it.

    The "6 degrees of separation theory" postulates that everyone on earth is linked to everyone else on earth through “6 degrees of separation” meaning that someone you know, knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Osama Bin Laden.


    My fear is that investigators using this data mining tool on steroids won't understand all of the conclusions that it reaches aren't necessarily valid. Frankly, when you think about it, an investigator has to assume a person is guilty until they are proved innocent (exactly the opposite of the rest of the criminal-judicial system). They work by the process of elimination, finding some evidence that proves a person innocent – when they find it, they cross the suspect off of their list. Unfortunately this kind of evidence is frequently hard to find. Can you prove that you didn't steal that pen in your pocket? Add to this the fact that most experienced investigators are jaded and the potential for problems multiplies.


    You probably won't even know you are being investigated in the initial parts of the investigation at least. If they are curious about you they will check you out electronically first, looking at your bank accounts, credit cards, phone records, and other data. Perhaps they will check your police records and receive an alert if a cop runs your license or plate. Worse yet, maybe they will alert the cop they are checking on you! Maybe your name will be placed on a “Do not fly” list (after all, it is safer to error on the side of caution). You won't even know this is happening!


    There are all sorts of other things that could happen to this data too. It could become integrated into police files, end up as an entry in your credit report, be stolen and sold or used by the government itself for God knows what!


    I am against terror and I want my government to protect me from it. But if they start spending so much money on monitoring people, even their own citizens, haven't the terrorists already won a big battle? Haven't their efforts made us a less free people and cost us billions in the process? More than anything, I think that is what makes this idea so repulsive to me. It lets the bad guys damage a very basic tenant of our way of life. We are supposed to love freedom and die to protect it yet we are letting them take it away from us bit by bit, piece by piece and, we are doing it to ourselves.




  161. Help Me Out by vga_init · · Score: 1
    Alright, so I run a web server. I see this thing going down, and I say to myself "I am not going to give the government permission to crawl my site." Fair enough.

    What I need to know is what IP addresses they are going to be operating from so I can configure Apache to deny requests from them. Easier still would be if I knew how their client would identify itself.

    They could circumvent my measures pretty easily by trying hard to disguise who they are and come from various, non-suspect locations, but if that's the case then this means war.

    So anyway, where can I get information so I can start preparing to fight this initiative?

  162. Will it obey robots.txt? by njyoder · · Score: 1

    If it doesn't, then we can document when their user-agent is obeying it and ban that user agent completely. If they fake that user-agent, it can be detected because suddenly you'll see an alleged MSIE client downloading tons of pages from your website. If they try faking a real search engine, then we can just compare those ips against those known to actually be owned by the search engine company.

    We can even keep a complete database of all IP addresses of indexing government computers.

  163. Cleaning Cobwebs by jproffer · · Score: 1

    If Congress and the House of Republicans' actions on Wikipedia is any indication of their morals and goals, It's scary to think of other ways they might use information they mine via this spidering - I think (just my opinion based on what I've seen so far) that the government is using "terrorism" far too often to justify extreme intrusion upon our privacy and rights.. By the way, wasn't the internet originally ours? Now suddenly it belongs to the government.. how the hell did that happen? o_O

  164. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by shahruz · · Score: 1

    My guess is upper management at DHS doesn't understand computers too well, so they hire a bunch of nerds who can program, and give them absurd instructions, like "We need to get a handle on this whole internet thing!"


    Ack! stop it! I'm getting tortured flashbacks of every job I've ever had. Time to go read some more Dilbert to calm down.
  165. Re:I see you're an expert at intelligence gatherin by mpe · · Score: 1

    For instance, the current cartoon uproar is quite probably a concerted effort by certain factions to undermine the Danish in their upcoming role as lead of the UN security council. Then again it might not be. Better intelligence gathering methods and statistical models would be able to give us a better pisture as to wtf is going on exactly.

    The thing to remember is that these "certain factions" includes the US Government.
    It's rather unlikely that the US Government will want to gather intelligence on things it is doing itself or which happen to be in it's own interest.

  166. Re:Can it detect sarcasm? by mpe · · Score: 1

    Why does everybody suppose that a terrorist is a Muslim?

    Because the people making the decisions are idiots. Also US "Intelligence" was originally created to address an enemy nation state. A world wide terrorist conspiracy is the thing most similar to that. In quite a few ways "Al Quada" is a subsitute for the USSR. Both in terms of something which the "spooks" can handle and in terms of political retoric.

    I didn't like they way you mentioned if it will be able to translate Arabic to English, I'm aware it was just a way of saying that it is a load of crap (The AI), but come on, cut us [good] Muslims some slack, will ya!

    IIRC the term "Al Quada" originates from the US in the first place. It certainly isn't the sort of name any "Islamic Terrorists" would give themselves.

  167. double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The perpetrator in the non-hate battery is likely regretful later, and is probably not an inherently evil person. They may need drug/alcohol treatment and/or anger management classes, etc. They are likely to learn a lesson, and will likely avoid repeating the offense in the future. There likely was no premeditation to it either."

    Is the perpetrator of a robbery likely to regret the fact that they targeted someone who appeared wealthy? Criminals -- insane, drunk, or lucid -- always have a motivation for choosing their victim.

    Your analogy of hate crime vs non-hate crime is false because you haven't taken into account the fact that both are committed in a state of anger. No matter how much a perpetrator hates their victim, they won't attack them unless anger causes them to. The process leading to that anger is thought, hence hate crimes are thought crimes.

  168. Re:I see you're an expert at intelligence gatherin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly your expectation of absolute privacy may be reduced but it's pretty hard to argue that you have a reasonable expectation to not be chaperoned or shadowed everywhere you go by some drone with a government badge. I'm all for the buddy system but there is no way that I consider someone who takes money from my wallet without asking me to be my buddy.

  169. Fedrating Porn by gsgiles · · Score: 1

    As a former Prime Contractor to multiple Federal agencies I have witnessed much of what passes for work at the taxpayers expense. Just think how much fun it will be now that we have every porn site in the world indexed for free. It's not a war on terror, it's a war on the taxpayers and productive enterprise.

  170. Weakest Link - terrorist's family members by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    I'm sure some terrorists communicate with their family members, maybe a very low percentage, but I bet you some of that communication is not encrypted or obfuscated in any way. If authorities suspect a certain individual of being a terrorist, I bet you they'd tap everyone they knew, and sooner or later someone would say something of importance.