Slashdot Mirror


NSA Shopping For Data Mining Tech

prostoalex writes "The National Security Agency paid a visit to Silicon Valley venture capitalists, the New York Times learned, to talk about potentially 'interesting' technologies that the Feds would be interested in purchasing. Data mining technologies that could link arbitrary facts into logical events and find dependencies, technologies for quick voice transcription - all these technologies usually get to market faster if developed by private companies."

159 comments

  1. Open source community by October_30th · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why didn't they turn to the open source community? They wouldn't have to pay for it and they'd get free support, too.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Open source community by afaik_ianal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But how many open source data mining projects can compete (in the features sense) with these commercial systems?

      These systems are extremely specialised and targetted at law enforcement and/or large corporations with huge databases.

      Seccessful OSS projects tend to be the ones that are used by the people writing them, and are of use to a wide community. If the developers do not have a vested interest in the product, then development will tend to stagnate.

      I think it is hard to argue that OSS has been successful in making products that are targetted at such specific (and wealthy) groups.

    2. Re:Open source community by maharg · · Score: 1

      why not use the best of both opensource and commercial ? IBM's UIMA looks interesting - see http://www.research.ibm.com/UIMA/

      --

      $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
      @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    3. Re:Open source community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      But how many open source data mining projects can compete (in the features sense) with these commercial systems?


      Well, some of the best of those commercial systems are based on OSS work. For example, Netezza, one of the best commercial business-intel & data mining platforms today was based on postgresql

    4. Re:Open source community by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Absolutely - I'm not suggesting that OSS has no part in the chain, but to suggest that law enforcement and spy agencies can just head along to SourceForge and pick up the kind of technology they are looking for is unrealistic.

      Databases are an area that OSS tends to excel at, as are operating systems. I doubt all of the systems they'd be considering would be built around Oracle for Windows.

    5. Re:Open source community by DerGeist · · Score: 1
      They actually have in the past (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/).

      This time, though, I don't think they want anyone knowing exactly how their mining code works, lest someone figure out a way to wreak havoc on the system. For example, the idea of someone making records invisible to the data miner probably has them spooked (I know, code it well and this'll never happen, but you can "never be too careful"). Just my two cents.

    6. Re:Open source community by canning · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that the more you pay for a product the better it is.

      --
      I love the smell of Karma in the morning
    7. Re:Open source community by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* They are looking for Non Obvious Relationship Analysis (NORA) technology. It would be fairly easy to get up a OSS project to produce it. I actually tried to start up one (Ghandi/Custer) based on Globus GT4, but had to abandon it due to practical considerations involving not starving to death and having a roof over my head...

      Most of the technology to do this already exists as Open Source projects. If I were starting it up now, I would probably try to combine an Open Source JBI /JSR ESB (ServiceMix http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/) with GT4 and either Postgres or MySQL (Postgres has better spatial and language integration, and MySQL has that dual license issue, sophisticated features, and a large user base.).

      ServiceMix has a built in rules engine. Properly reworked (an easy task with JBI service integration and drools architecture) it could easily cope with the demands involved (which are pretty extreme). The real trick is to have theoretical knowledge necessary to create the appropriate rules. A lot of OSS developers are working stiffs, and most non academics are not up to date enough on the Logic, Langua and Mathematics necessary to produce something like this.)

    8. Re:Open source community by typical · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      OSS excels at providing "core systems" that many people want to use to build their own systems on top of. Everyone contributes a little to the core system (so everyone wins there) and then puts the rest of their work into application-specific stuff.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    9. Re:Open source community by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      These systems are extremely specialised and targetted at law enforcement and/or large corporations with huge databases.

      Seccessful OSS projects tend to be the ones that are used by the people writing them, and are of use to a wide community. If the developers do not have a vested interest in the product, then development will tend to stagnate.

      I think it is hard to argue that OSS has been successful in making products that are targetted at such specific (and wealthy) groups.

      While what you say is true, note that these are government officials and departments wanting these tools, not a private corporation. So the collaboration that can make development more efficient could (and should!) be done in public, so that the taxpayers who are purchasing this (whether they want to or not) can benefit from the research done in this area.

      Are they really going to try to stop us from leaving the planet? Is that (one of the reasons) what all the spying is about?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    10. Re:Open source community by captn+ecks · · Score: 1

      "Are they really going to try to stop us from leaving the planet? Is that (one of the reasons) what all the spying is about?"

      Shhhhhhhh! Oh, fine. Why don't you just e-mail them with our plans! Big mouth.

    11. Re:Open source community by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured the response would either be that, or "whacko!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:Open source community by ktija · · Score: 1

      www.teramanager.com

    13. Re:Open source community by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Open source is not the appropriate solution for any intelligence technique. After all maintaining the intelligence edge on all your potential opposition (everybody but you) is what it is all about. There is the incorporation of allies in intelligence gathering but that only happens if their assistance is required and the sharing is always filtered.

      Any computerised technique that does not rely on personal expertise for qualitative management will just flood with useless information and become a burden rather than an assistance. Computers currently will still not do the work for you, GIGO still rules as it has done for thirty years and likely for at least the same again.

      Not that it hasn't allowed numerous companies to extract large amounts of profit from many governments with the illusion of a system that will provide them total control. They are obviously way overworked attempting to spy on far too many people (by far the majority of it utterly pointless) and are already flooded with data, creating more pointless data that has not been effectively valued will just make their problems worse, not better. Hmm, sounds like a good idea after all ;-).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. High Tech Ntional Security by thedletterman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if it hs anything to do with this. To be fair to the government, this isn't actually too bad an idea. I mean if spammers and dvertisers can gleam information to find potential targets, why can't the same technology be utilized by the defense department, who is typically an early pioneer of technology adapted for public use. Then again, a similar project 'Able Danger' identified Mohammed Atta over a dozen times.

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by klingens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean if spammers and dvertisers can gleam information to find potential targets, why can't the same technology be utilized by the defense department

      Cause spammers and advertisers only spam you, government can use the data to imprison or even shoot you. The fact remains that a tool like this is readymade for a dictatorship that isn't even recognizable as one from the outside. Perfect to oppress people, anathema to a democracy

    2. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by thedletterman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's called sensationalize and an appeal to emotion. The government can't imprison you unless you are committing crime, that's why we have judges. The idea that because they are connecting phone records with travel itenaries, bank transactions and visits to jihdist websites gives them justification to "shoot you" is simply retarded.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Well put. And if anyone out there wants to know more about various logical falacies, see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies. It has excellent descriptions of all of the common fallacies, plus some not-so-obvious ones.

      Offtopic, I know, but I feel the discussions here could be much more productive (with much less FUD) if people understood logic a little better.

    4. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by yurigoul · · Score: 1
      The government can't imprison you unless you are committing crime, that's why we have judges.
      Why don't you tell that to the people in Guatama Bay? Next it could be you. But - OMG - all the people who could have protested against it are already in there.
    5. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      Aren't you protesting against gitmo? Are you posting from there? Or are you suggesting that the people in Gitmo were apprehended as a result of programs such as this one, because if that's the case.. give me ten more. Seriously, if you want to avoid the idea of a gestapo or secret police, you should advocate government adapting technology for security, it allows for far greater oversight and accountablity and reduces the need for humn intelligence spying on citizens. Data mining, as the articles suggest, can be done with all identifying personal information removed from the intelligence and linked into a seperate database accessible only by court order. By your emotional, sensationalist response, I doubt you bothered to read that far in the article. It's just not an educated reaction. If you don't want the government investigting terrorists and criminals, or you're not willing to educate yourself on the methods, then I really don't care what your perspective on the issue is.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    6. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Burz · · Score: 1

      The argument that goes "You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong" is a fallacy advanced by pro-authoritarian people.

      The government doesn't belong having absolute knowledge of our private lives, because then the burden to be law-abiding becomes infinite. The temptation to miscontrue "illegal" patterns becomes too great for abusers to resist: Even if the courts do get involved (and discern every case correctly) then the powerful still have a tool for limitless harassment of opposition groups and scapegoats. Ultimately, people who are disliked and disrespected will tend to go to jail for something anyway, since few people lead perfectly-legal lives.

      OTOH they can bring people in for possibly assisting terrorists, and they disappear. There's an "endless war" on, ya know.

    7. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by yurigoul · · Score: 1
      Well, since I am living in one of the American colonies - I mean the Netherlands - I probably don't know that much about it.

      But seriously, even if a tenth of the stuff I hear about what is going on over there is true, it is about time to resurect the Weather Report.

    8. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by symbolic · · Score: 1

      why can't the same technology be utilized by the defense department,

      Because it's the government, and we have a Constitution.

    9. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

      The government can't imprison you unless you are committing crime, that's why we have judges.

      Guantanamo Bay!

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    10. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      "...that to secure these liberties, Governments are instituted among men..." allowing terrorists to infiltrate and operate concealed within our society will see the Constitution turned into a worthless document faster than you can say ACLU. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from investigation.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    11. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guantanamo Bay!

      Really? Care to provide links to information on individuals that are there who are not accused of crimes or considered enemy combatants?

      Last I heard, they either all came from the battle fields of Iraq/Afghanistan or were taken into custody as a result of FBI investigations into criminal and/or terrorist activities in the US.

      So, exactly who there doesn't fall into one of those categories? Inquiring minds want to know.

    12. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to provide links to information on individuals that are there who are not accused of crimes or considered enemy combatants?

      Last I heard, they either all came from the battle fields of Iraq/Afghanistan or were taken into custody as a result of FBI investigations into criminal and/or terrorist activities in the US.

      So, exactly who there doesn't fall into one of those categories? Inquiring minds want to know.


      Bing! You win the "hey I am actually arguing with you, not against you" prize.

      The whole point is that they aren't given Due Process, so it's impossible to provide you with the information you seek. Thanks for helping bring the obvious forth so the rest of the class can see.

    13. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point is that they aren't given Due Process, so it's impossible to provide you with the information you seek. Thanks for helping bring the obvious forth so the rest of the class can see.

      Since the Gitmo residents are not US citizens, why should they expect the rights guaranteed to US Citizens?

    14. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Re-read Amendment IV. If I have not done anything, the government has no grounds for investigation, and my actions should be completely free from any scrutiny.

    15. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      international human rights?

      treaties?

      we 'won' the war in afghanistan, at least thats what the guberment said, so why are there still pow?

    16. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      The parent of this post has the whole point. Lock, Stock and barrel head. The NSA is tracking across the US Constitution and the people doing so at the NSA should be sent to trial under the rules we Americans tried Japanese and German War criminals at the end of WW2. The penalty should be the same as well. They should be hanged!

      Don't worry guys(At NSA et. al.) you have nothing to fear unless the citizens start coming for you.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    17. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      So you're saying you should be able to walk down the street without police officers looking at you?

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    18. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the Gitmo residents are not US citizens, why should they expect the rights guaranteed to US Citizens?

      You have to respect a country that has raised it's citizens to value people from other countries as inferior as standard to such a degree that they are basically considered slaves.

    19. Re:High Tech Ntional Security by symbolic · · Score: 1

      A police officer "looking at me" hardly qualifies as "investigation". In case it still isn't clear, I'm referring to any willful attempt to locate, acquire, store, retrieve, or profile information on anyone without sufficient justification.

  3. Technician Strike by carcosa30 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's getting time we put a stop to these people.

    I'm hearing more and more about the idea of a national strike.

    We technicians bitch and complain about this kind of flagrant privacy violation.
    It would be much more difficult for these people, I'd think, if there were some sort of technician union that had technical rights as well as civil rights as part of its platform.

    It's real simple:
    1) Don't help these fucks in any way.
    2) Harm them in any way you can get away with. Small needling, over and over again. Refusal to cooperate. Take their money and do nothing.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    1. Re:Technician Strike by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Not sure how serious you are being, but I think there a number of problems with your suggestion.

      * IT is far too market driven to support a union. If tech people went on strike, then they'd just pay someone else to do it. When so much work is ultimately contract based, we need to delver products, or our jobs get taken by someone willing to delver (maybe not directly).

      * It's illegal in most countries to be destructive. The Fire Fighter union cannot hold a strike where they go around lighting fires. Furthermore, doing damage does little to build public support.

      Finally, from an ethical point of view, what's worse: writing the software that will be used to invade privacy in line with the law; or writing software that intentionally returns bad data, increasing the chances of innocent people being investigated, while also increasing the chances of them missing someone they would have caught without the software? I know which one would give me the fuzzier feeling.

    2. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting idea, one that borrows a few ideas that have already been suggested by our own government.

    3. Re:Technician Strike by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

      They are evil and it's time those of us who have a conscience started doing whatever we can to fuck them.

      America is in the process of devolving into a police state. With every passing week their grip on the government grows.

      Oh, and I'm dead serious.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    4. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And I am serious, too, when I say that I will fight you assholes wherever I find you. What is it with you? You always sound like pissant teenagers, mad at the world because you're not allowed to do whatever you want. But since you're adult, your tantrums will only hurt the efforts of those who want to keep us safe. You are people who harass cops for doing the jobs. You are people who scream about a falling sky whenever the law enforcement, intelligence or military agencies get more tools for fighting against terrorism.

      Wake up and smell the 9/11 ashes. This is a different world we're living in now. Your precious civil rights won't matter if you're dead.

    5. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wake up and smell the 9/11 ashes. This is a different world we're living in now. Your precious civil rights won't matter if you're dead.

      9-11 this, 9-11 that... you know what, 9-11 was bad, 9-11 helped us realize that terrorism is a real threat and that we need to stick together to not lose to them, but now I am sick of hearing 9-11 cited mainly becasue now it is used a justification to erode the civil liberties. Think about it... compare current events and think critically...

    6. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you fucking prick piece of shit coward cocksucker whore bitch.

      You might feel OK with selling off your own civil rights but GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF MINE.

    7. Re:Technician Strike by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      So, what... everyone who works at the NSA is a "fuck"? Or is it everyone who works in the DoD? Perhaps anyone affiliated with the government at large? I think you should remember that there are a lot of small people all over that wouldn't be trying to fuck you over.
      And as for #2, I think that taking their money (i.e. getting a contract) and not giving them anything, just *might* be a breach of contract. Might want to rethink that second bit.

    8. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, you fucking prick piece of shit coward cocksucker whore bitch.
      You might feel OK with selling off your own civil rights but GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF MINE.

      Right on!
    9. Re:Technician Strike by nevernamed · · Score: 1

      Way to go! It's about time we tell those bastards that we won't tolerate this bullshit.

    10. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your antiquated ideas of civil rights interfere with my right to stay alive, I'll sell off your civil rights. In a heartbeat.

    11. Re:Technician Strike by deanj · · Score: 1

      Better idea:

      Let them know where you live, and let them enter that into the program.

      If they find anything out about any terrorist activity in your area, they can rig the software to ignore it, as per your wishes.

    12. Re:Technician Strike by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      I hope a zombie Patrick Henry eats your brain. Zombie Ben Franklin would join in, but he'd be too busy hitting on zombie women.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    13. Re:Technician Strike by chihowa · · Score: 1

      And you'll find that your life will mean about as much to them as their civil rights meant to you.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    14. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know something? You're right! I'd much rather live in a police state than be dead.

      Take my liberty or give me death!

    15. Re:Technician Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When your antiquated ideas of civil rights interfere with my right to stay alive, I'll sell off your civil rights. In a heartbeat.

      And when you sell our rights and it doesn't do us the good you think it will, don't be surprised when a really pissed mob shows up at at your doorstep.

    16. Re:Technician Strike by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Your comment seems premised on a key assumption which I believe is not correct, namely that a large percentage of "technicians" (or really any other group of people) would have such a problem with said surveillance, to the point where they would take any steps that might potentially risk their jobs (a risk that would not be completely alleviated by unionization).

      Polls show that, if the question is put in a certain way, it's not hard to get a very large majority of people to support surveillance, even very "orwellian" surveillance. I don't think there's any reason to assume that 'technicians' are necessarily any different.

      I think it would only take one more widely publicized terror attack in this country for people to willfully give up many freedoms in the pursuit of increased perceived 'security.' There is adequate historical precedent for people turning on their neighbors in times of insecurity, I don't think that this country is somehow immune.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    17. Re:Technician Strike by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      This is a different world we're living in now. Your precious civil rights won't matter if you're dead.

      You have your priorities terribly wrong.

      "Give me liberty or give me death."

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. Human intel by Grumpy+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't help thinking the authorities are still way too star-struck by tech and don't value human intel enough. We have seen the shortcomings of a lack of human intel in Afganistan, Iraq, 9/11 and so on. When will improving the human intel get the focus it needs so gov'ts can make informed decisions about our security. Maybe then we can forget about Dept of Homeland Security type fiascos.

    1. Re:Human intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the US government (or other governments around the world) are not trying to use as much human intelligence as they can?

      Some activities, such as buying technology, is done in public. Some activities, such as paying informants, is done more covertly. All governments do it.

    2. Re:Human intel by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Exactly right - it seems to me that they're looking for technology to do their job for them. The results could be devastating- on several levels.

    3. Re:Human intel by AlienSlav · · Score: 0

      It always comes down to some personal Asshat with an ego. After all information is run through the system the truth is set before this stooge for the final endorsement. He looks back down the line of college degrees, professional technicians, and other assorted wizards that it took to put the paper in his hand and realizes how many ass sucking things he did to get his job and what kind of shmuck he is. So just to show who's in charge he dumps the paper and writes up his own.
      AlienSlave

    4. Re:Human intel by 0xC0FFEE · · Score: 1
      We have seen the shortcomings of a lack of human intel in Afganistan, Iraq, 9/11 and so on.

      What about Katrina? Sure to be modded flamebait, but I got your attention, so I'll use it. There are more important and immediate problems in this world where the situation can be improved by foresightedness, intelligence, compassion, kindness, frugality, etc. Improving the general state of our society is not something you agree while watching the olympics. You invest of yourself, your time, your passion to be a part of the solution. Now I understand that in our western societies, our individual lives are compartmentalized, rationalized, scheduled and optimized so that for whatever goes wrong, there's a product or a stopgap solution being offered in exchange for some money. Time is money, money is the equilibrium-maker, giving you back some of the efforts you made for later use. In the same way money is an abstract notion related to some units of work that you can store, technology is likewise an abstact notion for the leverage you can apply to work.

      Now, most problems don't require much money to be solved or at least partially rectified. Those that need lots of money probably don't require much new technologies. Anyway, rarely are problems solved by accounting. Those problems that require new technology are probably out of your hands anyway. Even if they are not, the bottomline, is that worthwhile technological investments are those that can be leveraged by the whole of society therefore improving the effect of our work on solving problems. Developing technology for the sake of solving _one_ problem is foolish, misdirected, wasteful, unjust and incredibly shortsighted.

      The NSA is not NASA, new tech won't trickle down on the rest of us. Will security trickle down to the rest of us? I don't know, very few know. I'm not into blind faith myself, so I'd prefer to know what is done to improve matters instead of signing a blank check.

    5. Re:Human intel by deKernel · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you have been keeping up with events, but they are saying just what you are. They DO want human intel, but the intelligence services were stipped down some time ago. I am not pointing figures here, just saying facts that have not be denied.

      This search I hope is just a stop-gap measure until the human intel can be rebuild. You are talking sometimes in the order of double-digit years to repair such problems. Human intel just does not happer over night. It must be cultivated which takes time.

    6. Re:Human intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No real time intel for those folk.
      Looking at the size of the data being collected, and memory speeds, the electronic stuff can only be used in witch hunts - after the fact, if not pre-programmed in. Bandwidth is everything. Sad, because Amdahl and ICL/Fujitsu had a few good ideas, but low latency DB's are not trendy enough, and failed to sell.

      You have narrow/fast databases or slow/lumbering ones, end of story. Ask Bogmart. They seem to have re-discovered associative tricks - when combined with clueful human intel.

  5. Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you hate America so much?

    1. Re:Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that sarcasm, or a jab at humor?

    2. Re:Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just pointing out that it's not wise to talk about striking in such a critical field in a time of war.

    3. Re:Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, isn't taking action what you are supposed to do when the government is headed down a path that is overall worse than it should be? Granted the tactics are questionable...

    4. Re:Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Cally · · Score: 1
      Just pointing out that it's not wise to talk about striking in such a critical field in a time of war.

      You imply that you are "in a time of war" at present. Hmmm. Leaving that aside, do you think that "it's not wise to talk about striking" is a good thing, or a bad thing?

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    5. Re:Seditious talk, my man... watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because SARCASM could NEVER be FUNNY.

  6. I can give them that by Quirk · · Score: 1
    Data mining technologies that could link arbitrary facts into logical events and find dependencies,

    arbitrary:
    adjective: based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice

    fact
    noun 1 a thing that is indisputably the case

    So an arbitrary fact would be something that is indisputably the case based on individual impulse of caprice.

    I write code like that after I smoke a phat dubbie but I didn't know the NSA would be interested in paying a big buck for it. I'm gonna get right onto that.:)

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:I can give them that by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realise your taking a humourous dig at the (admittedly) bad choice of words there, but arbitrary aslo means:
      Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.

      "Abitrary facts" within its context could also mean "a set of facts chosen from a larger set of facts at random".

      I think "seemingly unrelated facts" is what they really meant to say.

    2. Re:I can give them that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linking arbitrary facts into logical events:

      "In the course of the past 6 months, security camera footage analysis shows that Mrs. R., while walking her dog, has looked over her left shoulder 372 times out of 412 crossing the B.W. and D.S. junction, average direction 53 degrees left of center, 28 degrees up. Eye trajectory analysis shows that she must have been looking at the D.S. apartments in the block centered around 184 D.S. with a radius of 12 degrees. From previous investigations we know that 196 D.S. is a known safehouse run by the B.J. drugs cartel.
      From this accumulated evidence, we conclude that there is a high probability she is involved with the cartel and advice to commence more intense investigation, including mail analysis, wiretaps, hidden camera and microphone surveillance of her apartment and covert observation of her movements in the surrounding area."

      Welcome to "Big Brother". Don't say you haven't been warned.

    3. Re:I can give them that by Omaze · · Score: 1

      That is precisely the problem. Farther up the page were comments about people worried about being jailed, or shot, and posters who derided them that the government would never do that because the courts would stop them if they didn't have enough or the right kind of evidence. Here, though, you have nailed it down perfectly. This is not about being thrown in prison or being executed. This is about the slow and deliberate advance of government harassment, slowly creeping further and further into the life of a citizen, with no justification other than a well-written compilation of completely circumstantial facts.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
  7. Relax by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

    Someone will sell 'em Oracle Reports or Cognos or some other bloated "Enterprise scale solution" and they'll cane billions of taxpayer dollars over 5-10 years with little to show for it except happy BMW dealers in the areas where the middleware agile on-demand service bus oriented architecture consultants live. Bad news if you're an American taxpayer, but not as bad as it'd be if the US Govt actually capable of developing functional large-scale systems. You don't have to look far to see that it ain't necessarily so... and that if the intelligence generated by the system can be systematically ignored, marginalised and worked-around by the executive branc anyway, what difference would it make? (hint: it makes none...)

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Relax by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      Right.. like the Defense Department didn't actually develop Arpanet

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    2. Re:Relax by Omaze · · Score: 1
      they'll cane billions of taxpayer dollars over 5-10 years with little to show for it except happy BMW dealers in the areas where the middleware agile on-demand service bus oriented architecture consultants live
      As a bonus those billions of taxpayer dollars and consultant jobs will help bolster their reports that the job market isn't dying. Plenty of jobs will be created to shuffle the data, thousands will be created administering the clusters and servers holding the data, hundreds will be created administering the hundreds, and a few dozen will be created administering the non-profit managing the whole thing.

      What a crock.
      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
  8. find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    find / -name supersecretstuff -print

  9. Why? by lheal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe government exists to defend the liberty of its citizens. Got me? I'm a conservative libertarian, no caps. That means that while I more-or-less agree with the Libertarians, I don't march lockstep with anybody.

    But I used to. I used to march lockstep with my fellow Marines, wanting only a chance to use my rifle, or its bayonet, on some terrorist bent on destroying all I hold dear.

    I value my privacy, too. But there's a difference between what I do in private (or even a semi-public area like a restaurant or pseudonominous posting on a blog) and what I do in public.

    If someone stands on the corner shouting "Down with America! We will blow up your orphanages, unholy capitalist swine!", I'd like to know who he is and whether he's actually in contact with anyone else. If there's no "we", then he's just a nutcase and can be told so and otherwise ignored.

    But if that fellow is in contact with others doing the same thing, I'd like to know about it. I'd like the government to defend my liberty by infringing his.

    Similarly, if he's smart enough just to be in contact with his terrorist buddies, I'd like the government to know it so he doesn't get a chance to blow up Disneyworld or something.

    I want the government to sift through all publicly available information to find people planning or engaged in activities which would cause me or another 2,966 of my countrymen to be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

    So take your "strike", and your call for people to interfere with government's only legitimate role, and ... keep it to yourself.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Why? by DerGeist · · Score: 1
      You would be spot-on if there were no Internet.

      The difference is, when I am in the mall and I start shouting about Holomorphic Aliens (or whatever) while wearing tinfoil helmet (sorry, obl.) I can see everyone staring at me. I can watch the policeman come up and ask me to leave. I know when I am making public records because I have to physically interact with someone or something in order for that record to be made.

      On the internet, the lines between private and public become very hazy, and it's all too easy to silently peek at supposedly "private" information. There needs to be clearer lines between public and private otherwise infringement is free and undetectable.
      Example? E-mails are today's snail mail, except opening others' e-mails is a snap, whereas the snaily counterpart requires much more serious reasons and makes a loud noise (metaphorically).

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're a Conservative -- not a libertarian or a Libertarian. Don't insult Libertarians by claiming to agree with us.

    3. Re:Why? by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      So treat being online just like being in public. Since basically you are in public. Don't send email that you are scared of other people reading.

      --
      what?
    4. Re:Why? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      I believe government exists to defend the liberty of its citizens [...] keep it to yourself.

      Well, I was with you up to those last 4 words. I guess you're note "lockstop" on minor issues like Speech, eh?

      Why are you really so afraid of the idea of organized resistence to the (Totalitarian) Regime that currently controls the US? AFter all, you can just shoot the protestestors, right? It's not as though they have any right to participate in the determination of how their government acts, right? Hell, in your view, they're probably not even ciitizens - or at least, not as fully endowed with the Rights and Privileges of Citizenship as yourself, eh? I mean, you are a "conservative libertarian" - you have the Correct view of the government, right?

      Perhaps the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" would have some meaning for you? As a supporter of the Constitution of the United States of America, (you were sworn to uphold and protect that document, right?) I decry your attempt to bully others into silence in a public forum.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    5. Re:Why? by thedletterman · · Score: 1
      The idea that any interactions you make with society is "private" is self-destructive lunacy. If I'm visiting website in Pakistan, is that visit "private" because I did it from my living room? If I wire a million dollars to Hamas to distribure to suicide bombers using my cellphone is that a "private" transaction, immune to any government scrutiny? Someone made the argument "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is a fallous argument.. and I agree. But if you are doing something to the detriment of society, you have little right to obfuscate your actions from society.

      at the end of the day, and this is the argument that I've yet to hear refuted... what's the harm of having the data to be mined stripped of personally identifying information, indexed, and linked to a database that stores the identifying information, which is accessible only by court order?

      I mean, it's not that hard to allow data mining AND protect privacy at the same time. How can such a large section of this community be devoid of innovation when it comes to such simple software design? or are you too ideologically driven to bother to ask how? Let's not try to discover terrorism in the United States because I enjoy being so opinionated, that I'm afraid the government is going to kill me.

      I'm sure your mom is proud of that Microsoft A+ certification.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    6. Re:Why? by Omaze · · Score: 1

      You're recommending that everyone becomes completely introverted recluses in order to avoid government harassment? Where have we seen this before in history?

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    7. Re:Why? by Omaze · · Score: 1

      The US isn't totalitarian. It's democratically elected. How could that possibly go wrong?

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    8. Re:Why? by mikiN · · Score: 1

      at the end of the day, and this is the argument that I've yet to hear refuted... what's the harm of having the data to be mined stripped of personally identifying information, indexed, and linked to a database that stores the identifying information, which is accessible only by court order?

      Troll troll troll your post
      Gently down the screen
      Merrily merrily merrily merrily
      Life is but a stream

      It's all about transparency. Which is even harder to maintain if parts of the process are no longer tangible, in plain sight and all.
      Just how do you think you are going to verify that privacy is protected when you don't have access to the data, the software used to process it (both source code and actually running binaries) and the hardware it runs on? At least in the dead-tree era there would always be some paper trail to follow back to its source in case of malpractice.

      I mean, it's not that hard to allow data mining AND protect privacy at the same time. [...]

      Actually, this is Very Hard Indeed, precisely because of the lack of transparency, i.e. not knowing what gets done with that data in reality, not in theory. As long as you don't know for certain that the original data containing personally identifiable information is thoroughly and utterly destroyed, you can't be sure about your privacy no matter what you believe.

      For another example of the dangers of a lack of transparency, read up on the recently uncovered voting irregularities at Black Box Voting. Shiver, shudder, then come again.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe government exists to defend the liberty of its citizens. Got me? I'm a conservative libertarian, no caps. That means that while I more-or-less agree with the Libertarians, I don't march lockstep with anybody.
      [...]
      I value my privacy, too. But there's a difference between what I do in private (or even a semi-public area like a restaurant or pseudonominous posting on a blog) and what I do in public.

      There is a difference between what you do in private and in public. That's kind of the point with the NSA case. They are infringing on the private domain without due process, without court oversight, which makes it illegal.

      If someone stands on the corner shouting "Down with America! We will blow up your orphanages, unholy capitalist swine!", I'd like to know who he is and whether he's actually in contact with anyone else. If there's no "we", then he's just a nutcase and can be told so and otherwise ignored.

      Well we know you heard him, maybe we need to see who you are in contact with also.

      But if that fellow is in contact with others doing the same thing, I'd like to know about it. I'd like the government to defend my liberty by infringing his.

      You spill the beans here, you say you want to know about it. That's the key issue here, is it only going to be the executive branch knowing about it, or is there going to be the oh-so-pesky oversight and accountability? Without that, we might as well close up shop and put an end to this silly 'rights' business.

      Similarly, if he's smart enough just to be in contact with his terrorist buddies, I'd like the government to know it so he doesn't get a chance to blow up Disneyworld or something.

      I want the government to sift through all publicly available information to find people planning or engaged in activities which would cause me or another 2,966 of my countrymen to be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.


      Wishful thinking. They certainly didn't do the job the first time. There is absolutely no reason to think that all the datamining and intelligence gathering in the world will overcome the massive deficit of actual thought and action on the part of the government inre: the same intelligence. All the evidence points to incompetance, rather than lack of information.

      We are giving up ground in an important area of our rights, for what? Nothing, is what. We aren't safer because of it. How many have given their lives in Iraq? It's approaching your golden ticket number. I seriously doubt the NSA is out to bust Bush for plotting to take our military to Iraq.

      So take your "strike", and your call for people to interfere with government's only legitimate role, and ... keep it to yourself.

      His call is a simply stated one, that we as citizens have a right, and a duty, to resist and prevent abuses by our government. You, as a libertarian, should understand that. Disagree with it if you will, but none of the reasons you have given back it up.

      Bait and switch, your response delved into entirely separate issues from his. He is discussing defending our nation, in a way you seem oblivious to. So you diatribe on the war on terrorism, and then pull your punch to the issue he was discussing at the last. Bravo...wait no, more like Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

      Selah.

    10. Re:Why? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I want the government to sift through all publicly available information to find people planning or engaged in activities which would cause me or another 2,966 of my countrymen to be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

      Look to the oval office for the conspirators, then.

      From this report: "At least 2,289 service members have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count."

      See also this page, which shows that the estimated Iraqi body count is 10 times higher than the deaths we experienced that were caused by other agents acting through another sovereign nation to do their killing (in other words, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC towers falling, which was the inital reason given for the US invading).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    11. Re:Why? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume that treating the internet like public (which it really is) automaticaly leads to government harrassment? Do the police harrass you every time you leave your house?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    12. Re:Why? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Chavez was democratically elected. Mugabe was democratically elected. Hell, even Castro and Mubarak and Assad were "elected."

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    13. Re:Why? by Omaze · · Score: 1

      Not what I said at all, not even implied. Perhaps you read it wrong.

      --
      The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
    14. Re:Why? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      You didn't mention Dubya's spiritual progenitor: Adolf Hitler was also democraticly elected.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    15. Re:Why? by geschild · · Score: 1

      If you are a 'true patriot', like you seem to be implying by mentioning the fact that you're a US marine, you would know that grand-parents right to express his opinion, any opinion, is bigger than any other right you have. His right to call for even the overthrow of governement, however much you may object, is bigger than your (perceived) right to safety. And what's more, you've sworn an oath to defend to death his right to do so.

      Funnily, you yourself said exactly this in the first line of your post so, thankfully, I think you're mere confused instead of malicious. The fact that you are ok allowing the governement to infringe on anyones privacy because of their opinion seems to be based on the misguided idea that it is ok to infringe on privacy because of a person's ideas. Please understand that some day it may be your ideas the governement disagrees with and will use your reasoning to infringe on your privacy, which you seem to hold dear. Perhaps you can read some more on the definition of 'Liberty' and what has been done in the past to defend it to reflect on where the boundries lie.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    16. Re:Why? by lheal · · Score: 1
      grand-parents right to express his opinion, any opinion, is bigger than any other right you have.

      I wasn't talking about his right to his opinion in general. I was just talking about that particular expression of it, which I found ludicrous. He has a right to talk, and I have a right to tell him to shut up. He doesn't have to listen.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    17. Re:Why? by jotok · · Score: 1

      I decry your attempt to bully others into silence in a public forum.

      If you think he is incorrect you should be able to challenge his beliefs without resorting to ad hominem attacks. He's only voicing his opinion. If that's bullying then I have a pot and a kettle I want to show you.

    18. Re:Why? by geschild · · Score: 1

      "I was just talking about that particular expression of it, which I found ludicrous. He has a right to talk, and I have a right to tell him to shut up."
      In other words: you are willing to let people have different opinions, but they may not decide for themselves how to express them?

      I think you better start learning on what 'freedom of speech/expression' truly means because you certainly aren't 'getting it', yet. Good luck with that, too.
      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    19. Re:Why? by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

      Don't bother, this guy's an authoritarian, one of the kind who loves his country like a 4 year old girl loves Mommy.

      Nothing the State does could possibly be wrong in his eyes. He has no idea what liberty really is; he's never read any of the writing of the thinkers who framed our constitution and who informed the views of the Founding Fathers, and if it were up to him, he'd throw all those people in Gitmo.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    20. Re:Why? by geschild · · Score: 1

      "Don't bother, this guy's an authoritarian, one of the kind who loves his country like a 4 year old girl loves Mommy."
      Ad hominem attacks are, however, not the way to point out the fallacies in other peoples arguments. At least not if you truly want to convince them that they just might be wrong. If he really believes in what he says that puts him at least one step ahead of you in a debate.

      Perhaps you're right and nothing will change how he feels about it. I still had to try because if I hadn't, I would be foregoing my right to freedom of opinion and expression. I am glad though that you seem to share some of my ideas on how bad things can get if people think and act like him.
      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    21. Re:Why? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      If you think he is incorrect you should be able to challenge his beliefs without resorting to ad hominem attacks. He's only voicing his opinion. If that's bullying then I have a pot and a kettle I want to show you.

      Dumbass - there's a differnce between simply "that's dumb" and telling someone they should "be quiet" - I have no problem arguing with him "ad hominem" or otherwise - he's the one who took the position of demand that others not respond. You should go back and read the thread.

      Furthermore, I believe I stated that I agreed with what he was saying right up to the point where he demanded that others not challenge his opinion. I can only hope he learned more from the exchange than you obviously did. Unless I miss my guess you are one of those who believes they have nothing left to learn...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    22. Re:Why? by jotok · · Score: 1

      Dumbass - there's a differnce between simply "that's dumb" and telling someone they should "be quiet" - I have no problem arguing with him "ad hominem" or otherwise - he's the one who took the position of demand that others not respond. You should go back and read the thread.

      Furthermore, I believe I stated that I agreed with what he was saying right up to the point where he demanded that others not challenge his opinion. I can only hope he learned more from the exchange than you obviously did. Unless I miss my guess you are one of those who believes they have nothing left to learn...


      Exactly where do you think the line is between "I disagree with your ideas" and "Shut the fuck up, you're an idiot?" One fosters discussion and the advancement of ideas and knowledge; the other just makes you look like a clown. Are you interested in the debate at all, or do you just come to the internet to swing your dick around?

      In this case, you do miss your guess, by a mile. Honestly, when you come out swinging ("Dumbass," "You think you have nothing left to learn," etc.) you just show your ass. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, capisce?

      As for the parent: I think you're reading too much into his rhetoric, simple as that. Maybe he's saying that everyone who disagrees with him should STFU (and so, to him, freedom of speech should not exist). However, I think it's more likely that this is just the way he writes--just as with you, everyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. If you believe that, then which one of us really thinks he's learned it all?

    23. Re:Why? by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* *idly twirls ENORMOUS e-penis*

      Exactly where do you think the line is between "I disagree with your ideas" and "Shut the fuck up, you're an idiot?"

      Well, it's mostly a matter of language, which I think is fairly well defined elsewhere so I won't go into it here...

      One fosters discussion and the advancement of ideas and knowledge; the other just makes you look like a clown.

      So you want to go to your interpretation of what he said and what you think it means about him? Funny, that's pretty much what I was doing, but you decided to go all ad hominem on me. Hmmm, you didn't seem to understand "Dumbass" - how do take your "Fuck Off" - w/ cream or w/o?

      Are you interested in the debate at all, or do you just come to the internet to swing your dick around?

      Are you really interested in my enormous e-penis, or do you just come to slashdot to watch.

      In this case, you do miss your guess, by a mile.

      Ahem. Well, obviously not.

      Honestly, when you come out swinging ("Dumbass," "You think you have nothing left to learn," etc.) you just show your ass.

      Well, in the same spirit of Honesty and Forthright Expression, it is a really fine ass, I guess I just take a lot of pride in it.

      Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, capisce?

      Well, I must point out that I wasn't calling everyone who disagrees with me a dumbas - just you. So does this mean you disagree with me? Does this mean you don't believe this is an open forum?

      As for the parent: I think you're reading too much into his rhetoric, simple as that. Maybe he's saying that everyone who disagrees with him should STFU (and so, to him, freedom of speech should not exist). However, I think it's more likely that this is just the way he writes--just as with you, everyone who disagrees is obviously stupid. If you believe that, then which one of us really thinks he's learned it all?

      So what's your point, here? I don't really care what he meant or what you think he might have meant, or why you think it's important. I simply pointed out that this is a public forum and his stated desire to squelch dissent didn't match up very well with the rest of his persona which he laid out in the first part of his post - it's a moral and philosphical inconsistancy, and I stand by my remarks about it, despite your wild - nay, hysterical - attrack on what you imagine to be my character.

      Which brings us right back around to you and the question "wtf do you care, anyway?" So? Why are you in this? You're not adding anything, hell, you're not even making sense - are you a Republican, or something?

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
  10. NSA is very sharp by putko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles pouring a billion down the tubes and getting nothing in return.

    The NSA is made up of very smart and capable folks. Give them a budget and incentives, and they can probably do a pretty good job of sticking their noses into the public's affairs.

    Sadly for our privacy, the US has no real concept of data privacy. If you've bought something and told someone, they can tell the NSA.

    So if the data is available, the NSA can just go out and but it. That's perfectly fine, but it means the NSA can easily acquire mind-bogglingly large amounts of data. Also, the phone company (AT&T) has no qualms cooperating with the govt. It isn't like Google, willing to fight it out in court. Just about nobody is -- so the NSA has an easy time, if it wants to get the goods on you.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:NSA is very sharp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles pouring a billion down the tubes and getting nothing in return.

      Nope this is US defence, so we are talking many litteral billions

      .

      smart people != smart organisation, especially when billions, politicians and DoD contractors get involved.

  11. Time for a reality check by DavidHOzAu · · Score: 1

    all these technologies usually get to market faster if developed by private companies
    But after 10 years' worth of liscensing, ultimately cost the economy more.

  12. Human intel gets nasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means dealing with the type of people who'd sell out their country for money. They're usually not the bedrock-of-society types.

    Anyone remember the outcries when the CIA was found to actually be paying those types of folks?

  13. Real hit versus bogus hit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is only (!) whether such software is really able to create "real" hits. And the answer is, no it won't, simply because I know a person who knows a person who knows a person who knows Billy Clinton. Or so. And also, if you can't cover your tracks, what worth are you anyway?

    So they're not for real anyway. They're trying to "look good".

    And it's nothing new. Like, if you have to wait for 2 hours for US airlines to check your luggage, and if you speak up about anything like seat reservations, they'll "SSSS" intimidate-search you, you know these guys are in the wrong movie anyway. Do I feel the absolute craving to fly to the US and prostitute myself on their work market? Do others feel like it? That's what they should be really worried about: the connections that do NOT happen, the applications they do NOT get. They should be really worried sleepless about what's all NOT going on in the USA.

    Otherwise, people like that Canadian muslim (whom they dragged all the way to Syria and back just for a bunch of bad press), will condensate in front of each and every investigational journalist's microphone or camera, and that'll be the end of "USA being a cool country to live in" for a broad mass of really intelligent folks for quite a while. They'll exhaust their Patriot Act and screw the country. Be it! It's theirs to screw!

    If you're not in these deranged guys target line, you may at least profit from cheaper RAM, cheaper mass storage, et cetera, as a consequence of clueless data mining.

    So if you are mobile and thinking, why not leave the US? Any other nation that is after intelligent people for just about any purpose (industrial, academic, developement, teaching, research) should lick their fingers AS WE SPEAK. The most important thing: Create job opportunities for the language impaired! They don't teach them much else than English over there...

    1. Re:Real hit versus bogus hit... by MarkChovain · · Score: 1

      If you're not in these deranged guys target line, you may at least profit from cheaper RAM, cheaper mass storage, et cetera, as a consequence of clueless data mining.

      The Cheneyacs want war to stop buying cds and ripping them. Of course now that consoles are going to have more services like this, and it is an effort where I live in homes heated by oil.

      Somewhat pedantic, but homes in a melee fighting for land and control management would be a shame that it'll be destroyed in a country (aside from the other. First, printing something that can be a problem) and it easily sold to a person who can maintain Haskell code, but your employer then wonder to why many people report the scrapping of their test equipment was cool!

  14. A few principles for thinking about corruption: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Principles for thinking about U.S. government corruption:
    1. Don't think you know the names of all the U.S. government secret agencies.
    2. Those who want corruption often have a sense of entitlement that is stronger than any other drive. They cannot be understood using normal considerations of morality. They are amoral.
    3. Those who want corruption often are willing to waste a billion dollars of taxpayer money to steal one million.
    4. Adversarial behavior feeds on itself. People who get started being adversarial toward the legitimate interests of other people find it difficult to stop.
    5. If you see one cockroach, realize that there must be 50 others. If you see one verified example of corruption, you are almost certainly seeing only a small percentage of the total.
    6. Your ability to perceive government corruption is limited by your willingness to consider conflict in other areas of your life. Strong people don't avoid awareness of conflict. Strong people work to resolve conflict, they don't avoid it.
    7. There are two kinds of oil business. 1) There are business people who find, pump, refine, and deliver oil. 2) There are people who manipulate the government and government purchases to make a profit.
    8. The weapons business is favored by corrupters because it is largely secret. There are numerous hidden opportunities to make deals that make profits easy.
    9. A government that takes any action in secrecy is a government that is thereby avoiding democratic oversight. Whoever causes government acts in secret is, in that way, a dictator.
    10. The U.S. government corruption is part of a general social breakdown. Don't look for the corruption to be more logical than you would expect of any catastrophic breakdown. If you are having difficulty applying normal logic, try applying the logic of catastrophe.
    11. Many people who call themselves religious fundamentalists are in actuality suffering from obsessive thinking. They think they are superior, but they are mentally ill. There are Christians and Muslims and Jews who fit this explanation.
    12. Skillful abusers like Karl Rove use many small abuses rather than a few large ones to accomplish their goals. They know is is more difficult to analyze many small abuses. (Karl Rove's nickname is "Bush's Brain"; see the book by that title.)
    13. Corrupters often give sensible-sounding names to their efforts to corrupt. Examples: Clear Skies Initiative: A program to gut the Clean Air Act and substitute weaker anti-pollution regulations. Economic Stimulus: Massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich that failed, in theory and practice, to stimulate. Energy Security: The barely lessened dependence on Mideast oil to be achieved by drilling in U.S. national parks and wilderness preserves.
    14. Corrupters starve government departments of money, so the government cannot do its work. They have done this to the Patent Office, the SEC, and the IRS, for example.
    15. Don't say "we". If you are a U.S. citizen, when you talk about the activities of the U.S. government, don't say "we". You are only paying. You have no control, and you aren't even allowed to know the truth. So, the word "we" does not apply.
    16. Much of the nature of government corruption is due to accident or ignorant tinkering. Sometimes an opportunity for corruption arises because of circumstances, without planning, and the corrupters merely take advantage of it. Don't expect to find a careful criminal logic behind every corrupt act.
    17. Omission is as important a tool of corruption as commission. After 9/11, the U.S. government reacted intensely and quite adequately to the problems in New York City. On the other hand, many rich people would benefit if the blacks in New Orleans were eliminated from areas near the center of the city, so someh
    1. Re:A few principles for thinking about corruption: by Cally · · Score: 1
      Many people who call themselves religious fundamentalists are in actuality suffering from obsessive thinking. They think they are superior, but they are mentally ill. There are Christians and Muslims and Jews who fit this explanation.
      Also Slashdotters.
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:A few principles for thinking about corruption: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Omission is as important a tool of corruption as commission. After 9/11, the U.S. government reacted intensely and quite adequately to the problems in New York City. On the other hand, many rich people would benefit if the blacks in New Orleans were eliminated from areas near the center of the city, so someh"

      Taking this logic to that extream just demonstrates that you are as far out as the religios types that you preached about to begin with.

        Taking this logic to that extreme just illustrates that you are as far out as the religious types that you preached about to begin with.

      I was there. I pulled people out of houses, dead and alive, and the fact that you people still run around complaining about how nobody did anything to save the poor black people of New Orleans is disgusting.

    3. Re:A few principles for thinking about corruption: by skids · · Score: 1

      Normally I wouldn't waste a comment to say this but: Great comment!

    4. Re:A few principles for thinking about corruption: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      21. You know you watch too many James Bond movies when...

    5. Re:A few principles for thinking about corruption: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was there too and I single handedly saved all the black people by myself. All those dead people were props put out there by the liberal media, no one died there, anyone that says anything different hates America and freedom. The AC above this post is probably a communist too.

  15. Reinventing common lisp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of approaching venture capitalists, wouldn't it have been better to do a survey of existing technology?

    For example, Xanalys http://www.xanalys.com/ sells exactly this type of software. I'm familiar with Xanalys because, for some time, they were the second largest common lisp vendor -- before a buyout by their programmers. (Their most interesting software is built with common lisp).

    Good grief. That's 40 years of DARPA funding majestically dismissed.

  16. Paranoia by Jimhotep · · Score: 1

    arbitrary facts into logical events and find dependencies

    Doesn't this sound like a paranoid?

    1. Re:Paranoia by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      No - it's not paranoia. It's slightly inaccurate, and oversimplified, but having seen a little of this kind of technology myself, it's really quite scary some of the correlations these kind of systems can find.

      It's really nothing terribly new. Banks and credit agencies have been using similar technology for years (albeit simpler than what they can do now).

      These systems don't really understand the concept of "logical event"; they just find correlations between pieces of data, and clusters of "data points".

      To take the banking analogy, such a system would flag suspicious activity on a credit card (the system may not even know why it was suspicious). Details of that activity would then be passed onto a human, who would investigote (which would normally involve calling the card-holder to confirm they made the transactions).

  17. Hooray for Google and Yahoo! by mariox19 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    American companies can now stop working for repressive foreign governments.

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  18. How *dare* you act like a grownup on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're going to incite the children with that remark.

  19. Cash and the written word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I'm a terrorist I am going to make my suspicious purchases with cash. I will communicate in code with written letters. I won't talk about my evil plots in chat rooms or on the phone. I will assume they are listening. This will render however many Billions of dollars useless for catching terrorists. The NSA is in love with the TV idea of sitting in a dimly lit room using the keyboard to zoom-in-and-enhance the picture of the terrorist.

    It WILL be useful for catching ordinary Americans who look at a little porn, smoke a little pot, drive a little over the speed limit and disaggree with the govt.; maybe about abortion, maybe about party affiliation, etc.

    1. Re:Cash and the written word by abb3w · · Score: 1
      If I'm a terrorist I am going to make my suspicious purchases with cash. I will communicate in code with written letters.

      Use medium denomination unmarked nonsequential bills while having an unmemorable appearance, and remember your history.

      HTH. HAND.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  20. Re:Why? -- Because your Stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody is going to stand on a corner and admit that fucking shit you just said.
    and nobody has to help the fucking government shread the rest of the constitution.
    if your a fukin libertarian then you believe in a constitutional republic.
    if you believe in a constitutional republic then you should have goal #1 to get fucking rid of all those fucking electronic voting machines!

    if your are serious abou hiding shit
    if you want to hide your communication.
    all you fucking got to do is load up a god damn pen drive
    or a DVD...
    burn 8GB data..
    all our country's secrets.
    all your evil plans.
    or a nice movie..
    carry it on the plane.
    carry in an ipod.
    your fucking argument doesn't hold water!!!!!
    the only reason the patriot act spy's on americans is for political reasons.
    that's the bottom line.
    they're so corrupt they don't want to get caught.
    that is why they ignore fisa
    and now they have stirred up a fucking hornets nest with islam.
    the rest of the world's patience is wearing thin.

    we gotta fix this problem first.

  21. No Privacy by danratherfoe · · Score: 1, Redundant
    It has already come out publically that the NSA and other intelligence agencies have access to credit card and bank databases, and it has been reported recently that they plan to begin monitoring blogs and message boards -- presumably including slashdot -- for terrorists sympathizers. So when the government has access to all of your personal information and the means to analyze it and when everywhere you go, and everything you say is tracked you are living in a police state.

    We already know what George Bush thinks about the constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/art icle_7779.shtml), we already know that he doesn't care if weather We The People want him to do what he is doing (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Controversial_data_ mining_program_continues_after_0224.html) and we also know that Mr. Bush is making preparations for martial law. After he retired, Tommy Franks toured the country announcing that after the next terror attack we will have to go to a military form of government (http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/franks.htm). This was unfortunate, he said, but necessary -- the people would demand it. He insisted that he was just a concerned citizen expressing his opinion -- but it turns out that he was payed over $400,000 by the White House to express this opinion.

    Please get informed about what your government is doing.

  22. Proposed/Actual Useage by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Problem is ( and we all know it ) this stuff wont just be used properly, to comabat terrorism/threats to this country. It will be expanded to monitor 'dissidents' that actually love this country, but are upset how things are going.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  23. Computers are unreliable, but humans are more so. by abb3w · · Score: 1
    I can't help thinking the authorities are still way too star-struck by tech and don't value human intel enough.

    Unfortunately, getting quality human intel isn't simple, and there can be problems with overvaling it, too. There are problems when you start only looking for evidence supporting what you expect to find.

    Tech-based intel is too limited in coverage; humans go places machines don't. Human intel has low accuracy; machines don't lie for their own benefit (yet). You need a mix of both.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  24. "Psychosis" would be more accurate by abb3w · · Score: 1

    Try looking up Apophenia; there's a fine line between creative genius and madness. Not that the twilight between can't be entertaining.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  25. Google Partners with NSA in data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be posted on Slashdot if just some blogger mentions it on their blog...

  26. Data mining requires DATA by russ1337 · · Score: 1

    Ahem,


    Dont mind me, but doesnt data mining require data? Dont these bad guys use snail mail, secret meetings & public payphones etc? Data mining and monitoring of electronic communications is only effective when the enemy e-mail or otherwise use electronic means of communication - the Brits have been mining all Internet data too and from the UK for a few years, but were still subject to an attack.

    While voice calls are routed through an underground massive network of computers looking for key-words, these bad guys will just continue to use old and proven methods like coded letters (snail mail), carrier pigeon (not a real pigeon but some unconnected messenger), coded newspaper advertisements, and all the type of techniques the CIA used to communicate with their operatives within Russia. The enemy just revert to Old School. Its slower, but secrecy is probably far more important than speed to them.

    I'm all for 'warranted' electronic eavesdropping and surveillance, but the real aim is probably to prevent the use of electronic means (e-mail, blogs etc) and push the enemy to using other means where eventually they will be caught out.

    Once electronic civil liberties have eroded and the enemy have reverted to (if they ever left) 'old school' methods, it will require DHS to have road blocks, physical searches, ID, questioning... It will probably be much like living under a Taliban regime. (Except of course the women will be treated the same as men...)

    1. Re:Data mining requires DATA by randyjg2 · · Score: 1

      Actually that data exists, in companies like ChoicePoint and Acxiom, in databases ranging from Talon and Telco to Google and Yahoo's caches.

      In one demo of this technology a while back, they were able to input a fragment of a license plate number, a partial description and a few other items, and, in the space of a few seconds, search a gigantic database and come up with not only the full files on the person involved, but all friends, relatives and people that person had been in contact with for years previously.

      Legend has it that one of the demo's observers was really excited until it was pointed out that it would take years to go through all the data retrieved and there was nowhere near the staffing and manpower avaiable for anything approaching a serious analysis of the range of material retrieved.

      Well, at least this ought to solve the unemployment problem...

  27. Haha! by Omaze · · Score: 1

    I already know who's going to get the fat contracts for this. I already know. I'm so amused I could practically pee myself. I'll probably get picked up by the NSA by the end of the day over this... but I already know!

    At my last performance evaluation, at a non-profit federal military contractor, my manager was attempting to explain to me why my job sucks so much and why he couldn't do anything about it. At the end, though, he said,"You see that 30 acre construction project we're building across the street? I don't know what kind of business the upper management is going to put in it, but I hear it's going to be all office space and it's going to have something to do with IT. I know you have some interest in IT so maybe if you can just wait until it's built we can get you into a position where we can make better use of your skills."

    I promptly left. I wasn't sticking around for 3 years, fighting with myself not to sleep at my desk, just so that I could be a database jockey. But gosh-darn I already know... and what this gives me insight to is that the company already knows, and that means that the policians sitting on the committees who will dole out these contracts already know, because there's no way that a military contractor is going to drop down a $200 million dollar construction project unless they have a good idea of which contracts are going to fill it.

    Haha! It's off to Gitmo I go...

    --
    The government itself is not stealing your liberties. Their new programs are enabling criminals who will.
  28. Please elaborate on point 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "7. There are two kinds of oil business. 1) There are business people who find, pump, refine, and deliver oil. 2) There are people who manipulate the government and government purchases to make a profit."

    I am familiar with most of the points you make except #7. Do you have examples?

    The Bush/Cheney administration has become deeply corrupt because they think that since they have fought for and obtained power, it is theirs to weild as they see fit. This is completely wrong. They have achieved positions of awesome responsibility, not power for personal profit. And oversight is key to making sure they are acting responsibly. They have (or should not have) any right whatsoever to keep any secrets as they serve in public roles, except when it directly pertains to classified information.

  29. Loved the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But what can be done about this mess? I tried this approach, http://breakthelink.org/ but to my surprise and extreme disapointment nobody was willing to actually work the problem. I think this is because they fear to actually cross swords with our authorities. Bitching is OK, because it is useless. Actually doing something is apparently not.

    And now, since Halliburton has just been awarded a $350 million contract to build detention centers in the US, perhaps those who have kept a low profile are the smart ones.

    "Work will make you free!"

  30. Fund the C-Prize by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The NSA can get what it wants via a compression prize competition. Compressing a corpus must find the most predictive patterns.

    They could fund a prize competition such as the following:

    Let anyone submit an open source program that produces, with no inputs, one of the major natural language corpora as output.

    S = size of uncompressed corpus
    P = size of program outputting the uncompressed corpus
    R = S/P (the compression ratio).

    Award monies in a manner similar to the M-Prize:

    Previous record ratio: R0
    New record ratio: R1=R0+X
    Fund contains: $Z at noon GMT on day of new record
    Winner receives: $Z * (X/(R0+X))

    Compression program and decompression program are made open source.

    Explanation For an idea of why the C-Prize can solve the AI problem, if it is solvable, see Matthew Mahoney's comment on it:

    Matt Mahoney
    Jun 17, 7:18 pm show options
    Newsgroups: comp.compression
    From: "Matt Mahoney"
    Date: 17 Jun 2005 20:18:59 -0700
    Local: Fri, Jun 17 2005 7:18 pm
    Subject: Re: The C-Prize

    Hutter's AIXI, http://www.idsia.ch/~marcus/ai/paixi.htm makes another argument for the connection between compression and AI that is more general than the Turing test. He proves that the optimal behavior of an agent (an interactive system that receives a reward signal from an unknown environment) is to guess that the environement is most likely computed by the shortest possible program that is consistent with the behavior observed so far. In other words, the most likely outcome for any experiment is the one with the simplest explanation, where "simplest" means the smallest program that could model what you currently know about the universe.

    He gives a formal proof, but it basically says that the only possible distribution of the infinite set of programs (or strings) with nonzero probability is one which favors shorter programs over longer ones. Given any string of length n with probability p > 0, there are an infinite set of strings longer than n, but only a finite number of these can have probability higher than p.

    -- Matt Mahoney

    Matt Mahoney is the author of Text Compression as a Test for Artificial Intelligence which states:
    It is shown that optimal text compression is a harder problem thanartificial intelligence as defined by Turing's (1950) imitation game; thus compression ratio on a standard benchmark corpuscould be used as an objective and quantitative alternative test for AI (Mahoney, 1999).
    (Mahoney is also a competitor who has some winnings from The Calgary Corpus Compression Challenge

  31. Are, there you are :-) by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1

    Wel, you would not only want a compression method that simply compresses some text effectively, but that also would proceed to produce sensible and interesting output when the compressed file is padded.

    This means that the usual methods of compression that favor blocks and limited dictionaries(or Huffman buffers or whatever) are not those to look at, because the only input files (corpus) that represent what is sensible are the complete body of accessible human works. It is interesting that this body is not sequential but that grouping of related topics of this corpus together would faciliate traditional compression.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
  32. This suprise the poster? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    Data Mining and Data Warehousing is increasingly being used not just at Governmental levels but even in Colleges. We're going to be investigating this as a way of reducing load on the main online transaction processing where I work. Data mining is going to be very common in the near future.

    --

    Gorkman

  33. Is it safe? by ebresie · · Score: 1
    And several Silicon Valley executives say one side effect of the 2003 decision to cancel the Total Information Awareness project was that it killed funds for a research project at the Palo Alto Research Center, a subsidiary of Xerox, exploring technologies that could protect privacy while permitting data mining. The aim was to allow an intelligence analyst to conduct extensive data mining without getting access to identifying information about individuals. If the results suggested that, for instance, someone might be a terrorist, the intelligence agency could seek a court warrant authorizing it to penetrate the privacy technology and identify the person involved. With Xerox funds, the Palo Alto researchers are continuing to explore the technology.
    It may be niave of me to think this, but the this seems reasonable. Monitor activities, if it sees something suspicious, alarm the authorities, have them get a warrent, and then find out who they are and what they are up to. The warrent is still required. This in theory doesn't prevent corrupt authorities ("big brother") from abusing it, but failure to have anything means we now have to be a reactive (cleaning up fallen buildings), rather than preemptive (prevent falling buildings) society. Maybe the alerts could also be sent to the people providing the warrents and/or the oversite. It seems to indicate that it logs when it is used. As long as those watching over the watchers do their job, then it seems sound. By canceling this, they are "throwing out the baby with the bath water". Although, reading some more about the IAO does make me nervious. But then we still have the EFF folks monitoring it
    --

    Eric B
    ebresie@gmail.com
  34. Explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A government that takes any action in secrecy is a government that is thereby avoiding democratic oversight. Whoever causes government acts in secret is, in that way, a dictator.

    So FDR was a dictator when he organized D-DAY???
    Was he a dictator when he had our intelligence agencies secretly break the codes of the Germans and the Japanese?
    Was the secret of the spy plane which Kennedy used to find the missiles in Cuba created by Dictator Kennedy?

    Your post is moderated up, so people agree with you. Extremely sad. Kennedy was a good man.
  35. Liberty != Safety. by RossumsChild · · Score: 1

    "I'd like the government to defend my liberty by infringing his."

    Ignoring the other issues present, let me make a clarification:

    The government isn't defending your "liberty" when they catch such a person. They're defending your safety. Important difference. Not that your safety isn't important. It is.

    But these sorts of programs infringe upon the liberty of the guilty by infringing upon the liberty of everyone . That's how they work. It's like a tuna net. If you want tuna caught that's fine, but are you volunteering to be the dolphin? Because plenty of dolphins will get caught in that net if it gets built.

    So don't say they're defending your liberty. They're not, their defending your safety by infringing upon your liberty. That's the way of it.

  36. That's the beauty of a C-Prize metric by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    The C-Prize doesn't care how you go about maximizing the compression ratio so traditional compression methods would very quickly find themselves outmodded.

    Re-ordering the corpus prior to compression is fine so long as it is reversible. That means the ordering information must cost less than the gain in compression by reordering.

    A classic example is the bzip algorithm. Beautiful.

  37. Just like other weapons? by DesScorp · · Score: 1
    Perfect to oppress people, anathema to a democracy


    You can apply that same principle to tanks or fighter planes. And it would be just as invalid. Possesion of these tools, whether they be bombs or data mining software, does not make the government a tyranny. How and WHY they're used will determine that. You can't deny the nation the use of them, nor automatically label the government despotic by the mere posession of them. National Security is a legitimate function of any government. What is both ironic, and even a touch hypocritcal, is that many of the same people here bitching about data sweeps from the government, have absolutely no probably giving out their info willy nilly across the web, from porn sites to blogs. But when the government uses the technology to try and protect citizens? Nope, can't have that...
    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Just like other weapons? by thedletterman · · Score: 1
      This morning I was thinking about this, and the thought occured to me. If enabling these institutions to more effectively do their job is paramount to enabling dictatorship, then why do we even bother to have these institutions? Again, the lack of rational thought on this matter so deposed by emotional, "OH NOES!! IT'S 1984!!" is patently absurd.

      As a functional member of the executive branch, I don't know anyone I work with that would want to beat you up, harass you, imprison you, or shoot you for disagreeing with me politically. Hell, I don't even politically agree with all the people I work with... but we don't go insane over our political views. You've got to, at some point, realize that the hundreds of thousands of people that leave their families every day to provide you with national security for a paycheck to send their kids to college are people just like you and me.

      Just because your views are admittedly radical, and you're apparently so impassioned by them that (in your mind) you are willing to risk your freedoms so everyone knows how you feel... doesn't mean anyone is out to get you. In fct, I would take that as a cue that most people you discuss them with are de facto a little more reasonable in their judgement than you. The question that nags in my mind is, "Do you believe the second amendment was written to protect the first?"

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
  38. Cheney changed the law, allowing no-bid contracts. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "I am familiar with most of the points you make except #7. Do you have examples?"

    When Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he changed the rules, allowing no-bid contracts in some cases. Now that Cheney is vice-president, his former company got a huge no-bid contract, in secret. This contract was partly to provide oilfield services. The attraction of oil and weapons for corrupters is that there is so much money involved, and many contracts.

    There are too many other examples for a Slashdot comment. Note that when Secretary of "Defense", Cheney engineered one of the major problems between Osama bin Laden and the United States, that there were U.S. military weapons in Saudi Arabia.

    So, Cheney helped create the problem, arranged that the problem would be very profitable for his company (no bids, just a secretly arranged contract), and then arranged for his company to get the contract. It's difficult to imagine more conflict of interest than that.

  39. It is Called In-q-tel... been around for 5 years by NoSlack913 · · Score: 1

    if you go to http://www.in-q-tel.org/ you will find the VENTURE CAPITAL arm of the CIA, NSA, FBI and several other TLA's (Three Letter Acronyms) Every tech you mentioned in the article is ALREADY being funded and working in the commercial world. This isn't wonderland anymore, this stuff is real and well funded. Check out http://www.callminer.com/ or http://www.agentlogic.com/ if you dont believe me.

  40. Common Slashdot trick, with several steps: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    AC, this is a common trick used by some people on Slashdot, with several steps:

    1) Pretend that a Slashdot comment is an exhaustively researched 500-page book that discusses all sides of an issue.

    2) Find something that isn't explained in the Slashdot comment.

    3) Assume that the Slashdot comment represents all that the comment poster knows.

    4) Claim that it is a tragedy that the poster of the Slashdot comment could be so stupid.


    Answer to the issue you raised: The proper time to deal with Hitler was long before he was elected. Then there would have been no need for secrecy surrounding D-Day, because there would have been no D-Day.

    Again, this is not the complete explanation.

    1. Re:Common Slashdot trick, with several steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just avoid words such as 'any', 'all' and 'none' unless you mean them?

    2. Re:Common Slashdot trick, with several steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because he's a pretentious ass. At least I drew him out.

  41. Link: Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1
  42. Is claria one of them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quote from wikpedia: "As of late 2003 Gator was installed on an estimated 38 million PCs"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claria_Corporation

  43. Re:Please elaborate on point 7: Enron by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
    Bush's largest campaign contributor for the 2000 Election was Enron. After the election Enron was illegally fleecing the good citizens of the State of California (who voted overwhelmingly against Bush). Bush refused to let the federal regulatory agency step in and do its job to prevent the illegal price gouging.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  44. is this political naievete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "government officials and departments wanting these tools, not a private corporation"...

    Honest,no offense intended at all but.. you really think there's any really huge difference? Maybe take a peek at who gets the bulk of the "government" money again, once it is all distilled down. Then take a peek at where "retired" generals and civil "public servants" go after they leave government.

    For all *practical* intents and purposes, the so called "US government" is just the stealth frontman for a few dozen large transnational corporations now. Our own president, Eisenhower, explicitly warned us this might happen in his last public speech he gave..and he wasn't joking about it.

          Just about everything the "government" does now is geared towards increasing those companies profits and geopolitical/economic power. Just *look* at it with a critical eye and no preconceived notions, it becomes obvious then. We no longer have much in the way of a representative republic. That is merely an illusion they promulgate in order to maintain "law n order".

    some google search terms to explore: corporatism, technofeudalism, neofeudalism

  45. revisit this old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see if all of this isn't coming true right in front of our faces, the old wired "scared shitlist" story

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.01/shitlist.h tml

  46. Good plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you want your job outsourced to India and your ass outsourced to Gitmo.

  47. I doubt thats the way it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd guess it's more like this: there is military/intelligence computer technology that's decades ahead of anything in the corporate world. But feigning incompetence ("Duh, we had no idea planes might fly into buildings") is what you have to do if you are the nsa/cia/fbi. I bet every fbi guy walking into the Hoover building knows that. What, you think J Edgar really was a crossdressing homo? That's more of a symbol of what they really do: deceive. Otherwise, why does the nsa make a public announcement of going shopping unless you want to 'advertise' into public space. Sheesh.

  48. High IQ Doesn't Indicate Competence or Credibility by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1
    "The NSA is made up of very smart and capable folks. Give them a budget and incentives, and they can probably do a pretty good job of sticking their noses into the public's affairs.

    The NSA's motivations are political.

    Bright they may be, but the NSA is primarily a politically motivated org that answers to the president. It would be more appropriately know as the NSC (Non-Suborned by the Constitution).

    Full faith and credit should also be given the NSA for their integral role in the creation of al Qaeda.

    Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, should get his notice as the originator of the plan to trick the Soviet into their own Vietnam, and to use the radical Arab fundamentalists as a blade to bleed them. Reagan's NSA should get their proper attribution for expanding upon this sanguineous plan.

    "Under President Reagan, the NSC staff assumed a role beyond that of an advisory or coordinating body: It at times became operational, taking on primary responsibility for the execution of the Iran and contra covert operations."

    Walsh, Iran/Contra Report,
    Chapter 1: United States v. Robert C. McFarlane

    And who can forget the words of the ole gimper himself:

    "These Islamic fighters in a faraway land have given new meaning to the words 'courage,' 'determination,' and 'strength.' They have set the standard for those who value freedom and independence everywhere in the world."

    Ronald Reagan
    Statement on the Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

    On a more contemporary note, GW Bush's NSA has been alleged to have pulled an end-around the CIA station chief in Rome, violating the logical protocols which were in place at the time, accepting the dubious Niger Yellowcake to Iraq story from the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI, first hand, and then sourcing it into the prewar claims.
    (The Italian paper "La Repubblica", ran a good 3-part expose. There is a good English translation available: 1 - 2 - 3 - (decent mirror starts here.)

    The NSA was left unscathed by the Silberman/Robb Commission, that one hit wonder recognized for their top 40 silver bullet, "Blaming it all on the CIA".

    When actors, orgs and/or segments of the US government, in the dispatch of their official duties, act covertly and extra-Constitutionally, they are rogue, and a criminal enterprise. They should be identified as such, their intelligence, and their stated altruistic rationalizations notwithstanding.

    That public men publish falsehoods
    Is nothing new.
    That America must accept
    Like the historical republics corruption and empire
    Has been known for years.

    Be angry at the sun for setting
    If these things anger you.
    Watch the wheel slope and turn,
    They are all bound on the wheel,
    these people, those warriors.
    This republic, Europe, Asia.

    Observe them gesticulating,
    Observe them going down.
    The gang serves lies,
    the passionate Man plays his part;
    the cold passion for truth
    Hunts in no pack.


    Robinson Jeffers, "Be Angry At The Sun"
    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
  49. How many DBs are in play? by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    What records does the Postal Service keep? What records of public telephone usage are available. What about cash withdrawals from banks, or POS cash transactions from retailers. The list could go on and on.

    Then there are going to be DB's bought on the black market. The Wahington Post's blogger, William Arkin discussed one of Able Danger's mad forays into that market:

    According to military sources familiar with the Able Danger legal side, the effort stepped over the line when LIWA contractors purchased photographic collections of people entering and exiting mosques in the United States and overseas. One source says that LIWA contractors dealt with a questionable source of photographs in California, either a white supremacy group or some other anti-Islamic organization.

    Connections will be found, but their actual credibility will remain in doubt, and there will be no such thing as an individual's privacy.

    All because of a government so arrogant, self-centered and incompetent, they didn't see 911 coming.

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
    1. Re:How many DBs are in play? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the total monitoring of civilians is already apon us... I for one welcome our.. ah, forget it.

      Its going to get very 'Minority Report'... Car insurance companies already 'find you guilty of bad driving' if you have bad credit or no credit history -because there is a 'linkage';

      How long till the DHS send you to GiTm0 because their 'data-base' linked 'trends' in your web surfing habits (it included slashdot - OMG!!), that red and white tea towel you purchased for your picknic looks like some kind of turban (OMG!!), the trip to home depot to buy bleach cos your sheets needed whitening (OMFG!!).... and they pieced it all together and your going to need one ballsy lawyer..

      Dont worry, the neigbours wont think less of you 'cos no one will hear about it. The case will be at some insane s3cr3t level that only the judge and the procesuction can attend... and the neighbours will wonder... "what ever happened to that nice man that lived at number 22?"

  50. You're forgetting interagency rivalies by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    NeocCons, who presently hold great sway in the NSA, don't trust the CIA, and have attempted to disparage them, as well as DeGoss their upper management.

    The CIA doesn't trust the NSA, and views them as being political. they also see the FBI as pussies.

    The FBI views the NSA and the CIA as immoral and unlawful actors, and holds them at arms length when dealing with them.

    If the present NSA is shopping for their own Intel software tools, their inherent paranoia will preclude their usage of In_Q_Tel's enabled tech.

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
  51. Re:High IQ Doesn't Indicate Competence or Credibil by putko · · Score: 1

    You got the NSC (and Iran/contra) mixed up with the NSA.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  52. Re:Please elaborate on point 7: Enron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "After the election Enron was illegally fleecing the good citizens of the State of California (who voted overwhelmingly against Bush)."

    Before Bush was inaugurated in January 2001:
    -Nov. 2000, Ken Lay began selling his Enron stock...
    -Jan. 2001, California declared a state of emergency over rolling blackouts and energy prices...
    -Jan. 2001, California governor Gray Davis called Enron and other energy companies "out-of-state profiteers" during the 2000 California energy crisis...

    The truth is bad enough for Bush, you don't have to embellish. The California problems began and were identified while Clinton was still President. In January 2002 the Department of Justice started investigating Enron. Enron cooked the books while Bush was in office (and got busted for it), the fleecing of Californians was mostly during Clinton.

  53. Re:Please elaborate on point 7: Enron by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
    AC said:
    ... the fleecing of Californians was mostly during Clinton.
    Wrong. I was living in California during this time and even though things started to get bad while Clinton was just about to leave office, they got much worse and stayed worse after Bush became president. It is not called the "2000 California Energy Crisis" but rather the "2000 -- 2001 California Energy Crisis".

    A simple Google(California Enron) will get you lots of information, almost all of which contradicts your statement. Similarly a Google(Bush California price caps) will show you that starting before the inauguration and lasting until at least the end of May, 2001, Bush refused to impose price caps to stop the gouging.

    "We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps,"
    -- George Bush, May 29, 2001
    For Bush's earlier take on the problem, take a look at this reprint of a San Francisco Chronicle article that states:
    President-elect Bush bluntly rejected yesterday the electricity price caps desperately sought by Gov. Gray Davis, calling them "a short-term delay of a needed solution."

    Bush, in his first direct comments on California's rolling blackouts, whose repercussions are beginning to cascade beyond the state's borders, blamed the problem on California's "flawed" deregulation legislation, which he said the state has to fix.

    "I have read where some propose price controls," Bush told the Associated Press. "I'm against price controls."

    Finally take a look a what CBS News had to say:

    Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

    "It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

    That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

    If anything, instead of embellishing (as you suggest), I was probably understating the problem.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  54. Re:High IQ Doesn't Indicate Competence or Credibil by vague_ascetic · · Score: 1

    You are of course, correct in my lumping the National Security Agency with members of the National Security Council. My trying to be cute, and some contemporary reading subjects are to blame.

    Recently I have been reading the Walsh Iran/Contra Report, as well as some other related reading, and it seems that I confused the president's Naional security Advisor (NSA - a the time of the Reagan ongoing criminal enterprise it was Robert McFarlane) as someone who is a part of, and holds great policy control over the NSA.

    It didn't help that some of the other reading I've been doing are transcripts of the NSA archive's interviews for the CNN series: The Cold War Experience. The direct Iran/Contra link being Duane Clarridge's Interview.

    If you visit, don't just read Dewey's silly condensed history of the Monroe Doctrine and run. Ziggy Brzezinski's interview is quite illuminating, especially when taken in context with his Le Nouvel Observateur Interview in Paris, January 15-21, 1998, which has been translated and published by that incorrigible lefty for life muckraking journo, Alexander Cockburn. For a more contemporary flavoring of the ties that grind there are also interviews by: Condi Rice, Richard Perle, and the long-term Machinator of US policy, John Negroponte; Part One and Part Two.

    --
    Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron