Sorry to back and forth on this, but I think it is important.
Current definitions of 'domestic' and 'foreign' are rooted in antedated concepts... There are American citizens in the fifty states who are utter foreigners, ideologically speaking, to the United States.
Again, I'm not sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. First, there are still important strategic differences between 'domestic' and 'foreign' applications of technology and military operations. Note that you simply cannot use the same mechanisms for both types of threats. For foreign threats, you can use whatever means necessary... you don't have the same freedom for you domestic population. Second, what exactly is U.S. ideology? Last time I looked, the U.S. welcomed different views. And as far as anything being antedated, there is NOTHING new about having some citizens that hate the country.
I wrote, "Our WMD program is a deterrent for external threats."
No it's not. Suppose Osama bin Ladin were to blow up Chicago with a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Who would we retaliate against? What should we blow up?
I think you are just reaffirming my point. We don't then lob a nuke at Chicago... we do what we did in Afghanistan...again, directing our conventional might externally. Whether or not WMD deters individual actors, clearly not... but that is not what I said.
TIA-type efforts cut down on the number of troops we need to commit to occupation and stabilization duties. They allow us to use Special Forces instead of tank divisions. It's like the Cold War, where our nuclear arsenal allowed us to keep only enough forces in Europe to serve as a tripwire for Apocalypse and to thus keep taxes lower.
I don't know where to begin here... Take Iraq. Perhaps data mining techniques could have helped identify more targets of strategic importance, but there is no way that we would have relied solely on Special Forces and info-tech to take down Iraq. To take on conventional forces, you need conventional forces, not TIA. The stuff is not THAT powerful, in any incarnation.
When I wrote, "First off, your response is begging the question that TIA works," I mean you are assuming that the technology is effective at thwarting terrorist attacks, not that it just functions correctly. It could be the case that it just picks out a lot of people who aren't doing anything wrong but fit the profile.
About my hypothetical Egyptian living in America and attending mosque... I understand that you may not care if his feelings get hurt. What I am saying is that it is easier for you to get sold on a program that will never fish you out. Our Muslim friends in America however, don't have that assurance. It is analogous to racial profiling... it is easy for captain white bread to say, "Well I don't mind so much." But a minority may become somewhat victimized by it, be it physically or psychologically.
"Powerful surveillance technologies in the hands of Western security organizations are the thermonuclear deterrent of the present day."
-The surveillance in question is directed domestically. Our WMD program is a deterrent for external threats. This is a big difference and leads to the question of who is the target and why.
"...they are the only alternative to the maintenance of enormous conventional forces designed to fight brutal and exhausting wars of occupation."
-I don't see how data mining techniques can maintain conventional forces. How does JetBlue receiving a notice that a "bad guy" is on board help a tank division in Iraq?
"Use of technologies like TIA is the best option we have available to defend the comfortable lives we lead and to provide hope for improving the lives of people around the world through economic prosperity driven by the engine of Western markets."
- First off, your response is begging the question that TIA works. Second, I don't understand why you posit such a strong connection between these technologies and global economic prosperity. Third, and more importantly, the statement is easier to agree with if you are one who would not be targeted by such technologies. Say, for example, if you were from Egypt and went to a mosque, you may not be so blase about TIA.
I'm surprised how much hell this dude is catching from you all. First, he's not coding something for a competition, it looks like a project he's done on his spare time just to put a picture to how easy it would be to compile info and track people. He's not claiming anything about its quality. Second, to the bright one who wrote "sounds like a terrorist to me," just because someone buys oriental food, doesn't mean they are from N.Korea. And in case you are still prone to unhealthy non sequitur, if someone is from N. Korea, it doesn't mean they are a terrorist. And third, to those saying he should get a life, you're the ones spending your time conversing through/. He's doing research at a think tank in DC, no doubt an advocate for stuff most slashdotters only complain about.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to back and forth on this, but I think it is important. Current definitions of 'domestic' and 'foreign' are rooted in antedated concepts... There are American citizens in the fifty states who are utter foreigners, ideologically speaking, to the United States. Again, I'm not sure you understand the implications of what you are saying. First, there are still important strategic differences between 'domestic' and 'foreign' applications of technology and military operations. Note that you simply cannot use the same mechanisms for both types of threats. For foreign threats, you can use whatever means necessary... you don't have the same freedom for you domestic population. Second, what exactly is U.S. ideology? Last time I looked, the U.S. welcomed different views. And as far as anything being antedated, there is NOTHING new about having some citizens that hate the country. I wrote, "Our WMD program is a deterrent for external threats." No it's not. Suppose Osama bin Ladin were to blow up Chicago with a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Who would we retaliate against? What should we blow up? I think you are just reaffirming my point. We don't then lob a nuke at Chicago... we do what we did in Afghanistan...again, directing our conventional might externally. Whether or not WMD deters individual actors, clearly not... but that is not what I said. TIA-type efforts cut down on the number of troops we need to commit to occupation and stabilization duties. They allow us to use Special Forces instead of tank divisions. It's like the Cold War, where our nuclear arsenal allowed us to keep only enough forces in Europe to serve as a tripwire for Apocalypse and to thus keep taxes lower. I don't know where to begin here... Take Iraq. Perhaps data mining techniques could have helped identify more targets of strategic importance, but there is no way that we would have relied solely on Special Forces and info-tech to take down Iraq. To take on conventional forces, you need conventional forces, not TIA. The stuff is not THAT powerful, in any incarnation. When I wrote, "First off, your response is begging the question that TIA works," I mean you are assuming that the technology is effective at thwarting terrorist attacks, not that it just functions correctly. It could be the case that it just picks out a lot of people who aren't doing anything wrong but fit the profile. About my hypothetical Egyptian living in America and attending mosque... I understand that you may not care if his feelings get hurt. What I am saying is that it is easier for you to get sold on a program that will never fish you out. Our Muslim friends in America however, don't have that assurance. It is analogous to racial profiling... it is easy for captain white bread to say, "Well I don't mind so much." But a minority may become somewhat victimized by it, be it physically or psychologically.
"Powerful surveillance technologies in the hands of Western security organizations are the thermonuclear deterrent of the present day." -The surveillance in question is directed domestically. Our WMD program is a deterrent for external threats. This is a big difference and leads to the question of who is the target and why. "...they are the only alternative to the maintenance of enormous conventional forces designed to fight brutal and exhausting wars of occupation." -I don't see how data mining techniques can maintain conventional forces. How does JetBlue receiving a notice that a "bad guy" is on board help a tank division in Iraq? "Use of technologies like TIA is the best option we have available to defend the comfortable lives we lead and to provide hope for improving the lives of people around the world through economic prosperity driven by the engine of Western markets." - First off, your response is begging the question that TIA works. Second, I don't understand why you posit such a strong connection between these technologies and global economic prosperity. Third, and more importantly, the statement is easier to agree with if you are one who would not be targeted by such technologies. Say, for example, if you were from Egypt and went to a mosque, you may not be so blase about TIA.
I'm surprised how much hell this dude is catching from you all. First, he's not coding something for a competition, it looks like a project he's done on his spare time just to put a picture to how easy it would be to compile info and track people. He's not claiming anything about its quality. Second, to the bright one who wrote "sounds like a terrorist to me," just because someone buys oriental food, doesn't mean they are from N.Korea. And in case you are still prone to unhealthy non sequitur, if someone is from N. Korea, it doesn't mean they are a terrorist. And third, to those saying he should get a life, you're the ones spending your time conversing through /. He's doing research at a think tank in DC, no doubt an advocate for stuff most slashdotters only complain about.