Bruce Sterling On Total Information Awareness 488
securitas writes "Declan McCullagh interviews Bruce Sterling about Total Information Awareness (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness and raising concerns) or 'Poindexter's nutty scheme' as Sterling thinks of it. He predicts TIA will destabilize the government and lead to internal KGB-style coups. Whether you agree with him or not it makes for thought-provoking reading."
The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Its been slow in coming, but since 9/11 we have raced towards it as fast as we can, with the publics support. There is still a ways to go, but the momentum is there.. its a matter of ( short ) time.
Its sickening. Looks like the terrorists won, their goal was to elimate the way of life we had here here, and they sure as hell did.
intersting article (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because it's the atom age, it doesn't mean we'll all have a private atom-powered helicopter. Just because it's the information age, it doesn't mean we're all going to profit or be made happier. It has secondary and tertiary effects that cannot be predicted. You don't envision a phone answering machine and predict the Lewinsky scandal--even though one is impossible without the other.
I personally believe that the efforts individuals make to better understand things, like computer technology, then living in the "information age" will leave that individual with a greater sense of security--And wouldnt that individual be in a greater position to lead the rest of society toward whatever might be better? Like a security expert speaking out against TIA with a solid argument?
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
TIA, would be fascism not socialism.
More Information About People = KGB Style Coups (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:TIA or NO TIA it will happen anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
But credit card companies don't employ people with guns and badges that can kick in your door and take you to a holding cell without a reason--and thats the difference!
The biggest threat TIA offers the American public is, if you've read the Detailed report to congress [darpa.mil], they decide who, when, and where to attack Americans-to protect you and me-Americans.
Re:relieving (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude that "it can't happen here" is exactly what allows it to happen.
I’m conflicted (Score:1, Insightful)
And propose we call this effect Bill Bennettizing rather than Trent Lotting
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes no distinction between external threats and internal oppression (for a good reason).
Completely absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
These things can be done in any type of government. In fascism, which you seem to be implying, the people wouldn't have a choice. In a democracy, with the right support from the media, it is also possible.
None of the indicators of socialism are present, by the way. On the contrary, we are moving further away from socialism. College costs are rising, health care costs are rising, companies (ie SCO) are very busy suing each other over IP violations, tax cuts are being made
Please don't use 'socialism' as term for any bad government. Socialism is something very specific, and not what you are talking about.
And why in the world are you saying that 'the terrorists' won? What the US is becoming is the opposite of what terrorists would want. How could a group of terrorists want us to invade their home countries?
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Sour Grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
At some point, you realize you lost, pick yourself up and dust yourself off, and plan for the next one. It's done, there is no chance of the election being reversed or any other outcome. Get over it, and try to get Dubya out of office this upcoming election if you don't like what happened.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Now Sterling is telling us that deep databases of personal info will destabalize our government causing shifts in power so fast that it essentially doom our country. Even though in the begining of the interview he says he doesnt think the system has much traction, later on he seems to imply that the result is inevitable (ala google) and the answer is to leave the country (presumably to one that doesnt have google)
What is with science fiction authors being relied on to predict the future? Haven't we shown time after time that science fiction is in fact a horrible way to try to get a handle on the next fifty years? If we actually followed sci-fi these days we'd commute back and forth from the moon, have life like robots that do our every whim, attack people with energy weapons and almost never user computers.
I like both of the authors i mentioned but i'll continue to buy their works of fiction and not be planning on hiring either any time soon for a think tank.
Totalitarianism not Socialism (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a moron. (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the article, I don't see anything about a changing economic model.
Its sickening. Looks like the terrorists won, their goal was to elimate the way of life we had here here, and they sure as hell did.
Yeah, because terrorists just want you to have better health care, right?
You're a moron. 90% of the world's democracies are socialist. And you know what? ALL of them have a higher standard of living than the USA.
Perhaps you should learn the real meanings of words before you start bandying them about.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, except for most of Western Europe from 1939-45, and most of Eastern Europe from 1917-91, and Spain from 1938-1975, and Portugal from 1928-1968, and Italy from 1922-45, and Romania from 1948-1989, and the former Yugoslavia right up to the present, and....
What planet do you live on, chum? On mine, Hitler killed 20,000,000 people, and Stalin killed 30 to 50,000,000 (we'll probably never know the exact number). Franco, Ceausescu, Mussolini, and the other murdering thugs weren't in that league, but still accounted for quite a few corpses.
As for France, ever wonder why they're on their Fifth Republic? That's right, it's degenerated 4 times before, generally into some form of autocratic rule.
Debating tip: if you're going to make a claim, it's a good idea to not have your head several feet up your ass.
Re:Sour Grapes (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do remember that socialism is an economic system where most of the industries are monopolized by the government. This is certainly not occurring. One thing that is occurring that is an aspect of socialism is less attention is being paid to the individual, and more is to the group. This happens whenever there is a common goal. Take World War 2 and the 'greatest generation'. It's possible that this was the least selfish time in the US's history, both on an interpersonal social level, and international political level.
On another note I have been questioning this whole "eliminate way of life" argument, the same as was made for WW2. This seems to presume that there is no better social system than the one we have, and none will ever be developed. I cannot think of anything more naÃve, which is so prevalent everywhere: that things taken under a burden of false pride cannot be made better. Like believers of the phrase "You can't teach an old dog new tricks", I find we stuck at a wall created by the public imagination, and if we don't pass it, we will fail.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed this on
Of course, this means I'll probably be modded down on this post.
To the point:
We are slowly evolving into a new form of government:
democratic fascism.
People get to vote, there are multiple parties, but fundamentally, it's a one party state - like a hydra - many heads that hate each other, but the body walks in one direction, and we're all trapped on its back.
When things get rough they throw the slaves some bread (social services) and circuses (TV). This shuts the proles up, and the ruling class stays put.
Same as it ever was.
RR
Re:Completely absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what nurb meant is that we are slouching toward a fascistic state, and I think under the Nazional Republican Party, it's a defininte possibility. Consider:
TIA fits into the pattern. The Nazional Republican inclination to turn over social welfare and other non-military, non-"Homeland Security" programs to the private sector, as you accurately describe, also fits into the pattern of a fascistic ideology: all of the economic and political power concentrated into the hands of an elite few. Information on the citizenry is the key to control. I think Sterling's scenario where the "KGB" apparatus would be used by various branches of the Nazional Republican Party against each other is his fond hope. To take a page from Reichsfuhrer Bush, VOTE FOR REGIME CHANGE IN 2004. This makes a damn good bumper sticker slogan.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we can start gutting the other ammendments too.
If you're so damn sure that the 2nd is absolutely no longer necessary, your obligations are clear as a citizen. You need to get an ammendment passed that does away with that right. There are several methods available, and provided that you can do so, I will be satisfied that I do not have the right to own firearms. The sad truth is, you're a conniving little bitch, that knows such an ammendment would never pass (whether that's a good thing or not, I'm undecided) and instead you choose to undermine it at every available turn. The US Constitution is truly a wisely written and carefully concieved document... no one in our goverment today has even 1/100th the sense of its authors. And it does indeed constitutionally guarantee my right to bear arms, whether or not you make up bullshit excuses.
Anyone that doesn't believe there might come a time when owning a gun is incredibly advantageous, is a fool. Like most rights, though, it is not without its perils and has its associated duties. (something the mountain-men/gun-nuts often forget) I don't own a gun, I don't want to. I also don't want such a time to come, when I might want or need one. But when I see such a pathetic little worm like yourself, preaching how I shouldn't have that right, when you don't even know if I'm capable of dealing with said perils and meeting my dutiful obligations, it makes me sick.
The world needs for militaries to not own weapons. Individuals with guns have never been that much of a problem.
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Luckily, the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't work/live in a vaccuum... they left tons of writings on why they believed the things they fought for. Read up on it a bit; I've got a standard $100 bet with acquaintances who are anti-2nd amendment that they can't find one instance of a constitution framer arguing for collective rights in firearms ownership, as opposed to individual rights, which it most certainly is.
there is still hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the U.S. form of government [slashdot.org], we are getting decade-record levels of unemployment and crime, but at least the rich are a little richer, if you don't coun't externalities like the crime rate and overall property values.
Just don't count on all those nearly three million newly-unemployed people to vote on election day. I wouldn't put it past Bush to do something "exciting" right before election day. After all, you have a guy who claimed that he didn't tell anyone about his drunk driving conviction because he was trying to protect his daughters, but he doesn't ask the Secret Service to lift a finger to keep them from being caught drinking underage. He simply can not be trusted. How many times did he leave the "have you ever been convicted" question blank on Texas election forms? However, there is still hope [deanforamerica.com].
Reciprocal Transparency. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the databases will exist - large corporations and government agencies will just not tell you they exist and keep using them if they're made "illegal" - and can only get more powerful and far-reaching, I think that the best choice is to make the database read-accessible to everyone rather than limit access to a powerful and unaccountable elite.
Note that I am NOT asserting that it's particularly nice that the databases exist in the first place - just that the genie's out of the bottle, and that the best way to minimise abuses of power would be to minimise secrecy. Otherwise we'll probably end up with 1984.
It's amusing that personal privacy advocates are often the same ones screaming for government or corporate openness - while privacy (== secrecy) exists, anyone handed power will have a screen to hide behind to hide abuses of said power. Yes, humans like privacy. But privacy, whether for the government or the citizen, may prove fundamentally in opposition to the maximisation of the freedoms a civilised society can provide, while still remaining a civilised society.
This is explored further in David Brin's excellent book: "The Transparent Society: Will Technology force us to choose between Privacy and Freemdom?" As he points out, "people generally seem to want privacy for themselves and accountability for everyone else...".
Define "Dumb Conservative" (Score:5, Insightful)
These poor souls would rather focus on why they (the middle class) have to pay a bit more taxes than the poor instead of focusing on why they have to pay a LOT more taxes than the ultra-wealthy or profitable corporations like Microsoft. You knew Microsoft paid $0 taxes in 1999, right?
These morons also like complaining about things like a minimum wage bill because it raises the minimum wage rather than complaining about the luxury yacht fuel subsidies buried inside that same bill. "To hell with the undernourished child of a single working parent, my taxes shouldn't pay for that! Instead, my hard-earned taxes are gonna help filthy rich bastards play on their yacht because my misguided middle-class ass is too lazy to get informed."
smartest: rich conservatives
average: everyone else
dumbest: middle-class conservatives
I hope to become a rich conservative sometime this decade but until then, it isn't in my best self-interest to be a conservative or liberal right now.
What's your definition of "dumb conservative"?
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it wasn't. Most of the terrorist organizations out there couldn't give a stuff what Americans do, as long as they do it in America.
Most of the serious terrorists these days (Bin Laden et al) want Americans out of the Middle East.
*Looks at Afghanistan, Iraq*
Yep, that worked.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most famous "predictions" is that of Orwell's 1984, which (of course) has not exactly come to pass. On the other hand, many concepts of 1984 have proven tremendously robust and recognizable, such as "double speak" and "double think." You can glimpse shadows of the larger issues, such as three major world powers which engage in shifting alliances of 2 vs 1.
So, read Sterling's "Distraction" and be amazed by an enthusiastic, over-the-top speculation on trends in politics and manipulation of the public, with intriguing little sidetrips on new technology and ancient history (well, not exactly ancient --- but I found the Regulators and Moderators to be truly interesting folk; they don't need to ever come into real existence to be evocative, and to think, "well, really, just what keeps them from existing?") The whole idea of "reputation servers" is coming into existence right now, implemented by Google, blogs, and (yes) Slashdot's
cooperative editing and posting system. (Not to mention USNews's annual beauty pageant for universities. The USA has such a tremendous stable of great universities, it is pretty discouraging to see a "top 10" gather so much shallow attention.)
At any rate --- concern about TIA and its kin (which should include Google, you know --- see the interview with Sterling) is perfectly legitimate, and if SciFi isn't perfectly prognostic about what it's going to mean, well, do our leaders really do any better? Does Ashcroft have a conventional understanding of the Bill of Rights?
Any think tank that wouldn't want to have a Bruce Sterling around is a think tank that's too timid to ever say anything truly mind stretching.
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm... doing a quick google on Federal Spedning shows that in 1999 we spent 42% of the federal budget on Social Issues (Medicare, Medicade, Social security). Compare this to the other big ticket items like Defense spending (16%) and I think you can see why people feel that we're turning into a socialist country.
YOUR health insurance payments are high, as is your college tuitition. This is because in addition to paying for your coverage and schooling, you're also helping to pay for everyone elses too. Want a free ride to school and free medical? Quit your job, go on welfare. Between the state and federal "programs" that exist today, you're pretty sure to not miss a class on the tax payers dime.
Oh, and btw - we have a standing Army to protect the state. The second ammendment provides a means for the PEOPLE to protect themselves FROM the state, or so I've been lead to understand.
Sterling's assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
An insane information-hungry KGB or a relatively open and decent government? Vote with your feet. Get the hell away from those lunatics. Who the hell wants to live in a USA with a TIA in it? Why would you want to invest it that country? The currency would crash. The political elite would annihilate one another.
Mr. Sterling is making a big assumption here: you will always have somewhere that is different to move to. One _conspiracy theory_ I've been harbouring is that the USA's plan is to politically assimilate the rest of the world so that there will not BE another place to go to, in effect. Everyone will have basically the same privacy, human rights, freedom of speech (or lack of it) laws.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
When a government takes away it's citizens' right to keep and bear arms, then the citizens are no longer able to protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. This is the reason that James Madison included the second amendment in the bill of rights. The first ten amendments are not in some arbitrary order. Madison felt that the right to own firearms was second only to freedom of religion/speech/assembly/expression.
Re: To quote the constitution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Expanding on that... (Score:4, Insightful)
To "be impeached" is to be accused of a crime by the assembled Congress. Clinton was not convicted: he was not removed.
Impeachment is not a conviction. This confusion of terms was intentional by Clinton's enemies, and has infected the body politic. It is a murder of language, and a calculated one.
Clinton was accused of shading the truth (he didn't lie: he asked for a definition of sex from the judge, who told him intercourse. He'd had oral sex, which gave him an out.
Clinton was simply smarter than the criminals --leaking special prosecutor info is a crime -- who had set him up on a hearing concerning another setup - Paula Jones.
Starr and his elves had found out about Lewinsky the night before the PJ deposition. Clinton knew they knew, so it was a battle of wits with Clinton packing a rocket launcher, and his tormenters armed with a Rush Limbaugh slingshot.
The pieces of work from Starr's office told the judge that Lewinsky's affair with Clinton was pertinent to the Jones deposition. It wasn't. They merely wanted to get Clinton under oath, where he would be forced to make a choice: lie about his sex life, or tell the truth and wreck his personal and public life.
Clinton was smarter than that, and chose the third option: narrow the definition of sex, and then truthfully deny having that kind of sexx described by the judge. He simply was a better lawyer and a better man than the men who lied to the judge about the relevance of Lewinsky to the Jones case.
Of course, Clinton was fined for outsmarting his tormenters. And his witchhunters got away clean with lying to the judge, and got the only real "scandal" they could get after seven long years of trying to find anything other than unsupportable BS from his enemies to charge him with.
The Repubs, and some really stupid f-ing Demos, decided to give this pack of rabid misusers of a tax-paid prosecution the impeachment (accusation) they so achingly wanted.
The combined Congress realized they were being asked to remove a President for getting a blowjob. Sanity broke out.
Flashforward to today: a sitting President fantasized a dire enemy in a ruined country around the world. He lied and lied about the imminent threat to the US. He got his war, killing tens of thousands of men in pickup trucks and T-shirts. He maimed possibly hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.He wrecked the power grid, cut off food for millions of helpless people.
Evidence for his fantasy was nonexistent both before and after the "war" (attack of Starship Troopers vs. the Flintstones). His people profit handsomely from the occupation.
And no one says "impeachment".
A blow job from an intern is more impeachable than the ideologically based murder of tens of thousands, and the theft of a country.
Terrorist? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to realize that the government is making suspects of us ALL.
Miller, 1939 (Score:3, Insightful)
The modern equivalent would be for you and for me to be required by law to own an M-14 or M-16 capable of fully-automatic fire, although other weapons of equivalent capability, and even decent bolt-action rifles, would probably be OK.
"A Well-regulated militia?" Yes, indeed: you aren't allowed to show up with "non-regulation," outdated weapons or "non-regulation" rifles that fire odd-caliber amminition. That would cause a supply problem and maybe get you killed if you ran out of ammunition. A Well-Regulated militia means "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." --James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
Want another quote? "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Completely absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
Kurt thanks for the post, I had a good laugh. With clear thought and wit like this I'm suprised you went to DeVry.
And yet I note that the previous poster was able to express his views clearly and concisely, irrespective of whether or not one agrees with him. And bonus points to him for leaving out the facile ad hominem, something you may want to consider for your own writing.
Mouser
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a card-carrying member of the mythical "vast right-wing conspiracy", I can safely say that I have never heard this one. In point of fact, most right-wingers are thoroughly outraged by the moral spinelessness demonstrated by not only the GOP leaders of the Senate at the time, but also by the so-called "conscience" of the Senate on the left side, Joe Lieberman, in failing to actually convict Clinton. We know very well that Clinton wasn't convicted, thanks. We're disgusted to the core over it. But that also doesn't change the fact that Slick Willie was the first President to be impeached in over a century (and only the second one at that).
Clinton was accused of shading the truth
...which is morally inconsistent with the oath taken: to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". But that wasn't the whole story, and you know it: he was also guilty, guilty, guilty of suborning perjury, which is also a felony. This from a lawyer, who I think it's safe to assume can hardly be said to be have been acting in ignorance.
The pieces of work from Starr's office told the judge that Lewinsky's affair with Clinton was pertinent to the Jones deposition. It wasn't.
Do you really believe this nonsense, or are you making it up as you go along? Clinton was accused of sexual harassment of a subordinate in the Paula Jones case - a charge that he denied. "Ironically" enough, he was also guilty of conducting an affair with another subordinate - Lewinsky. If you can't see the obvious relevance of the Lewinsky matter to the Jones case, you really ought to take off those mud-colored glasses.
A blow job from an intern is more impeachable than the ideologically based murder of tens of thousands, and the theft of a country.
That seems to have been true even during Clinton's morally corrupt regime. Or have you forgotten about the bombings of Serbia? And Clinton's wag-the-dog bombings of Iraq? And his bombings of Sudan?
Re:Completely absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree with him on that point. They who control the TIA would have heavy political clout. They would stay hidden and mostly unknown to average Americans, and a change in political leadership would have no effect on their ownership of the big brother machine. So as long as the smart politician kowtowed to them, his skeletons would stay safely in the closet. If you want historical precedence for this just read up on J. Edgar Hoover.
Also the owners of TIA would have little need to actually destroy someone with the information they would have. They could just coerce candidates drop out of a race (like they did to Perot) or vote a certain way or use the information to further their own agenda (like they used the Office of Fatherland Security recently to track down the Democrat representatives who fled Texas to Oklahoma.) Sunshine laws and the Freedom of Information Act were meant to counteract these type of abuses but the faction in power now flagrantly violates these laws (e.g. Cheney's meetings with Enron and other Energy execs.)
TIA could be viewed as one more check and balance in the system though one not defined by our Constitution. However just because I don't think it will be destablizing doesn't mean it will be good for America. If Uncle Sam dances to the tune of secret puppetmasters then our system will come to resemble that of the Soviet Union and I think Bruce Sterling's reference to the KGB was an apt one.
Re:Sterling's assumptions (Score:1, Insightful)
For that matter, I think Sterling overestimates the degree to which politicians can be brought down by these revelations. Clinton's impeachment backfired disastrously on the Republicans; Bush's DUI revelation shook but didn't topple his candidacy. Trent Lott bought the farm not just because he made a stupid remark, but because he was a useless boob who was relatively expendable. Many people still consider JFK a great president despite the recent revelations that he was heavily medicated and chasing skirts during much of his time in office; as these revelations start coming within politicians' terms of office, it's more likely that people will learn to rationalize away occasional incidents of misbehavior than that we'll have an endless series of "coups".
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's right there in the 4th (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't take a terribly "liberal interpretation" of the 4th amendment to see a "right to privacy" here. I mean, it would be pretty extreme to claim this prevents surveillence in a public place, but I think TIA, Carnivore, etc. constitute unreasonable searches against people's papers and effects and are certainly done without probable cause.
This isn't as broad a "right to privacy" as some might like, but it's not a stretch at all to claim that it rules out trying to spy on as much of the country as you can manage.
Stupid Bulk Storage. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are just to damned lazy to get off their dead asses and do the Human Intellegence they are paid to do.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
If you actually read the second amendment, there's a subject and a predicate. There's "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", then a , and then "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Argue all you want about whether a militia is necessary or not, or who's in it, or whatever. Using the rules of plain english, you could change the amendment to
"Because Santa Claus is an avid grapefruit golfer, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and it would still imply the same thing. The right of the people to own guns. What the heck does it mean to have the "state's rights" interpretation anyway? The state allows itself to own weapons? Wow, good thing that bit of foresight was included by the FF's.
You can argue "the people", but that's completely disingenuous considering that "the people" is the exact same definite article used in the 1st amendment. Unless you're willing to accept a "collective right" to free speech, that is....
The 2nd amendment is about hunting. It's about hunting politicians. No one is going to argue that an armed citizenry is going to take the US Army. But it -will- put the fear of God in politicians. And besides, you gotta like the odds of 500,000 guys with guns tanks and planes vs 80 million guys with "sniper" rifles.
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread - if you don't like the 2nd amendment, by all means try and repeal it. Until then, don't try and sell us what are clearly lies.
Dig my controversial new nick!
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
I just ask because most people I have talked with that interpret "millitia" in the 2nd amendment as meaning training, ranks, National Gaurd only, etc... write off non-government funded millitias as wackos. Yet nowhere does the amendment say "government funded and sanctioned millitias".
Again, I'm not attacking you per se, just asking what you take is on groups of citizens getting together and exercising their rights.
Also, I do have to pick a nit with your labeling the parent post as a "nut with a gun." I own guns, and I also go to the range and "train" with those guns every week, firing hundreds of rounds. I am trained, competent, and a fully contributing member of society paying taxes, my rent, and even helping people out from time to time. So on that count, I do have to personally attack you and say that the last part of your comment obviously shows that you are a quick-to-judge nutcase who is totally unprepared to listen to any point of view other than your own.
Anyhow, flame on all ye people. I know that suggesting guns are a right is taboo on
Re:relieving (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me get this straight.
The US imprisoned completely innocent people without a trial, access to lawyers, or any kind of due process for more then two years. After two years of imprisonment and "interrogations" they let them go and gave them a pair of jeans and a koran for their time. And you are actually proud of this fact? Honestly and truly you see nothing wrong with putting people in a concentration camp for two years when they are completely innocent?
Oh what about the other 600+ people? Do you know what is happening to them? Are you allowed to know?
One more thing. What about the unkown number of people being held in concentration camps in afghanistan and quatar? What about them?
you have some weird and warped sense of right and wrong if you think it's OK to lock people in a cage for two years and then let them go when they are no longer useful to you. It's sick, twisted and downright evil.
1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe not by 1984, but aren't things becoming more Orwellian every day? The TIA seems to be a perfect example.
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the only cost to the USA from its criminal devestation of Iraq that you've noticed then you are alseep. A vast majority of the world is now convinced that the USA is a power-mad pack of culturally-illiterate techno-barbarians, intent on nothing less that global domination. The US has made the world a much more hostile place, to youselves and to the rest of us - even those of us who opposed this stupid, illegal, morally bankrupt war. The UN has been castrated, the doctorine of 'pre-emptive attack' is now being adopted by every thug state that wants to abuse it, the 'freedoms' you US citizens enjoyed are being stripped away, the economy is fucked, AIDS will kill 25 million people by the end of the Naughties. That is the just a fraction of the total cost.
Apparently, their lives are cheaper than the quality of life of the Iraqi citizen
Setting aside the fact that I was taught that all human lives are equal, the quality of life of the average Iraqi is now much much worse than it was under the CIA's stooge Saddam. Bush and Blair's war has killed many thousands of people, Iraqis, Americans, British and more, and may kill untold millions more from disease, radioactive contamination and famine. So far all the war on Iraq has done is stir up the terrorism horents' nest, destroy a country that was already teetering on the brink of calamity, and reinforce the rest of the world's suspicions that the USA is run by a bunch of gansters who would stop at nothing to make a few extra bucks by looting Iraq's battered carcass in the name of world peace.
What is worse? That 'our' leaders lied to us to get us into the war, or that Iraq has finally been gang-raped after a decade of abuse?
A good source for patsies... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the radio show This American Life [thisamericanlife.org], a segment [207.70.82.73] described how police used the case summary of an FBI profiler as a template for a forced confession. Under pressure to find the killer(s), police used intimidation and duress to coax a suspect to sign a false confession, the conviction since overturned by DNA evidence. The suspect, unaware of case particulars, was given a confession to sign lifted verbatim from an FBI profiler's report. The police used a best guess of how the crime occurred based on the evidence to frame a patsy.
In the not distant future with Total Information Awareness, it will be trivial to find a patsy for any crime. The person murdered attended the same university and you shared a class or two (enrollment database). You enjoy violence and murder (video store database). The murder occured a mile away and within 30 minutes of when you filled up your car at the gas station (credit card database). We have established relationship, motif, and opportunity.
My point is that extremely causal data will be used to make relationships where none exist and to support conclusions which no hard data supports. It will become trivial to gather a group of suspects for any crime, none of which have anything to do with it.
The databases will be used to get tough on crime, which was a euphemism in the 80's for put pressure on police and courts to find a patsy and put them away to make us politically significant. The wave of released prisoners based on evaluation of DNA evidence in recent years is proof of this.
Are you a terrorist? I bet if we look at the proper data points we can make anyone look like one...
Why I am Worried (Score:2, Insightful)
Those familiar with data mining know that there are very serious problems in turning data into information. This means that some human must make some pronouncement that some types of data mean certain things. If they collect all your emails, what exactly identifies you as a terroist? If they collect your credit card transactions, what do you have to buy to be a terrorist? Etc.
Aside from the technical problems associated with coding and interpreting the data there are other problems associated with detection. Basically, in data mining there are two paths that TIA can take. Supervised algorithms (here's what a terrorist looks like go find others) and unsupervised algorithms (let's clump all people who buy lots of fertilizer together). The problem with supervised algorithms, is that you need examples of what a terrorist looks like. Even, then you need a whole bunch of examples to teach algorithms to identify them. The problem with unsupervised techniques is that once you have grouped everyone together, do you have the right number of groups, and are the groups any good at identifying terroists?
I'm just grazing the technical problems...and there are many many more, but in hte end, the most problematic is that even if it is possible to create some algorithm, no method is 100% accurate. This means that (many) innocent people will get targeted and victimized by the TIA just because they happen to "fit the profile".
The best way I see to beat this is 1) create multiple personae 2) look like everyone else.
My 2 cents.