What's Your Terrorism Quotient? 1076
unassimilatible writes "From the Department of Pre-Crime, the AP reports: before helping to launch the criminal information project known as Matrix (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange), a database contractor gave U.S. and Florida authorities the names of 120,000 people who showed a statistical likelihood of being terrorists - sparking some investigations and arrests. The 'high terrorism factor' scoring system also became a key selling point for the involvement of the database company, Seisint Inc., in the Matrix project. According to Seisint's presentation, dated January 2003 and marked confidential, the 120,000 names with the highest scores were given to the INS, FBI, Secret Service and Florida state police. Seisint and the law enforcement officials who oversee Matrix insist that the terrorism scoring system ultimately was kept out of the project, largely because of privacy concerns."
Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to live like Israel, fighting militant Muslims round every corner. The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs never are).
The world is fu*cked up enough as it is. The food chain has been poisoned so badly the average human is full of chemicals normally found in plastics and toxic waste. I'm sick of global warning and environmental damage to the planet and the fact the all this time the greenies were right. I'm sick of America being the biggest wilful contributor to the pollution of the planet.
I'm sick of an American school system that produces children who are brought up to believe that America IS the world and anything that goes on outside is irrelevant. Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone etc ad infinitum....
The Internet or it's successor is the future of entertainment and I'm sick of stupid low IQ, ignorant Americans infecting every corner of it with their insular, jingoistic mindsets, their whiny voices and manifestations of their low self esteem driven by the fact that despite it being their turn as the world's super power, no one actually takes them seriously or gives them the respect that the British or the Ancient Greeks got because a superpower best known for producing mass produced crap is never going to get the respect that one who gave the world Shakespeare, culture, philosophy or mathematics will get.
I'm sick of hypocrisy and two facedness. I'm sick of Gangsta Rap and hamburgers, Political Correctness and TV programmes that begin with 'When' and end in 'go bad and attack people'. I'm sick of reality TV and I'm sick of news programmes that are more censored than accurate. I'm sick of tokens, token minorities, token universities, token degrees, token attempts at the truth, tokens. I'm sick of fat people, ugly people, stupid people, gay people, coloured people, female people, whiny people all complaining they don't have the opportunities in life they would like and it must be someone else's fault. I'm sick of women that act like men and femininity being a crime, unless you're a man in which case you're a new man which nobody ever wanted because there was nothing wrong with the old one. I'm sick of people falling over and suing the ground and people watching nipples and suing the TV and I'm sick of coffee cups with 'don't pour over yourself, you may get burnt' on the side to try and counter this.
I'm sick of stupid Americans who don't know the difference between patriotism and jingoism and who think flag waving should be an Olympic event. I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:3, Insightful)
I want an America that isn't full of easily amused idiots watching crap on TV.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah? Well, I want an America full of nymphomaniac supermodels who own breweries. Deal.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Programming in America is determined by the *statistical* success of the programming, as described by the dominent Nielsen Media Research.
Nielsen chooses a number of households that report their television viewing habits. From this sample, they extrapolate viewing habits. If the news says that 40 million watched the superbowl in the US, it's really saying that Nielsen judged that 40 million watched the superbowl based on a sample of less than 1% of the US population.
What makes this extremely inaccurate is the process that's used to choose a 'Nielsen Family'. They do choose the households at random to attempt to make things statistically accurate, but no one is obligated to become a Nielsen reporter. It's a cumbersome duty with no reward. At the very least the family must keep a complete diary of their viewing habits, at worst they must have their house wired with equipment that electronically scope what they're watching.
Who would do such a thing, you ask? Complete and utter losers. People that feel they have no voice; the uneducated; the elderly; etc, etc. I'm sure some /. readers are Nielsen Family members, and I'll say now that there exceptions to the rules, normal people that do this. The ratings do show that 'high brow' TV does get watched But you can bet that the technically-oriented, educated, well-read television viewer has little proportional impact on the Nielsen ratings.
I'll give one good recent example. Futurama and The Family Guy had terrible ratings on Fox. After the shows were cancelled, they were released on DVD. They're post-cancellation sales have been through the roof; very disproportionate to the ratings. So they're bringing at least one of those shows back -- but how will they sell advertising when the Nielsen's will still reflect low-brow ratings?
One more thing -- the oh-so-annoying 'watermarked' station ID now so popular? It's for Nielsen idiots that never write the correct station down. Basically, if a Nielsen viewer writes down that they watched Friends on Fox, that datum is invalidated. So stations have to accomodate the drooling fools that don't even know what they're tuned in to.
So don't for a second believe that the programming being offered in the US reflects 'typical' American viewing habits. Unfortunately, it's typically the mouth-breathers that dictate our long-running programmming. (aside -- I would dearly love to see how different Tivo's national statistics are from the Nielsens; I'd wager that they look like they judge two entirely different populations, which they probably do)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Informative)
Saying that only complete losers take part is pretty short sighted. I never feel like a loser when I take part in a survey. It's not like the people go out and seek to be a part of the survey because they feel like they need to be heard. We are just the sort of people that will listen to a person conducting a survey and to help in the study. Insightfull my ass. If you think that most of the people are uneducated and eldery you must not understand how random samples work.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, there's nothing wrong with gangsta rap. It's R&B that's really bad.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you keep an eye on your government to make sure it isn't screwing up its foreign policy so badly that years of more terrorism will be the inevitable result?
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, as you say, yes; the problem of Muslim extremists does exist, and does have to be dealt with. However, you earlier claimed that the atmosphere of fear (I won't say terror) is being created by the US government. I would make the case to you that the atmosphere of fear was created on September 11th, that it sent very large and very real ripples through the very social fabric of the country, and even with no government prompting and no further attacks, will take decades to get back to 2000 normal.
Then you claim that the greenies were right all along. Well, not precisely. They've been right on some things, wrong on others, just like every other group out there. Global cooling, anyone?
As for the rest of it, I was going to go point by point, but I realized you were indulging yourself in a masturbatory elitist rant against the stoopid masses. Which are, quite frankly, a dime a dozen on this site, on Fark, on just about any forum you care to name. It IS being said, unlike the earlier replies, and it is being said ad nauseum. If you don't have anything new to contribute, this post is basically a 7-paragraph "Me Too!"
My suggestion? Learn that popular doesn't mean stupid.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, but by who, and why?
We know there was a government waiting for an opportunity to wage war, waiting for a spark which they could use to justify it.
We know that most people received news of this event through the TV stations. We know that the TV coverage was extremely biased, and often inaccurate. (this for news after the event, not on the day)
Also, much of the information available to people after that came from the US government. Most of what people hear or remember came from their president. Indeed, many of the people interviewed on TV were either soldiers or government, and often this wasn't pointed-out by the shows doing the interviewing. See fair.org for some more analysis of that.
So while the event itself might have been distressing, the "climate of fear" is more likely to have been caused by the constant television coverage in the last 3 years detailing exactly what people should be terrified of, and how afraid they should feel.
What other actual events (as opposed to news stories) have induced a climate of terror? Stories have either been (a) about the government "you must be terrified because we're going to make a law to keep you safe", or (b) referring to Sept11th itself "post-9/11...". Neither of these refers to an actual event, they cause a climate of fear which would not otherwise exist, and arguably doesn't need to exist.
And what's happened since then? Routine arrests of troublemakers have been shown as "potential terrorist attacks", anything loosely related to terrorism has been reported at length, and of course, there's news of the two wars. And we don't confuse casualties in war with acts of terrorism. The most real fear we've seen was caused by one guy shooting people in washington, and nothing to do with 9/11. How come gun-owners aren't creating a "climate of fear"? Maybe because the television isn't telling the population to panic about that.
In the UK recently, a bag of flour was thrown at the prime minster at work. It was reported in the newspapers as a "bomb hoax that could have killed everyone in the building". With reporting like that, who needs terrorists?
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, it was also posted in the story about Intel's patent problems (here [slashdot.org]).
It's probably ripped off from somewhere else by someone looking to stir up trouble or artificially inflate their own ego by watching some post of theirs to slashdot get modded up. I'd suggest modding it down just for the fact that its most likely ripped off from somewhere and blanket posted wherever the AC thinks he can score up a few mod points. He just got lucky with this story, don't give him the satisfaction.
I CALL PLAGARISM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet: grew out of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency->ARPANET. The two most significant dates are 1969 when it was started and 1983 when the system was switched from NCP to TCP/IP. Other important work to our modern Internet was conducted by the NSF, NSFnet, based around connecting university campuses.
Computer: The computer is an evolved version of something which has existed for some time and is based on numerous contributions. Modern digital computing though can be said to be based on a handful of significant inventions and ideas. The most important of these ideas are von Neumann architecture, based on work done by John von Neumann a Hungarian-American who did the majority of his most important work at Princeton. The most important inventions where transistors (invented by Bell Labs in 1947), integrated circuits (conceived of by Britain's Geoffrey W.A. Dummer in 1952 but not successfully constructed until 1958 by Jack Kilby of TI and made into a useful device in 1962 by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor), and the microprocessor (first developed by Marcian Hoff while working at Intel).
Motor Cars: The US definitely doesn't deserve recognition for inventing much of the early technology used in cars, however Oldsmobile was the first factory to use modern assembly line techniques which were later greatly improved by Henry Ford. So while we didn't invent, we played a moderately important role...plus I don't know if I've ever met anyone who thought we DID invent the car. As an aside, most people I've known credit Mercedes-Benz for this invention, and even though that isn't quite correct it is a lot closer to the truth since Daimler and Benz separately (at first) played a huge role in the development of the modern gasoline internal combustion engine.
Modern light bulb: I'll give you this one. I believe that most American's credit Thomas Edison for this, but Heinrich Goebel or Joseph Swan (depending on what you define as the invention...) definitely deserve it. Edison actually did very little in this field, he invented a longer lasting filament but within a year or two Lewis Latimer improved significantly on Edison's filament.
telephone: Antonia Meucci is probably the father of this invention, although what we think of as a telephone should probably be credited to Philipp Reis since he was actually able to transmit voice instead of just "make or break" type signals. Again though, I think a lot of American's credit Alexander Graham Bell for this invention.
So in summary, American's basically invented the Internet, played a huge role in the evolution of the modern computer, and had smaller roles in the last three inventions. I'll agree that too many people credit this country with inventing these items, but to say that children are stupid for believing it when about half of it is CORRECT is a bit infantile. Actually you believe that the Internet and computers were invented somewhere else is just as faulty and you aren't a child.
Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) (Score:5, Insightful)
>The problem of Muslim extremists exists and needs to be dealt with, not encouraged by invading innocent countries and waging war on people
>who have done nothing to deserve it. I want my children to grow up in a world free from military
>oppression and I want a government that understands that the wars of the future are
>guerrilla ones which can never be won, even if they are waged for noble purposes (which theirs
>never are).
You just completely contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't want the threat, but you don't want to do anything about it, and you want your children to grow up in a militarized world, and you want your government to default to surrender because it can't allow itself to fight guerrilla tactics because somehow they are impossible to employ in the persuit of victory? After such blatant and simple to unravel contradiction, where you are speaking crosswise to yourself without pausing to take a breath, why should we listen to anything else you have to say?
I believe his logic can best be explained as:
a)"When you poked the wasp nest you got stung"
b)"Poking the bee nest just to get back at the wasps will only make things worse"
Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) (Score:5, Insightful)
Isreali Counter-terrorism strategy: If you get stung by a bee, give their nest a couple of hard whacks. This will teach them not to sting you.
American Strategy: If you get stung by a bee go give a wasp's nest a couple of hard whacks. This will demonstrate to the bees that you mean business and they will stop stinging you.
Re:Most sensible people would (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm..Al Qaeda probably was quite pleased with the invasion. They wanted to get rid of Saddam as badly as the US did. And lets not forget: the war has dramatically increased anti-American sentiments in Iraq and the rest of the world, boosting support for terrorist organisations like Al Queda. No doubt recruitment of these organisations will have gone up as a direct result of the war in Iraq.
And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
You have been playing to many computer games. Wars aren't necessarily won by the ones who score the highest body count.
Re:Most sensible people would (Score:5, Insightful)
So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?
Actually yes, that should have been a consideration. We should have looked at what we'd get out of it vs what the cost would be. In this case we got nothing out of it and we are paying billions each month for the privilege of occupying the place. And to top all that off we provided Al-Qaeda with the best damn recruitment photograph [smh.com.au] in history.
And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?
Do you have any evidence that he was still trying to create them? I'm sorry but we don't go to war on "We think he might be doing this". And quite frankly who the hell cares what Saddam may or may not have had? I'd have started worrying about it when he had delivery systems to actually get the damn things here. And don't come back at me and say "He was in bed with the terrorists" unless you are prepared to say exactly what terrorists he was "in bed" with (Al-Qaeda hated him) and what motivation he would have had to give them WMDs.
And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
I don't know that we're losing but we aren't winning now are we? If you think killing 20 of them for every one of our own is a victory then I suggest you check out the Korean War in your history book. 54,246 Americans died -- DoD estimates that we killed over 1,500,000 North Koreans/Chinese. That's one point five million. That's a ratio of slightly over 27 enemy KIA for each one of our own. And guess what? We didn't win the Korean War.
Furthermore the Korean war wasn't a guerilla war -- it was a conventional war. Every time we kill an Iraqi insurgent we piss off the local population and two or three more step forward to take his place. Does this sound like a winning formula to you? Are you prepared to kill every man of military age in Iraq so we can declare victory?
Re:It doesn't matter if you leave them alone. (Score:4, Interesting)
There have been many "terrorists" throughout the ages. These Islamic fundamentalists aren't the first ones. So are you saying that USA should just carry out imperialism and attempt to take over huge chunks of the world just because of this problem?
Re:You're simply wrong (CLEANED UP) (Score:5, Insightful)
True. Youthful exuberance in the parent poster. It's true you can't live in a safe world by capitulating to every terrorist organization, but at the same time, spending billions of dollars to invade countries that have zero involvement with terrorism is also a little quixotic. But also, just being the guy who swings the big bat around on a whim, even when directed at the right organizations, can often make you more of a target. It's far better to use diplomacy whenever possible. Bush doesn't believe in diplomacy, he always takes the low road and always creates more trouble than he settles.
America is not the biggest polluter, intentional or otherwise
Also true. We're SUPPOSED to be the "good guys" though. America, despite all the hatred you hear, is loved by the world and we're looked up to virtually everywhere. But it's like when you catch your father having sex with your sister. You still think he's a god deep down inside, but now you hate him and think he's off his fargin rocker and needs to be netted, tagged and neutered. You can't hate someone the way you hate someone that you love deeply who has betrayed you, disillusioned you and made you feel alone, without any real guidance for your future.
The threat is not dumb Americans you pompous arrogant condescending coward
We are, though. Not directly. The terrorists started us on this current steamroll of death and dismemberment, to be sure. But our reaction is acidic. We made things worse. There will always be terrorists, so we need to learn to react properly and engage them properly. 3000 dead from 9/11 is no reason to kill Iraqis. They had nothing to do with the attack. It's this fact, that we launch into countries who have nothing to do with anything, that makes the whole world see us as overbearing, sick and twisted. We are, too. We have no common sense about things anymore. We just do what we want and justify it as we go along. "It's for safety! It's for God! It's for the children!"
I see your opinion as the flip side of the opinion of the top poster. You both are hitting the mark, but you aren't dead-on and it's that wild swing left and right that is the real trouble these days. People need to realize there are no more good guys. There are only people doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and America is just as capable of doing the wrong thing as any terrorist is. Iraq is proof of that. Bush is proof that we are NOT blessed by God to be the world's leader for all that is good in the world. We are capable of evil, just like everyone else.
My point is, few people are absolutely correct these days about either side of the issue. We've done good, we've done bad. We're (the U.S.) not the world's knight in shining armor anymore.
Re:Fuck you America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dealing with Muslim extremists (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to end terrorism? Get the US to act like a normal country. Don't go running all over other countries as if they were second-class. Learn respect for other people. You don't win friends by beating them up.
It frustrates me so much when I hear people saying the terrorists want to "destroy america" because they "envy our freedoms" or "hate democracy". I mean come on - think about it for one second. Sheesh.
Muslim extremists just want to be normal muslims. Normal muslims just want to get on with their lives, like normal everyone-else-on-this-planet.
America has done more to cause terrorism than any other country has in recent years, possibly ever. You want to know who the bad guys are? They're on your team.
Pizza (Score:4, Funny)
In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
Officials in Washington DC revealed plans to start a brand-new 'Precrime' program to arrest perpetrators before they even commit a crime, using sophisticated 'Comatose Psychic' technology.
Said one official: 'Yeah, we reckon this will beat everything we've seen so far. I mean, why profile people when you can have 'em psychics see the stuff happening, right? Much more reliable all in all.'
More details here [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory quote (Score:5, Funny)
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and you cut off it's head and there's a fully functional biological cranium, maybe it's not a clockwork toy resembling a duck and is in fact a duck.
Preference (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer false negatives (spam messages that end up in my inbox) over false positives (real mail that end up in the bin) from my spam filter, but when you're dealing with humans it's a lot more serious.
Re:Preference (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I would lean toward having false positives. You can always run the results against other databases and find better/best matches. With some additional fact-checking implementation, I think they could rule out some false positives. It may be horribly inconvenient to be hassled with an investigation, but if people do their jobs (with gov't folks, sometimes that's all you can hope for!) then clearing your name shouldn't be too bad.
My biggest concern with this is that a false positive might be turned into a true positive if they consider certain things to be "terrorist activities" - like innocently providing information to someone who turns out to be a terrorist.
Re:Preference (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Preference (Score:3, Interesting)
You may be interested in this book [uvm.edu]. Not everything your textbooks say can be trusted, especially if those textbooks are meant for or approved by government schools ("public education" is the politically-correct term).
Re:Preference (Score:4, Insightful)
This will probably be modded -1 Troll but at the risk of offending the USian mods, and as a Brit, I'd be interested in seeing some kind of checklist or score so that I can easily work out just how less free I am as a citizen of the UK compared to a citizen of the US.
Why isn't it good enough to know you live in a free society? Why do we always hear how the US is "the most free". It's not a competition. ;)
Regardless.. mods do your worst
Re:Preference (Score:4, Funny)
You sir, are correct. We Americans are prepared to pay a higher price for freedom than we are for Canandians. They smell like bacon.
Re:Preference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Preference (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I would lean toward having false positives. You can always run the results against other databases and find better/best matches. With some additional fact-checking implementation, I think they could rule out some false positives. It may be horribly inconvenient to be hassled with an investigation, but if people do their jobs (with gov't folks, sometimes that's all you can hope for!) then clearing your name shouldn't be too bad.
So much for Innocent until Proven Guilty.
You're making a huge assumption about "people doing their jobs". Just plain laziness, quotas, as well as simply trying to ruin someone for political reasons will all enter into this.
Re:Preference (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not running out and arresting these people for showing up in the database, just potentially investigating them. While I agree with the privacy goal, it would be logically impossible to investigate only people that were proven guilty. You're simply gonna hafta investigate some false leads before you can press charges against someone (and then, the evidence against that person will become public).
Re:Preference (Score:3, Insightful)
The gp was talking about false positives leading to investigations, not false positives leading to arrest and conviction. The former happens all the time, everytime someone is cleared of wrongdoing before the case gets to trial it's because, originally, there was a false positive pointing them out as the culprit to a crime.
Though I do agree with you about the danger of politicizing investigations. Just look at Richard Jewel for an excellent example. The poor guy w
Re:Preference (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, they will only stick a few flouresent light tubes up your ass, make get naked in a pyramid, masturbate in front of people, attack you with dogs, put a sack over your head and threaten to electrocute you. Yep, clearing your name shouldn't be too bad./P
hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Relevant quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone care to guess one of the main sources of terrorist income?
Re:Relevant quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Relevant quote (Score:5, Informative)
if you buy gasoline, it may come from YOU
Re:Relevant quote (Score:4, Insightful)
If he used to be a drug smuggler, then perhaps he has some sort of inside knowledge, much the same way that law enforcement hires ex-criminals like Kevin Mitnick to catch others.
Re:Relevant quote (Score:5, Funny)
Donations from sympathetic Americans who think they're Irish?
End prohibition == no profits to bad people (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the terrorists. In the middle east it's oil, diamonds and some heroin. In South America for at least the FARC it's the greatly over inflated value of drugs caused by prohibition.
If we end the WoD (war on drugs) by legalizing marijuana and making all other drugs available for prescription for maintance (with the execption of antibiotics) the price of drugs would bottom out. Heroin could be purchased from CVS for $5.00 a dose instead $100 off the street. Lower prices means the end of drugs partly funding bad things. The bonus would be a dramatic drop in property crimes. A few years ago in Bern, Switzerland they tried selling heroin directly to addicts for ~$4.50 per dose. Property crimes dropped by 60%.
Without prohibition illegal drugs would cost 100th of their current price and would save the US over 15 billion dollars every year in law enforcement and prison costs. At least an extra 1 billion dollars a year would be made from the taxation of marijuana. BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply.
The economic forces of prohibition fund a lot of bad things including terrorism.
Would be interesting to find out (Score:5, Funny)
"There is a 20% likelyhood of you blowing up a building this year. Have a nice day."
Re:Would be interesting to find out (Score:5, Funny)
Which dice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would be interesting to find out (Score:4, Funny)
Monday afternoon: Hey, a Am-I-a-terrorist-or-not-quiz!
Monday afternoon + 5 minutes: Ah, appearently I'm not a terrorist at all.
Monday Evening: Hey, the neighbours across the street bought a new black van!
Monday Night: Excuse me mister Totaly-dressed-in-black-carrying-a-big-gun-and-po
Tuesday morning: Damn hot here in Guatumala Bay.
120,000 out of how many? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:120,000 out of how many? (Score:4, Informative)
" He said Matrix, which has 4 billion records, merely speeds access to material that police have always been able to get from disparate sources, and does not automatically or proactively finger suspects."
Re:120,000 out of how many? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I know they were working on this system befor 9/11 but I've got to wonder if they didn't do a little marketbenching and alter it so the names of the terrorists would end up on the list so they could goto the government and say "See, see, the system works!"
Is there anyone left... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there anyone left... (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic goes something like this: "Of course the USA is still the most free country in the world! Look at China and Syria!"
Re:Is there anyone left... (Score:5, Interesting)
It gets worse. Apparently America's claim to the moral high ground in Iraq is now 'Yes, but Saddam did even worse things in that prison!'
I'm just hearing Squealer say 'Surely you do not want Jones to come back?'
Re:Is there anyone left... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I don't so much mind the cameras per se. What pisses me off no end is what the police do with the film.
No, it's not Big Brother. Or rather, it is - not in the Orwell sense, but the fucking Channel 4 sense. The police sell the film to TV companies to put together trash TV about drunks making fools of themselves.
If I come out of a pub pissed and throw up into the gutter, I don't mind some copper watching on the security camera. He's a copper - he sees loads of people throw up in gutters. But if the cops decide to sell the footage of me throwing up into a gutter, and it gets on TV, and people who know me, for instance maybe my boss or my dear old grandmother...
Embarrassing at the very least. The fuck are they playing at, selling the footage for entertainment?
Re:Is there anyone left... (Score:4, Insightful)
Government can be controlled. In one manner or another.
But the "free market" doesn't hold itself to any limits. I am far more afraid of a production company (or even a pseudo-religious cult) having access to what used to be our private lives. There are untold numbers of ways that they can bully us, and there is really nothing that can stop them, especially pro-free market goverments.
For instance, it became widely known yesterday that the cell phone companies are putting together a national phone book of all customers. That may sound innocuous to some, but guess what: if you, Mr. Customer, want to exempt yourself from the Book, you're going to have to ante up some cash on a regular basis to bribe them into NOT letting your number out to other businesses.
IF we had some decent laws protecting our privacy as a default, this would never even have been a business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if someday you in the UK have to pay a monthly fee to keep your image off of the TV!
Government/business partnerships are the ultimate in tyranny.
Re:Is there anyone left... (Score:5, Insightful)
The amusing thing is that Americans are seeing their freedom rapidly destroyed yet still believe they're free because they can vote for one of two almost identical candidates. If only the USSR had offered people two voting choices rather than one, they'd still be around today.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
save me jeebus.
Re:hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
(and: but i don't even believe in jeebus)
Re:hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, a large majority of people are either that dense or simply don't care.
Re:hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that people don't care as much as the media doesn't do it's job properly.
=Smidge=
Re:hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
First - disregard the picture. It's an archival picture which has nothing to do with the 'find'.
Second - the bomb was rigged up make-shift to be a bomb, rather than the original artillery shell.
Third - even the B.G. interviewed stressed that whoever put it there most likely didn't even know it had sarin.
Fourth - they state it was likely looted from arsenals. though they claim this is post-regime, it could've been during it as well. Under the assumption that it was post-reg
Re:hilarious (Score:4, Interesting)
Please explain to me how the handful of rusty or unlabelled shells (many of which had leaked their contents 10+ years earlier) we've found in Iraq represents the "Vast stockpile" of banned weapons we were led to believe existed in Iraq? A stockpile, we were told, that was so vast as to allow field commanders to deploy them on "40-minutes notice." If this was true, please explain why none of the ammo caches and dumps we found during the war contained any WMD?
Please also explain to me how the handful of rusty and/or unlabelled (mostly useless) shells we've found represents an immediate threat to the security of the United States?
Please also explain how before the war, Bushie was warning us about nuclear armageddon caused by Saddam Hussein, yet we've found no evidence of an advanced nuclear weapons program. They did possess a stolen, 50-year old Chinese design for a bomb, but they weren't anywhere near the point of being able to fabricate a weapon.
Also, our (just as oppressive) ally Pervez Musharraf actually has several nuclear devices at his disposal. When will we be invading Pakistan? Or is continuity no longer part of the "Bush plan"?
Might as well seed the system a bit..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might as well seed the system a bit..... (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's tin-foil hat time again!! (Score:5, Funny)
"I hope you realise that being seen wearing a tin-foil hat will immediately add 15,000,000,000 points to your Terrorist Quotient"
Well sure, if you don't wear the INVISIBLE tinfoil hat. Mine's been working great for years now. Just watch out for cosmic dust, it dampens the field.
Think about it (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone bitches and moans about systems like this that can prevent terrorist attacks, but then they make a huge stink about some memo from Richard Clarke that had next to nothing useful in it. Go figure.
Re:Think about it (Score:5, Insightful)
How is picking 120,000 people as potential terrorists based on some arbitrary algorithm "doing its job well"? Do you really think there are 120,000 terrorists in America? Do you really think that the government will do better to harass 120,000 people, most of whom are not terrorists, than to, say, infiltrate terrorist groups and find out who really, actually, is a terrorist?
"If this could have stopped those planes from killing thousands of civilians, people would be screaming in outrage about how we didn't use it when we should have"
Once the terrorists know how the system works they can easily avoid being spotted: and the government will be too busy chasing those 120,000 non-terrorists to do anything about the real ones. This is the most basic and obvious flaw of any such arbitrary flagging scheme... anyone who knows the algorithm knows how _not_ to get flagged.
Dodgy surnames (Score:3)
She would get all these weird Middle-Eastern newsletters spammed to her work account. I bet she's probably made to the dodgy persons list.
What's Your Terrorism Quotient? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrat : +
Male : ++
Moderate : -------
Young : ++
Yuppie : ---------
White : --------------------
<i>I'll</i> be fine, but thanks for asking.
This company is EVIL (Score:5, Interesting)
1) This company was started by a drug running felon with ties to the Bush's
2) Read the Contract between Seisint and the Florida Goverment with the MATRIX
3) This company is very, very late with their software project - using terrorism as means to drag it out.
4) 120,000 terrorists in the US? C'mon! Has ANYONE on
5) 3.2 billion dollars a year goes toward "cyber security".
After reading all this, I get soooo disgusted.. I mean, this is SICK!!! How much money is wasted? How the hell do I get a piece of terrorist pie?! Millions of dollars have been lost and never gone to me.
How can the open source community get some of this cash cow? How about a sourceforge project Ivory Tower (the irony of the name would be great)?
-Foo
Had to be said (Score:5, Funny)
Really, can these guys pick a name with worse symbolism? Skynet, maybe?
Re:Had to be said (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they choose these names deliberately.
Time to get out of here (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, that makes me sad. I'm American, I was born here, so were my parents. My father's been in trouble with the law, long ago, and happens to have the #1 most common Muslim name. Regardless, he, like me, loves this country.
I'm no longer practicing ( read: vehement Atheist ) but if all it takes is having a troublesome name, well, it seems then the tide has finally turned. Perhaps this will be America's crystal night?
I'm at a loss for words.
Re:Time to get out of here (Score:5, Insightful)
I made the move a little over two years ago, Now I'd be hard pressed to go back.
Likely to commit an act of terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of what the government has done in the spirit of 'fighting terrorism.' Terror is the least of my worries. Ya, 9/11 was horrible.. but it isn't worth giving up our way of life to prevent. I'm more likely to be struck by lighting while being bitten by a shark than to die from an act of terror.
These 'preventative' databases are stupid. American Citizens should not be subject to a 'likely to commit terror' database without ever having done something wrong. Some of the most patriotic people are also the most criticizing of the US.. Should they be on the database?
If there are 120,000 people on the list, shouldn't there have been more acts of terrorism in the US?
IMO, there's bigger problems on which to focus. Why fix the windshield wipers when the brakes aren't working?
Re:Likely to commit an act of terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
You don't get it. The fact the there are not "more acts of terrorism in the US" is *PROOF* that things like this database, the PATRIOT act etc... are working.
If you don't believe this, we will be happy to put you name on this list we have here...
Hooptie
My TQ? I'm not cleared to know that! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, I'm not cleared to know that. If I could tell you, I'd have to kill me.
Ben Franklin knew (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, what counts as... (Score:4, Interesting)
Come again? How does one define an activity that makes you statistically a terrorist?
Is it by the car they drive?
Is it by the job they have?
Is it by their nationality?
Is it by their age?
Is it by their house?
Is it by anything bar the obvious ones, such as actively supporting terrorist activities?
Probably not. They probably picked at almost random 120,000 people and defined them as a 'likelihood of being terrorists'.
The question is who gets to make that choice? To me, it seems that the person(s) who make the choice could be as much of a terrorist as your average next door Jones, yet because they make the choices, they call the shots; they will never be featured in that list.
I would love to know how many of the 120,000 people were -NOT- charged with terrorist activities; i doubt that even 1% of them were arrested with enough evidence to prove it. However, given the current state of the laws, that doesn't matter now, does it?
Why seed the data? Why not let the information be collected the way it's intended, and then compile a list from it? Ok, this system might be rather like the 'big brother' we are all fearing, but currently, most major supermarkets track what you buy almost without you noticing, so its not like this information will be collected obtrusively.
Maybe its time someone out there took a step back and looked at the system they have just partaken in creating, and they just might, possibly, see it as something that shouldn't be.
Someone needs to look at this before the next 'red-ball' has your name on it, because by then, it's too late.
NeoThermic
P.S, is it me, or have they forgotten how to make an acronym? How does one get from Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange to Matrix? To me that makes 'MATIE'...
Re:Sorry, what counts as... (Score:3, Funny)
Seisint's Questionnaire (Score:3, Insightful)
Seisint's Proposed Questionnaire for next stage of study:
Are you or have you ever been a member of any of the following
(check all that apply):
- Amnesty International
- ACLU
- Nature Conservancy
- National Academy of Sciences
- Any non-GOP political party
- Any GOP group that has ever disagreed with the White House
- Any non-Christian religion
- Any Christian sect that fails to see that creating all-out war in
the Middle East that melts down Jerusalem will invoke the
Second Coming.
Do you associate with anyone to whom the above may apply? (Yes/No)
Do you get your news from any media sources other than the White
House Press Office, Fox News, or conservative talk radio? (Yes/No)
Do you associate with anyone to whom the above may apply? (Yes/No)
Matrix configuration file leaked (Score:3, Funny)
Arrest via rating? (Score:3, Interesting)
JUST because of some abstract number in a database?.. NOT because you actually have done something..
So this 'suspicion rating' = probable cause?
I would think the ACLU would be all over this..
120,000 what good is that anyways? (Score:4, Insightful)
Terror Databases and my Master's (Score:5, Informative)
120,000 (Score:5, Interesting)
I would fucking hate to be on that list. These are going to be the people that can't fly because they're blacklisted, that can't get government jobs because they're blacklisted, or who knows, can't take out a mortgage because they're blacklisted. Even though the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor that they aren't a terrorist.
And what exactly do you have to do to get on this list? I mean you could say that Mr. McVeagh (sp?), the only American out of the aforementioned 19 terrorists, was an extremist libertarian...Do we suspect all of the libertarians? Its a sad time for a once free country when you seriosly have to consider what you register [to vote] as because you might end up on some list because even if you're peaceful they're not going to know that.
--HC
False positives and security, real loss of rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should any regular individual be worried about these systems? From the best essay on privacy and 9/11 laws I've seen [privcom.gc.ca] (from the former privacy czar of Canada- warning Canadians not to lose rights Americans have already lost):
"...But there also will be tangible, specific harm. The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life.
"But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences.
"If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm...
"Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight...
"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada...
" Compiling dossiers on the private activities of all law-abiding citizens is the sort of thing the Stasi secret police used to do in the former East Germany. It has no place in a free and democratic society."
"...When people are worried about their safety, when we have seen the horrors of which today's breed of terrorists are capable - and there may be more - it's easy to lose perspective. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that security is all that matters and that human rights such as privacy are a luxury. But such extremes can only reward and encourage terrorism, not diminish it. They can only devastate our lives, without commensurately safeguarding them. Of course we all want to be safe. But we could be safer from terrorism - perhaps - if we permanently evacuated all the high-rise office towers, if we closed down the subways, if we forever grounded all airplanes. Yet no reasonable person would be likely to argue for adopting such measures. We'd say, "We want to be safe, yes - but not at the price of sacrificing our whole way of life." The same reasoning should apply, in my view, to arguments that privacy should indiscriminately be sacrificed on the altar of enhanced security..."
One specific example: the David Nelsons (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens to you if someone else has a similar name? From this article on the ACLU's No Fly List lawsuit [cnn.com]:
Or from this article from 2003 [interesting-people.org]:"This week 18 men named David Nelson, all residents of Oregon, confirmed they have been repeatedly delayed at airport counters and security checkpoints in the last year or so."
"Remember Ozzie and Harriet's son, David Nelson? "I got stopped at the John Wayne Airport" in Orange County, Calif., he said by phone from Los Angeles this week. "Two police officers knew who I was and tried to explain to the guy behind the security desk. It didn't faze him at all." Even as another officer was saying he had once met David's mother, Harriet, David was being instructed to remove his shoes, he says. "I asked, 'Does the guy on the list have a middle name of Ozzie?' He said, 'It just says David Nelson.' "
Re:I know what mine is... (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot the air guitar.
Re:Gotta love the ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the ACLU is not worried about arresting terrorists... i think that they're generally for it. I think they're more worried about the ratio of actual terrorists to non-terrorists in our investigations being way, way, way to low.
Re:Gotta love the ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU is the only organization that ever has the balls to look at what the Federal Government is doing and make a stand against the overarching, draconian measures that many government officials would *love* to see happen. Guess what? The Federal Government wants to control your actions as much as possible, not only so that you are not a threat against Americans, but more so that you are not a threat against them.
Protecting us from random acts of terror is about as possible as landing a 747 on the Brooklyn Bridge. We're too open, too easy, too soft. Guess what? I LIKE IT THAT WAY.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".
Did you see the latest FBI Suidice Bomber Warnings sent out today? Here's a pointer from the alert: Be on the lookout for people with clenched fists!! [cnn.com]
Living in the United States used to be about living out a free existence with minimal government intervention. In the last few years we have become an Orwellian society where you are stamped with a number and contstantly tracked by the government for 'threat status'. Your primary purpose is to receive advertising, consume products, and pay the government a share of it all.
I have bad news for some: the War on Terror is not a war anyone could win, and even fighting it for a thousand years would not end the cycle of violence that perpetuates it. I wonder how many young Iraqi children are thinking about their bombed out homes and dead parents and swearing vengeance on the United States someday. Those will be the next generation of people who fly planes into our skyscrapers.
Hypocritical griping? Physician, heal thyself (Score:5, Insightful)
They understand that they're going to sometimes be defending unpopular positions and people. They defend the rights of white supremacists to march in public, for example. They've also defended Rush Limbaugh against what they view as intrusive attempts by the police to get at his medical records and show that he was "doctor shopping" to feed his addiction. They're making those choices consciously, according to principles which they state conspicuously.
You, meanwhile, don't seem to be doing anything more than bitch for reasons you haven't thought through.
First off: when, exactly, has the ACLU complained that not enough is being done to fight terrorism? Hello? Anyone home? Or were you just confusing "liberals" or "Democrats" with the ACLU?
And more to the point: "Potential terrorists"? When you start using a term like that, perhaps you'd like to devote some thought to it. Because the FBI has, in the past, regarded people like Martin Luther King, Jr. [paperlessarchives.com] as a "potential terrorist." Because, you know, that let them bug his hotel rooms and accumulate evidence that he wasn't faithful to his wife, which put some nice blackmail material in the hands of J. Edgar Hoover.
The ACLU tries to protect American citizens from the abusive use of power. You, meanwhile, resent them for 'getting in the way.' What does that say about you, exactly? Maybe you want to think that through rather than sleepwalking through your life vaguely angry at those pesky liberals.
Re:What if it is accurate? (Score:3, Insightful)
"What if 120,000 Americans are latent (or blatent) terrorists? What then?"
Then we'd have been seriously screwed LONG ago.
Re:What if it is accurate? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if that's not the point? What then?
First of all, if there are 120,000 people in this country that are really terrorists that are that easy to spot, we're already up shit creek and the paddle's still back on the shore. Second, I don't know about you, but when people start getting scored on their "terrorism quotient", I get a little scared about what my tax dollars are paying to do to me. I'm all for identifying REAL terrorists and going out and getting them, but I'd sure like to know that they aren't
Re:I for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ministry of Public Safety and Happyness.