US Shuts Down Controversial Anti-Terror Database 238
coondoggie writes "The massive anti-terror database established by the US government has been criticized for keeping track of regular everyday citizens. Computerworld reports that as of September 17th, the database will be shut down. 'The Threat and Local Observation Notices or TALON, was established in 2002 by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz as a way to collect and evaluate information about possible threats to U.S. service members and defense civilians all over the world.
Congress and others protested its apparent use as an unauthorized citizen tracking database. The TALON system came under fire in 2005 for improperly storing information about some civilian individuals and non-government-affiliated groups on its database. The Air Force developed TALON... in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a way to gather data on possible terrorist threats. Anti-war groups and other organizations, protested after it was revealed last year that the military had monitored anti-war activities, organizations and individuals who attended peace rallies.'"
And they are waiting for another month because??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wink Wink Nod Nod... (Score:5, Interesting)
I could swear this program has been "killed" twice, and by "killed" i mean the government's definition: proclaiming a project discontinued while continuing it under a new name. (note: definition also adopted by microsoft regarding the trusted computing project)
Shut down (Score:5, Interesting)
The data will be archived, then a year or two down the road will resurface as some new system. Now that they've collected all this data, don't think for a second they will let it go quietly into the night.
slashdotliberalwhining? (Score:3, Interesting)
The cognitive dissonance here is just staggering.
Plain old Dishonest. New Laws Needed. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with these closed systems, any closed system really, is the inability to find and locate not only the errors, but the correct data either.
The real problem is that people are collecting the data in the first place. People have no idea how much information is being stored about them by companies like ChoicePoint and how that data is just a request away from anyone. This is collected without their knowledge, permission or benefit. It is always used against them. At the very least, vendors and service providers should have to disclose what they are collecting and who they sell it to. At the best, most of it would be against the law to collect. Technology has created new threats and new laws need to be made to counter these threats that economic advantage alone won't eliminate.
Re:I bet they save the backups (Score:4, Interesting)
And they report data stolen or lost in 3 - 2 - 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And TALON will be replaced by? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing up their sleeves... (Score:5, Interesting)
"We're "shutting down" the database (fingers crossed behind our backs) but that doesn't mean we're going to delete all that data. See, we're just turning off the Microsoft Access front end that the administrative assistant in D-ring made back in June. We don't have anybody available who can actually "delete" any data, so we'll just leave it alone, but we promise (both hands behind their backs now) that we won't really use it."
I'm really pretty shocked that with all that's gone on, that no media outlet has reported on the fact that the latest wire-tapping law that was passed the last day before congress went on vacation was signed by Bush, but...he actually added a signing statement that says, uh, he really doesn't have to follow the law because hey, he's the president and terrorists are trying to kill us after all..
So, even though the law that was passed was EXACTLY the law the President wanted, because it was actually written by Al Gonzales and his assistants, he STILL doesn't have to obey it because... HEY LOOK OVER THERE! A TERRORIST!! BEHIND THAT TREE!1!!
The most disturbing part of this whole mess is that the media, the Democrats, nobody will say shit about this unprecedented power grab because at heart they are all authoritarians who want to forget all about this "Constitution" nonsense so MONEY CAN BE MADE.
People can say that this is nothing new, that when the Civil War was on Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and Roosevelt limited rights during WWII, but that's just a crock. In both those cases, Lincoln included, the presidents went to congress and got their permission to limit freedoms and for a limited amount of time. Bush is going solo on this one and since the Global War on Islamonaziliberalism is The Forever War, we'll never again have to bother with civil liberties, rights or privacy. Freedom has become obsolete in just the term of one president.
Amazing.
Fortunately, I've got faith in the belief in liberty held by many of the bright folks here at Slashdot, and I'm expecting a civil uprising against the surveillance culture to come in the form of hackers and other whitehat miscreants who will fight to put fat monkey wrenches into the efforts of the guys over at NSA. Hell, I'm not surprised if there are still a few patriots over in the NSA who might be building some backdoors into this machinery. Well, one can hope.
The fight isn't over, but it's important for us to start recognizing the enemy. And guess what: he's not wearing a towel on his head.
Re:You Mean An Activist Like This One? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you are assuming that there is an "enemy". Just because Bush & Co. say we are at war and deploy our armies does not really mean we are. We are not being attacked (or at least I'm sure not) and all I see happening over there is people defending their country against foreign invaders much like white blood cells vs. a virus. You seem to be buying into the whole "war for war's sake" argument that they want you to.
Next, you are assuming that Al Qaida is a big ol' enemy like Germany was in WWII when in fact it's a close equivalent to the KKK--a small ragtag association of uber-radicals who vastly overachieved on 9/11. Going to "war" with such a group is the epitome of going after a gnat with a sledgehammer--you are giving them too much credit and are very unlikely to hit them 'cos you are using far too large a tool. The U.S. military is simply not designed to fight a guerilla war just as the Redcoats were not trained to fight George Washington's guerillas. As such, the outcome of the conflict was determined long ago; the current George is simply unwilling to admit it just as George III was at first.
Back to your "communicating with the enemy" claim. Just how many Americans do you think are really Al Qaida sympathizers? My best estimate would be under 100. You want our huge, bloated, red tape-ensconsed government to perform all this tracking to try (in vain) to come up with 100 numbnuts who barely have the $$ to pay their rent let alone do damage to anything? Again with the sledgehammer.
All of the above aside, what if I'm *not* communicating with the enemy? The Feds still have my information, who I associate with, where I've been, etc. Treating the innocent as if they were guilty is absolutely NOT how this country was designed to work. If it's how you want it to work, I suggest you go to China or some other totalitarian society and live there.
Re:Plain old Dishonest. New Laws Needed. (Score:5, Interesting)
The US had laws about spying on its own citizens. How well did that turn out?
The US made promises that the SSN would ONLY be used in relation to Social Security matters, that it wouldn't be used as a universal "ID" tag. How well did that turn out?
You _are_ trying to put the genie back in the bottle when you attempt to paint 'passing another law' as the solution.
What used to be publicly available but extremely tedious to collect has become child's play to obtain. People slept too long under the impression that "security through obscurity" was a horrible way to lock down a computer system but perfectly ok to use to lock down their private life. It's too late to complain about it being out there. Maybe there should have been stronger safeguards. Maybe it shouldn't have been public. It DOES NOT MATTER, it's already out there.
The information brokers today are people who operate above the board, but do you honestly think that if you made their business illegal there wouldn't be groups out there ready to play the part of the Mob in our little play of modern Prohibition? People are already out there selling pre-made kits for identity theft, CC#s, and other such black market 'information.
What sort of fun could be had if we all just pretended the information wasn't out there and we were 'safe' to continue to use the old methods of doing things because it was 'illegal' to use the information that way.
No, you won't have to worry about your supermarket knowing what you buy and sending you coupons. No, you won't have to worry about web sites saying "Looking for pills? Try BRANDX!" Instead you'll be wondering why your credit rating is in the shitter and find out that it's because you've been the target of 10 different identity theft scams. You'll find out that your credit card has been canceled because the bank has had enough of dealing with fradulent charges and simply cuts you off the first time you report one. Instead you'll come home to badly worded email threating to forward your boss every posting you've ever made online unless you start paying a 'fee' every month to keep the info buried. Or come home to a squad of SWAT police ready to knock down your door because someone put their face on an ID with your information on it before strolling into a bank and shooting up the place.
What should be done is to minimize the amount of damage that can be done with that information. You aren't going to stem the flow, so stop trying to put up dams and instead work on routing the water around the places you care about. Start teaching people how to keep their public life and their private life seperate. Start teaching banks that no, it's not ok to just accept every CC application you receive and dump the costs of fraud on the consumer and the merchant. Start teaching companies, that they shouldn't be using SSN as a replacement employee identification.
You aren't going to remove the ability to get this information, I'm sorry. Canada and the UK had a far easier time of it because they aren't the size of the US. What flies there doesn't always fly here, and it's not always about lobbies or will.
Re:And they are waiting for another month because? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slamming down the wrong door (Score:3, Interesting)
They were using — for their own purposes. If you audit a government agency — any government agency — you'll find countless databases and spreadsheets. All used for something. This list may have been discontinued, but countless others remain, and there is nothing automatically wrong about it.
As long as it is not a law, that being on a list automatically means something non-trivial, the protesting is of little sense.
A much scarier example is (or, rather, should be) the "security clearance" — it can be revoked by the government without much recourse, depriving someone of the livelyhood and ruining a career... It is just that people , who are (potentially) affected by that, are reasonable and decent, and don't generate the inflammatory headlines, so this and other real outrages are continuously drowned out by the non-issues like the list in subject.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
What you describe is a civilian issue (yes, politicians are civilians, and the military is run by a civilian, in the US at least), and civilian authorities (state and local police) are responsible for what happens at, say, the UN building. That said, the right to free speech and freedom of assembly, in my opinion, does not equate to the right to physically interfere in the affairs of others. What's the difference between blocking access to the UN building and blocking access to an abortion clinic, except that you may happen to agree with one and disagree with the other? I vehemently disagree with "free speech" zones, but I'm also against blocking access to a facility, if for no other reason than safety -- if someone needed to leave in a hurry because of fire, or a medical emergency, or whatever, they'd be screwed. We could argue morality all day, but the legal and public safety issues are clear: blocking access is unacceptable. Again, the right to free speech is the right to say what you want, not the right to do what you want, or to force people to listen to you.
All of that said, I'm also against superfluous and/or potentially abusive Federal programs, and I won't lose any sleep over the shutdown of this database. Almost every jurisdiction requires a group to file permits in advance of a large protest or gathering, and most events (G8 summit) are guaranteed to attract protesters. It's not like anybody's caught off guard by these things.